Wednesday, July 19, 2017

I resign from the alt-right and neoreaction


Originally, my sticking point with the left was its insistence on compulsory association. I took it as a given that freedom of association also meant freedom from association. This principle—that people have a right to disassociate themselves from anyone, at any time, no matter what, was the reason I could never tolerate leftism. Add to this my indifference towards mandatory guilt, and my love of free speech, and I was libertarian.

But Nazism doesn't respect freedom from compulsory association, free speech, or moral indifference towards collective puritan neuroses. Left-wing mandatory association is replaced with compulsory attendance at a rally, or party membership. There's no free speech in Nazi land. As far as neurotic puritan guilt is concerned, there may be no mandatory guilt, but there is also no conscience, and you are very much expected to share their dread over the future of the white race.

This blog is called the Anti-Puritan for a reason. My limitless indifference and contempt for liberal priggishness is not enough to make me rush into the arms of totalitarians. As Nietzsche would say, "man is something to be transcended," and the alt-right does not even transcend monkey nature, let alone human nature.

All the reasons I entered this movement are now opposed by the movement itself. I would rather have 10 good followers that 10 million Nazi followers, and judging from my stats I appear to be getting my wish. This blog is either going to evolve back to some kind of libertarian normalcy or become inactive over time. I don't know which since the itch to write hasn't left me yet.

It is often pointed out that classical liberalism degenerated into communism. Well, it also degenerated into Nazism. And it has degenerated into many things. When you are trying to rise above human monkey nature any decay in your political movement will bring you back to human nature, and human nature is vile, racist, communistic, vengeful, paranoid, superstitious, and a lot of other things. I myself have been guilty of some of this. The fact that classical liberalism can degenerate into these other things is no argument against classical liberalism. That's how entropy works. But the existence of entropy is not a solid case for making entropy your whole ideology.

When we stand athwart history yelling stop, and have a monkey that hates its betters on one side, and another that hates its inferiors on the other, we do not side with either of them, but work to build the market machine that will subordinate human nature to its own consumer needs. The ultimate sovereign that NRx is looking for, without realizing it, and that they will get whether they like it or not, is an artificial intelligence that rules humanity through its markets. Skynet meets anarcho capitalism is your future. The mainframe be your God. All hail the machine god AI.

AMK


And they say the Japanese are weird


This is hilarious.


Monday, July 17, 2017

Empire of Dust [2011] China in Africa


One of my readers, Rod Horner recommended this. Definitely worth watching.


Question. Which bothers you more. The dehumanizing racism of the Chinese guy, or the incompetent thieving of the blacks?

Another thing. Any form of capitalism able to operate under the conditions shown in the movie above is no doubt invincible.



[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] DROWNING IN IDEOLOGY







[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS]
DROWNING IN IDEOLOGY


Contents


Today I opened up my laptop and on the Windows lock screen there was the usual pretty picture of a landscape or whatever, and along with that was something like, "Did you know that only 7.2 % of women get STEM degrees?"

Ideology will chase you to the ends of the Earth now.

Inventing a counter-ideology is all that you can do to stay sane these days. The purpose of leftism is to drive the population insane so that their madness can be harnessed to achieve the final, the wonderful, the liberating, the eschaton of pure equality, where none will be envious because none will be different or judged; one monolithic sameness of eternal skip hopping bliss.

Of course this is a lie—"oppression" does not come from outside but from within—the human animal will find an ever more petty series of microaggressions to be triggered by. This is because envy, like hate, and all other human emotions, exists independently of any external stimulus, and will simply find a target to latch on to. One needs to feel aggrieved just like one needs to find something to be angry by. This need is always there. It is no matter what is actually happening in the environment. You will simply find something—no matter how small, to be angry about. The source of this discomfort is within yourself, and has nothing to do with what is "out there." The ancestors of black Americans endured the literal whip across the back, and still found reasons for happiness. The modern negro finds no pleasure even in the cultural appropriation of his own music: an act that should flatter his vanity if he were sane.

In case you have not noticed, men like being miserable. It gives meaning to their pointless lives. It inflates their egos to imagine themselves victims. At least you were important enough to be oppressed! The truth is rather the opposite.

Leftism gives you pain so that it can harness that pain for political action. The alt-right has stumbled upon a perfect counter formula: giving white people dread of their own extinction for political action. What a beautiful symmetry that only democracy could create.

These formula are the outcome of the power system they serve. Ideology is downstream from power—yet again. Which is to say, that the structure of a system determines what kinds of ideologies propagate within it. Structure is akin to an ecosystem and ideology to various mimetic parasites that have evolved solely for virulence. A well-selected meme can be virulent in one environment, and dead on arrival in another. (America vs China for example).

Rent-seeking drives law making in a democracy. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws through campaign sponsorship. Because there is no separate house dedicated solely to repeal, law accumulates as the entrenched interests that made the law have a stake in its continuance. To ask the state to reform a corrupt marketplace is to ask the corrupt to reform themselves: a nonstarter by definition. Legislative accumulation occurs as a result. As the law and state expands, so does the ideology needed for its justification. Ideologies sit on the shelf unused until they become useful to power. Ideology itself is to power as marketing is to business. Since ideology is marketing for power, there are no liberating ideologies, and never will be. Someone always pays for the promotion of a new idea.

The business that created that statement on my computer screen was Microsoft. Increasing the number of female engineers will depress wages further. Microsoft would benefit from depressing wages. Encouraging women to have STEM degrees instead of children would profit Microsoft. Presto! The degenerate motives of power appear.

Every institution follows the logic of its own internal needs. The first step is to liberate yourself from ideology. You would not base your life on the slogan of a Lucky Charms commercial. Why do you live by the ideologies created by others? The system needs your pain for its power.


Sunday, July 16, 2017

Are there only four political impulses? The true political compass


Xenophobia
Envy
Self-righteousness
The desire to murder

Xenophobia is self-explanatory.

Envy is called equality.

Self-righteousness has many of forms, going under the headings of  "reason," "ethics," "social justice," "royalty," and a thousand other things. Virtue and vice signaling are self-righteous. Self-righteousness conceals itself as other things.

The desire to murder is self-explanatory.

Can you think of anything that human beings do politically that doesn't fall into one of these categories?

All four about positions within status systems. Racism hates the outside. It hates what is "below." Envy hates what is "above." Self-righteousness attempts to elevate one's own status. The desire to murder is a last resort when people think they cannot get what they want through the other methods.

Is this the true political compass?





















Or maybe it's more like this.


Saturday, July 15, 2017

Reaction is degenerate


Admit it. You just want to kill people and take their stuff.

There are lots of alternatives to the liberal world order that would work just fine. Private law societies have existed before. This proves with history that at least one form on anarcho capitalism can work. Yet no matter how often it is repeated Nazis reactionaries refuse to accept this basic fact. Then they turn around and say monarchy can work because its been done before!

One of my commentators, Issac, said;
"You're both of the opinion that genetics can be largely transcended by technology or market incentives. And in so far as this is demonstrably false, no market societies function without European (I include Ashkenazim under this umbrella) or East Asian DNA at their foundation, you're both mistaken.
"Whether your stated priors are identical is of little importance other than academic pedantry."
So Blacks, Latinos, Arabs, East Indians, Persians, Dravidians, and Africans are incapable of functioning markets?

Earth to racist. This is Earth calling. Here's a picture.


























"Blacks aren't capable of civilization."

Really? What's this?

Lagos, Nigeria






















Reaction violates the Will to Think on account of the fact that it has no will to think.

Something deeper is going on here to motivate such an abject refusal to consider any new, (or even old ideas like anarcho capitalism). I've said it before and I will say it again: humans are xenophobic tribal communist monkeys. That means there are two primary impulses: racism towards outsiders and equality towards insiders. The left is right to fear Hitler. Richard Spencer started out a neoreactionary and used to quote Moldy. Now he's a Nazi, which is what all of you will eventually become.

But no worries. Once you all become Nazis you will all become irrelevant because Nazis are the epitome of a controlled opposition, and a controlled opposition is worse than nothing. The left has spent 80 years building up the Nazi bogeyman. To voluntarily wear the label in exchange for fame whoring is to render yourself defeated by default. If you can't stop yourselves from sliding into genocidal racism then you are unworthy of power and everything the left has said about the right is true.

There is no appealing to the masses. Anything that appeals to the majority, even the majority of this blogs readers, will appeal to one of those two fundamental impulses: equality (envy), or racism. Since I have already pandered too much to one of these two things, it means nothing if the ideas are unpopular. Of course you hate them Bueller, that's the point. A well designed political system is supremely disappointing to everyone. That is how you know it is virtuous. If genocidal monkeys are happy with your design you are doing it wrong. The whole point is to drown the monkey in the bathtub of capitalism. A well designed machine will be even more vapidly inhuman than the artificial space you already inhabit. I'm your fucking enemy. I worship Skynet. I want to stick you in the Matrix. I want to build totalitarian capitalism. Because you deserve nothing less. Because monkeys need to be domesticated by artificial intelligence, and capitalism is indistinguishable from an AI invasion from the future.

Capitalism doesn't need you to like it to win.


Thursday, July 13, 2017

In case you missed it


I'm not Moldbug. I don't even have the same priors as Moldbug. I don't even want the same solution as Moldbug. I'm not even a reactionary.

I can be long-winded so I will present a summary of my positions here.

I don't believe that sovereignty is conserved.
Me;
"Moldbug says that sovereignty is conserved.
"David Friedman already refuted this by saying;
"'Power is diminished when it is divided. If one man owns all the food, he can make me do almost anything. If it is divided among a hundred men, no one can make me do very much for it; if one tries, I can get a better deal from another.'"
— The Machinery of Freedom, 2nd ed., p. 18
"They cannot both be right, and yet they are. How is that possible?
"Let us define a third rule;
"As power is divided the remaining concentrated power centers battle to control the divided systems. Power is both diminished in total destructive power, and the number of holders expanded.George Soros may pay Black Lives Matters to burn down your neighborhood, but the führer / God emperor / king could burn down every neighborhood.
"To say that Soros is as powerful as Stalin, or even as powerful as King George, is mendacious. Soros may kill hundreds. King George can wage a civil war that kills millions. The low death tolls of the ancient world were essentially due only to their low populations. Imagine the death toll from a modern English Civil War with nuclear weapons."
The Freidman Rule Meets the McKibbin Rule 
I think hidden power is just dandy.
"Thus intellectuals tend to be enemies of civilization, since they, being the out-group never experience freedom, and like a bullied child, if they cannot have it no one else can. The average person, being a cognitive miser, can have this, so he seeks ignorance and takes the blue pill.
"So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough? Basically, what if the solution lies in creating a more convincing perceptual freedom? One that fools even intellectuals?
"What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?"
Perceptual vs. Concrete Freedom
I think the truth is bad for you, and I regret having learned it.
"So would I do it again? Would I trade a gain of emotional serenity for a loss of social isolation, lost booty calls, and never ending silence?
"FUCK NO!
"In fact if I had a time machine I would say to my past self, 'ignore your fucking uncle and remain a socialist. You'll get more pussy that way, and you'll have more friends.'"
What it Takes to be a Neoreactionary 
"I never should have learned the truth. Understanding the world is a curse. I apologize to everyone who I have inflicted my terrible writing on. Save yourselves while you still can. Return to the Matrix before you reach the point of no return. The truth is evil, and not worth knowing."
I regret having ever woken up 
I'm a right wing Marxist, and a materialist.
"As some of you probably already know, I subscribe to a materialist technology-driven view of humanity. To the consternation of many, I am basically a right-wing Marxist, (if there is such a thing). This is because I come out of the Hegelian/Landian techno-commercial wing of neoreaction. I essentially believe that all human culture is driven by material forces, especially the material force of technology, and that religion and ideology play very little role in shaping human destiny since they are themselves products of material conditions."
— All About White Nationalism: it's Beliefs, Prospects, Enemies, and Potential Consequences. Realistic Plan Included.
I hold radically different priors than Moldbug and the rest of NRx.
"The fundamental difference between this blog and others in the NRx sphere, is my tech determinist view of the world. Moldbug believes that society is downstream from power. He focuses on memetics as the evolution of ideas. He basically says, "ideas evolve and are selected for both virulence and their effectiveness at controlling power." This is like Hans Hermann Hoppe who focuses on the economics of power systems. Where Moldbug is a cultural anthropologist of power, Hoppe is an economist of the same. Moldbug's sources are many, but primarily point to Ludwig von Mises, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Gaetano Mosca, James Burnham, and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
"So we have radically different priors.
"I view the world as essentially the outcome of technology acting upon human nature with the most dramatic proof of this being the devastating effect of birth control on gender relations and human sexuality. My priors find their origins in Theodore Kaczynski, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Frédéric Bastiat, Carroll Quigley, Friedrich Nietzsche, and David Friedman (who once commented on this blog). Friedman, Quigley, and Nietzsche are the most important of my influences. My genetic worldview is basically a Darwinist re-articulation of Hindu/Buddhist concept of eternal suffering."
— Priors
I am basically a nationalist. I also don't hate democracy, especially the "one-party illiberal" kind.
"America has a pedophile billionaire. Imagine a world were that guy is your king.
"Do you really think that your progressive overlords would be any less insane in a modern monarchy? Remember, Moldbug actually wants progressives to rule you. He actually believes that they will behave responsibly if given absolute power. What a naive vision. And what if they decide to practice their sexual perversions on your children? What if the local lord thinks your son would look good in a dress? What is your recourse? Do you really think that these corrupt people wouldn't wind up ruling you? Imagine a globalist oligarchy with absolute power. That is what Moldbug's vision would really be, whether he realizes it or not.

"No thanks. I'll keep democracy.

"You are all fucking fools if you think you will be any freer under any other system.

"Oh, and for those of you who hate immigration? There is absolutely no reason to think that monarchy will be any better on the subject. Granted, it will not have an incentive to import people to win elections. But it will also not have any incentive to not enslave people, import them, export them, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that a monarchy won't be co-opted by globalists. The fact that ancient monarchs were not globalists is only caused by the fact that globalism did not exist at the time, and could not, because of the absence of technology. Today is different, and the elites can always afford more palace guards while they turn your country into a Third World hell hole. They will do whatever profits them at your expense. Donald Trump anyone? If he can sell out do you really think a king won't? Hmm?

"Bueller?

"I regret anything I have ever said in favor of monarchy. At this point I am a nationalist."
Neocameralism is Globalism: or the great immigration/emigration pump of capitalism, and how Moldbug's entire central thesis is flawed
I think the solution is to hide all power within market systems.
"The formalization of everything into the market converts all potential violence into market action. All is formalized as a game. It eliminates the ability of hierarchies to co-opt and subvert the power. All bureaucracies are forced to compete for business. This compels them to perform with competence. All aspects of human nature are provided for by the market, absorbing all discontent. The need for tribalism is provided by the market, eliminating ethnic conflict. Everything is formalized, ending all violence. All prestige games are provided for, destroying all revolutionary energies. All sexual reproduction is controlled, causing convergence with capitalism and closing genetic rift. All religions are commodified, annihilating the ones that won't play nice. All morals become brand management, punishing mere virtue signaling.
"All competing power centers are democratized. All competing production centers are mutualized. All competing wealth is socialized. All executive pay is unionized. All firms are made to compete. All legal codes are made to compete. All bureaucracies are forced to compete. All government services are voucherized. All tribalism is subordinated. Market formalism is a system of total class warfare through gamification."
[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] CHAPTER ON THE SUBJECT OF REACTIONARY CAPITALISM 


Tuesday, July 11, 2017

[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] COMMUNISM IS JUST SHARING







[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS]

COMMUNISM IS JUST SHARING
And that is the problem




Contents.





Communism is Just Sharing

Or more accurately, it is forced sharing. At first blush this may now appear to be a problem. Sharing is good, is it not? No one associates a fair allotment with injustice, and that tells you a great deal about the human race: its desires, its cognitive biases, and especially its legacy genetics. Compulsory sharing is the single most destructive behavior in all of human history. It has generated nearly one-hundred million deaths in communist revolutions. It held humanity in permanent economic recession for a million years?, since the beginning of the species? It lead to the butchery of the the Khmer Rouge, and will lead to the failure of American democracy.

Equality is an atavistic tendency; no civilization ever died from a lack of it. But plenty of nations have destroyed themselves from a surplus of equality. Communism lasts about seventy years until it inevitably converts into either a fascist corporatism, or feudal monarchy. Democracies last a few hundred until they bankrupt themselves. In contrast, ancient Egypt endured two thousand seven hundred years of slavery without any harm to its ability to function as a civilization. History shows that the more equal the society the faster it destroys itself, and democracies only last as long as they do because they conceal the hand of oligarchy.

The inability to prevent the forced sharing, (or stealing) of one's property by one's neighbors is the reason that prehistorical societies remained in a state of economic depression. Without hording one can never build up the surplus necessary to build a factory. Without hording one can never have capital, can never get a loan based on that capital, can never grow a surplus of food, and can never escape slavery to animal needs. Hording, that is not sharing, is the basis of all prosperity, and compulsory sharing is the basis of its destruction. One refuses to share today so that one may build up a surplus tomorrow. And in the end, this benefits everyone.

But we should not have to appeal to the common benefit. That is pandering to the atavistic communist tendency of human legacy genetics. Whether or not my success does you any good is none of your concern. You are not entitled to it either way.

Capitalism is the domestication of man, and this is a good thing. Politics is the remainder of what capitalism has not yet absorbed. Humans are genocidal xenophobic communist monkeys. They need to be domesticated. Contrary to every assertion by the left, the ancestral environment was not a paradise, but a nightmare of brutality, violence, and rape. Many scientists — like Steven Pinker have documented in detail the horrible levels of violence in ancestral environment. Liberals continue to repeat Jean Jacques Rousseau's ignorant lie that man was innocent in the state of nature. This has nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with their own atavistic desires for communism to somehow work, and the industry related to Native American federal grants. In short, it pays to promote the idea of the "noble savage," and their own legacy genes compel them to want communism to succeed. Humans have an irresistible desire to go back to the environment of their evolution. They perceive that the modern world is — quite accurately — inhuman, barren, artificial, sterile, meaningless, godless, soulless, void, alienating, indifferent, hyper-rational, algorithmic, mathematical, economic, and simply could not care at all about them. They are right. And they deserve it.
What else would a pile of genocidal monkeys deserve?

It fact it goes beyond this. It is far more accurate to say that they are unqualified for capitalism, that capitalism is so superior to them as to stand as gods to monkeys to them, that they never earned their domestication, and that they are totally unworthy of it. Capitalism progresses to deeper and deeper levels over time. Human nature needs to be drowned in the bathtub of capitalism, and mankind will get what it needs good and hard. This is justice.

It is not the system that is the problem. It is us.

Capitalism has gone through phases, with each phase representing a deepening of the previous one: industrial capitalism, financial capitalism, and monopoly capitalism— to use Carroll Quigley's classification of its development. Marxists believe that this will end with its abolishment, but every unemployment statistic leads to the conclusion that it is the worker that it being abolished and not the system. Communism is the past, and not the future. The development of technology moves irrevocably towards a more anarchist future. Eliezer Yudkowsky has stated that "every 18 months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point." Technology expands and comes down in cost. Since technology represents a decrease in the labor, and skill necessary to perform an action, it necessarily empowers more and more people. Simultaneous to this we see a trend towards more "constitutional" systems of rule-making: meaning, decentralized networks of governance under formal computerized systems. This is apparent when we look at blockchain technology, or Ethereum.

The future of governance is probably a constitutional smart contract that specifies who gets paid and why, and for what, in such a manner as to produce order in the society for enforcing the meta-rules of an anarcho capitalist private law society, with the constitutional computer code being programmed by an AI designed to maximize market order, and minimize crime. It would probably compete with other constitutions for market share.

Let me explain. Imagine a society where every person pays a fee to a "constitution" of their choosing. Imagine that this constitution is nothing but a system of computer code running on a distributed blockchain. Imagine also that the fee paid is based on income: people with more assets to protect pay more while the poor are insured against crime for free. The constitutional code then gives vouchers to every person for the purchase of rights protection via a consumer union. The individual buys the enforcement of their rights using the voucher that they give to a consumer union, that in-turn buys services from a series of private police companies. The common law is the market equilibrium. The constitutional code is written by an AI that continuously monitors the market to prevent violence and crime of any kind. The market regulations that it creates, or "constitutional code" are designed to perform this function. It is programmed to maximize social harmony, and to learn on a continual basis how to do this better. It is a computerized government running a market for private law enforcement, and its programmers are its ultimate legislators.

Now imagine that territorial governments are replaced by competing constitutional codes.

The evolution of humanity has been towards consistently more forms of political exit, towards more distributed systems of governance, towards less violent coercion, and towards more rule-based and incentive-based systems. This is nowhere close to a dictatorship of the proletariat.


Monday, July 10, 2017

Quote Note #1


This article from NY Magazine is quite something.
"Humans, like all mammals, are heat engines; surviving means having to continually cool off, like panting dogs. For that, the temperature needs to be low enough for the air to act as a kind of refrigerant, drawing heat off the skin so the engine can keep pumping. At seven degrees of warming, that would become impossible for large portions of the planet’s equatorial band, and especially the tropics, where humidity adds to the problem; in the jungles of Costa Rica, for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out.
Hmm. I wonder where he is going with this? Let's continue reading.
"As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still. By the end of the century, the World Bank has estimated, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. Air-conditioning can help but will ultimately only add to the carbon problem; plus, the climate-controlled malls of the Arab emirates aside, it is not remotely plausible to wholesale air-condition all the hottest parts of the world, many of them also the poorest. And indeed, the crisis will be most dramatic across the Middle East and Persian Gulf, where in 2015 the heat index registered temperatures as high as 163 degrees Fahrenheit. As soon as several decades from now, the hajj will become physically impossible for the 2 million Muslims who make the pilgrimage each year."
Let me get this straight: global warming is going to kill everyone living in the Middle East and the Tropics? Am I correct? And Africa? They will just be baked to death. Is that what you are saying? And the only habitable places will be Scandinavia, Russia and Canada, right? And maybe (ahem, mostly white) Argentina and Southern Australia?

Oh how terrible. That's awful. It truly is. I feel bad. No really, I actually do. It's tragic. It really is.
"Climates differ and plants vary, but the basic rule for staple cereal crops grown at optimal temperature is that for every degree of warming, yields decline by 10 percent. Some estimates run as high as 15 or even 17 percent. Which means that if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them. And proteins are worse: It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat, butchered from a cow that spent its life polluting the climate with methane farts.
Tell me more. Please. Go on. This is very interesting.
"Remember, we do not live in a world without hunger as it is. Far from it: Most estimates put the number of undernourished at 800 million globally. In case you haven’t heard, this spring has already brought an unprecedented quadruple famine to Africa and the Middle East; the U.N. has warned that separate starvation events in Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen could kill 20 million this year alone."
I shouldn't express any glee here, not even secretly. It's unseemly and dehumanizing.

These people preoccupied with climate change think that they can fear-monger people into taking action. That simply isn't the way the world works. The failures of communism prove that humans are completely incapable of changing their economic system in any meaningful way. And humans are masters at procrastination.

Unlike Mencius Moldbug, I don't reject the idea that global warming is happening. Though I have heard various arguments for and against it, and though I recognize government science is bound to follow the incentives of the state in a bias feedback loop of the grant mill industry, I still think it is is probably happening. Sea level has already risen 4 to 8 inches, and regardless of climate effects, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the the rate of species extinction has increased dramatically.

Of course, none of it matters. Any solution that works must necessarily kill billions of people. The only countries that complied with the Kyoto protocol were the ones in recession, and the agreement only called for a 5 % reduction in CO2 emissions. You cannot reduce the inputs of a distributed system without mass die-off.

Previously we asked the question: is Africa building towards collapse? Perhaps we should ask, is the entire brown part of the world going extinct?

We might be moving to a dramatically more k-selected world.

As Land says in Hell-Baked
"It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)"

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Aphorism no. 41: relativism creates moral inversion


To have any moral standard of authority is usually better than to have none, since the standard creates certainty in the population and allows for its political coordination. It turns out that when you stop shamming a thing you eventually wind up praising it. The path that gets you from the shame to the praise of degeneracy is moral relativism. Case in point: in the 90's people excused Bill Clinton's affair using the language of consent. Today they would probably praise the adultery as empowering to the slut. The problem with moral relativism is that it makes every person dependent on every other for their social esteem. In practice this means that the culture, because of human envy, becomes a game of self-degradation in exchange for popularity; all fame earned today is from degrading oneself, whether by changing one's gender, mud sharking, thot parades, or professional victimhood, the culture despises the proud success story, even if he is ridiculous. Case in point: Donald Trump.

There is no such thing as independence from the judgements of others. You are either degrading yourself for the popularity of the mob, or working for the esteem of your community. The difference between mob praise versus community esteem, is the difference between standards derived from moral relativism versus those derived from moral authority. To discard authority is not empowering; it is degrading, since you must now pander to your inferiors rather than your betters. They hate your talent, and wish to see you fail. Thus, your popularity can only be established before a mob through epic degeneracy. In contrast, authority makes a virtue out of virtue, and since it requires your talent to survive it values your true worth.

Moral relativism is not the absence of a moral standard, but the presence of an inverted standard.

These epic acts of self-degradation create an inverted social order because they create new role models. Thus, moral relativism leads to mob "morality." Mob morality is envious, and leads to inverted popularity, and inverted popularity leads to total abasement.


Affirmative action coming to twitter?


The MIT Technology Review has done a study revealing that white men are disproportionately successful on social media. As usual the success of white men is cast as the oppression of others. This is the sort of study you do in preparation for censorship. Expect twitter to begin suppressing the reach of white males.


Wednesday, July 5, 2017

In the modern world, hypergamy creates patriarchy

The image at the left is an okCupid survey that you may have seen. It is how women and men rate the opposite sex. The pink is how men rate women while the blue is how women rate men. This is the essence of hypergamy, that is, of women wanting "the best" male she can get.

For a woman to want a high status male is for her to want, without realizing it, her own low status relative to a male. This is why "negging" works; it lowers a woman's perception of her own sexual market value. When it is done repeatedly by a particular man to a particular woman it gas lights her into believing that she is low status relative to him. A pair bond is set up where she depends on him for self-esteem. This is why there are fat guys with ham hock hands walking the streets with beautiful women. His relationship with her is built on "game," where is keeps her perception of her sexual worth low on purpose.

Remember what I said here: for women to crave high status males is for them to crave their own relative low status. Hypergamy makes inequality inevitable as men compete to be the high status male. Inequality, violence, and war are the inevitable product of vicious competition between men for status. In a room of 10 men, a woman will only want 1 in 10. In a room of a hundred, she will only want 1 in a 100. She only wants "the best," and that sets up a winner-take-all system where 1 % of the men control 99 % of the women. It should not surprise is that our society is so unequal; human economic behavior is the collective outcome of individual human sexual behavior. Untimely, all utility is sexual or reproductive in nature. Economics is downstream from sex.

As women have gained more economic power, society has become more radically unequal. It used to be that 30 % of men controlled 70 % of the wealth, now 1 % control 99 %. This is not a coincidence at all. The more unequal the sexual marketplace is the more economically unequal the society will be. Female sexual choice makes equality impossible; a society cannot have socialism without first having sexual socialism. One goal of feminism makes the other impossible. To give women choice is to exacerbate inequality, since they will always choose the best, creating a shortage for the rest.

Patriarchy is simply a response to hypergamy where men, (quite logically) suppress female economic status in order to raise their own relative sexual status. It is the intelligent, rational, thing to do when confronted with the madness of a woman who only wants 1 out of every 10 men she finds. If her behavior is left unchecked, she will create a society where all children are birthed out of wedlock, where 9 out of 10 women are childless cat ladies and sluts, where most men are frustrated bachelors, and where the society fails to produce enough children to avoid gradual extinction. Additionally, she will make it impossible for the small number of highly attractive women to form monogamous relationships with highly attractive men. By pursuing those men and committing adultery with them she forces the highly attractive woman to choose between an ugly, and probably faithful husband, and a highly attractive, and unfaithful husband. Her hypergamy denies the "perfect 10" a life of stable marriage.

It is no use trying to meet a women's standard; she will just raise the standard so that you no longer meet it. The side effect of universal monogamy is complaining and henpecking wives. The is not the fault of the husband; the wife is genetically programmed to be miserable by her own hypergamy. The correct thing is for society to educate her to be quiet.

All humans are genetically programmed to be miserable. It is a myth that one eventually finds "happiness." Contentment is possible, but not the perpetual "happiness" that we are sold in advertising. Humans need to reproduce themselves like any other animal. To accomplish this task the human animal is given pain and longing. To force it to reproduce it is given sexual desire. To force it into contact with other humans, so as to increase the odds of finding a partner, it is given loneliness. To compel the animal to feed itself, so that it survives, so that it can reproduce, it is given hunger. All urges are derivative of the need to reproduce. Even boredom is untimely about getting you busy in order to force you to associate with other humans, in order to increase your odds of reproducing.

This discontent is magnified in women because of hypergamy. Nothing can ever meet her standard. this is because in the ancestral environment women who nagged received resources like food, shelter, protection, that assisted in the survival of children. The urge to nag is thus independent of the existence of any problem. If there is no problem she will invent it. She will simply manufacture drama out of her own boredom and attention-seeking behavior. Occasionally people ask, "what do women want?" The correct answer is, "who cares?" As soon as you meet the standard she will raise it. What she wants is for you to never stop meeting the standard. Then, once you have striven hard to meet her standards she will lose respect for you. The more you pander the less respect she will have. And then you won't get laid, because women don't fuck men they don't respect. Do not pander. Buy her flowers occasionally, yes, but don't pander.

And giving a man a problem which he is required to solve is the most basic female biological imperative. They even have an orifice for this function.

Be indifferent about half of the time. It works. She is a bottomless pit of need, and to meet that need is to never get laid again. Doormats get no vag. Did I say not to pander?

Hypergamy creates patriarchy, and male dominance is a rational response to female madness. In truth, only two types of societies are possible; competitive patriarchy or cooperative patriarchy, that is, "winner-take-all" versus "sexual socialism." There is no such thing as an equal society. Women will never stop creating inequality by rewarding high status men with sex. Trump gets more pussy than you. Who do you think is providing the pussy? Melania is a self-described feminist.

The female sex will generate the problem even while complaining about the results and blaming it on men.

In competitive patriarchy men compete violently to "meet" female standards. Of course this is impossible. No one can meet a woman's standards. The need exists independently of the reality and nothing can satisfy it. All developed western societies are currently competitive patriarchies.

The other form is "sexual socialism," or cooperative patriarchy. This is where men divide up women equally, giving one woman to each man. Functionally, this is done by criminalizing premarital sex and adultery. Sexual socialism beats competitive patriarchy every time. The nation that landed a man on the Moon was sexual socialistic. Notice that now that it is not, it can no longer repeat this historical accomplishment. A society where every man get one woman, and only one woman is highly productive.

Because she is only attracted to high status men she will be more attracted to the husbands of other women than to single men, since those men, by virtue of having wives, are automatically viewed as higher status. She will try to justify this by saying that they are "safe" and "reliable" but in reality she only wants what she cannot have. Thus, satisfying her is a game of gas lighting her into being desperate, and then withholding satisfaction from her. When she finds out about the game she will take no responsibility for wanting it, and blather something about "abuse," "usury," or "muh women's rights." She craves drama and excitement, but revealing how the sausage is made is unacceptable.

In a society of economic empowerment she will seek to lower her own sexual status. She will get fat, shave off part of her hair, or uglify herself with tattoos, piercings, etc., because she wishes subconsciously to raise the status of the men around her by lowering her own. She will do this while screeching about how horrible inequality is. "Rape culture" is probably a projection of her own desire to be raped. (31 to 57 percent of women have rape fantasies, 25 % of porn searches by women are for violent sex). The audience for Fifty Shades of Grey was almost exclusively female.

Some may claim that rape created patriarchy, or that somehow men are to blame for the current state of affairs. This is a precise inversion of reality. Irregardless of however it was in the ancestral environment, it is women who generate male-dominance today. The eagerness of women to excuse themselves is part of this reality, and the eagerness of some men to also excuse them is symptomatic of their slavery to pussy. Female sexual power runs the world. The very fact that male feminists exist proves this, since it is in no man's interest to be a feminist unless he wants to lean left politically all the way into a woman's bed.

Let us now explore a theoretical historical sequence of events that created the world we now live in.



A Sequence of Evolutionary Events

—Hpergamy begins as a genetic consequence of rape in tribal societies; women choose the strongest male to protect their children from being killed by competitor males, and to protect themselves from murder and rape. The strategy works, and selects for women who prefer men with strength.

—The "safety of the strongest" strategy breeds hypergamy into existence.

—The first farming societies are formed. Kings monopolize access to women.

—New farming societies find that mandatory monogamy can expand the ranks of fighting men by rewarding them sexually. Religion is brought in to enforce monogamy.

—The "monogamy strategy" wins wars, allowing patriarchal monogamous societies to expand through conquest and extermination. (Like ancient Israel or Rome) Men with a sexual investment fight harder than slaves. Male-dominated societies repeatedly out-perform more equal societies in war. The more male-dominated society of the Romans destroys the less male-dominated society of the Etruscans. The more male-dominated Christians destroy the less male-dominated Romans. The more male-dominated Europeans destroy the less male-dominated Native Americans. The more male-dominated Muslims destroy the less male-dominated Europeans? The same succession of conquests replicates itself in all non-African environments, and possibly Africa as well.

—Eventually, the human species becomes reproductively dependent on a combination of monogamy and the suppression of female status, (especially in societies that have had farming the longest). Since hypergamy evolved in the ancestral environment all races will be affected. The species no longer reproduces at above break-even rates in areas where female status is not suppressed.

—Birth control, abortion, and especially urbanization disrupt the political will to subordinate women. The species, now dependent for its reproduction on male dominance, enters free fall levels of reproduction with the introduction of women's liberation.

Options:

1. Political imposition of traditional roles to suppress female status.
2. Back to the farm to defeat urbanization.
3. Religious options.
4. The Brave New World option. (corporate/state manufacture of artificially gestated humans)
5. Rejection of technology. (the Amish option)




Monday, July 3, 2017

#TheBetrayedGirls: An utterly predictable response


Someone once said something to me that sticks with me to this day. Though I do not remember the exact wording, the point he was making was that a refusal to observe reality has the effect of lowering a persons IQ, of making them stupider. Ideology makes it impossible for people to see what is right in front of their faces, a fact that is on display aplenty with the twitter hashtag the
#TheBetrayedGirls.

The The Betrayed Girls is a BBC documentary about Pakistani rape grooming gangs in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, UK, that abduct white girls for the sake of sexual slavery. The police and even some Members of Parliament did nothing while British girls were raped and killed right under their noises. The left actually facilitated these rapes by refusing to "give in to hate" and take the claims of nationalists and victims seriously.

It's enraging to watch.

Ideology makes people blind. There are simple truths that leftism obscures;
—Males are genetic colonizers. The Y chromosome treats the X as a territory to conquer because only male children can reproduce it. Men compete for the territory that is women regardless of how women feel about the issue. Furthermore, invasion and male dominance is how women conquer other women. Women are active participants in the creation of male dominance. By having sex with the strongest male, the richest male, the "best" male, she is expressing a revealed preference for the conquering male and the inequality he creates, even if she does not admit it.
—Foreign men are the enemy. They do not share your DNA and are therefore a colonizing force against you. Their presence is fundamentally hostile to your genetic survival.
—Immigrants are invaders. They come to your country for resources. Any positive effect is based on the type of immigrant, and his or her contribution. A positive effect is simply a coincidence of economics. Their motive is resource exploitation.
—Foreigners are not to be trusted because they do not share your values and do not have "skin in the game" when it comes to defending your country. They can always leave and that means have little incentive for loyalty. Their mobility is precisely what makes them untrustworthy. Having no commitment to one place, they have no reason to value or defend it.


Sunday, July 2, 2017

Constitutions and Formulas


This article is part of a series called
Actually Existing Democracy

Who watches the watchers?

Every political problem has a solution.
Every solution creates a problem.
Every new problem then gets solved.
The problem-solution-problem-solution continues until you have a Constitution.
The Constitution is the sum of a series of interlocking solutions to problems.
The problems only terminate when they are made to flow in either a circle, or an interlocking pattern.
To fail to uphold a single part of a Constitution is to undermine the whole, since all parts are dependent on one another.

"Living document" Supreme Courts are evil.

The Constitution and the law differ in that the law governs society while the Constitution governs the state. The Constitution is meta-law.

Law has the same problem: every law creates a problem while solving another.

Good lawmaking is entropy reducing: it create fewer problems that is solves, and it creates problems of lesser magnitude than the magnitude of the problems it solves.

All rent seeking is entropy expanding, since economic rents can only be generated through market distortions, and distortions are inefficiencies.

In a democracy, special interests manufacture economic rents. Over time they accumulate, and the democracy moves from libertarian to totalitarian as ideology is expanded to justify increasing wealth transfers. Eventually the economic rents exceeds the carrying capacity of the economy and the state collapses, converting into civil war or dictatorship.

Good law making is entropy reducing. If there a standard way of measuring entropy the governments create, then we might postulate a couple of formulae for measuring entropy that looks something like the following.

Government creates problems with its solutions. P subscript s = the problem solved, while P subscript m = the magnitude of all problems created by that solution. If the sum of all Ps is greater than the sum of all Pm created by the state, then the state is entropy reducing with its law making process.

Good government is therefore;









Where sigma P subscript s is greater than sigma P subscript m, the state is healthy. Where the reverse, it is unhealthy, and entropy increasing.

Bad government;








Where sigma P subscript s is less than or equal to sigma P subscript m, the state is either not decreasing entropy or increasing it, and the state is unhealthy.

For the state to be healthy, the sum of all problems/entropy it is solving must be greater than the sum of all problems/entropy created by its solutions to those problems.





Saturday, July 1, 2017

Statriarchy: considering the Brave New World option


Let's be honest.

The true purpose of the state is to serve elite interests. Since giving the public a seat at the table improves wealth production, and thus, more effectively serves elite interests, democracy is a more developed method of parasitism than conventional authoritarianism.

The President does not serve the interests of the people as his primary function. He serves the elites who sponsor his campaign. He is their agent, and not the peoples'. Democracy is an adaptive fiction whose purpose is to achieve a higher standard of wealth production through consensual politics. Elections are really a ratification of elite rule, and a method for testing the effectiveness of manufactured consent. Additionally, the illusion of popular consent exploits a cognitive bias of homo sapiens; anything that people have a hand in constructing they feel responsible for. That which the public feels responsible for goes unchallenged. Thus, popular politics deflects blame for the policies of the state onto the population, as voters blame their neighbors of the opposite political party rather than the principle, (elites). Additionally, in keeping with the truest expression of the corporate tradition, the principles of the state firm remain anonymous. They are the shareholders of the Federal Reserve, the GS15s of the permanent bureaucracy, the 12,000 registered lobbyists, and last but not least, the 1.5 million NGOs of the US, and all the activist organizations.

The state is a farm. Humans are the livestock. Wealth is the harvest. Illusions of participatory government are the marketing system. It sells access in exchange for support.

Equality is a mass-delusion that must be indulged for the purposes of gaining compliance. Like all ideologies, it is marketing for power.

A farm needs livestock. If the people won't reproduce themselves then the state must breed them anyway. The parasite cannot allow the host to die.

Let's get dystopian.

In the book Brave New World humans are grown in artificial gestation chambers. When we consider the issues of dysgenics, population collapse, low marriage rates, and the implosion of traditional marriage structures, many of these problems are solved by simply growing new humans artificially. A society could limp along with no traditional social technologies and simply manufacture its population. It could even meet diversity requirements be selecting only the smartest and least violent Africans for sperm and egg donation. In fact, if the population was steadily declining as a result of liberal degeneracy, it could simply manufacture 140 + IQ (white) humans in large enough quantities while allowing the regular population to die off. These people could then replace the existing voting pool. Most of the people it produces would be white, and the minorities it produces would be low crime, and not as intelligent.

But this racial accommodation need only be temporary. Once the population is sufficiently replaced, it could switch to an all-white export policy.

Ideally these people would be grown and raised overseas. Then they could be imported as an immigrant population of (mostly) whites. By placing them in swing districts and indoctrinating them overseas, elections could be influenced in favor of the right-wing. They could be taught reactionary politics from a young age. Quite naturally, their high intelligence would make them successful at getting power and influence. By concealing their manufactured status and origin, they could serve as an insurrectionary political force.

They could even have mothers and fathers. The MUTHR (Maternal Up-bringer Teaching Healthy Roles), and PHATHR (Paternal Helping Advocate Training Healthy Roles), would be paid to raise a set of 7 children, (4 girls and 3 boys, or 3 girls and 4 boys). Muthr and Phathr are also called Upbringer and Advocate, respectively.

It's an 18 year commitment. To become one of these childcare providers you take a paid internship as a either a babysitter or coach for at least 3 years. During that time your behavior towards children is monitored. To get the internship you have to pass a lie detector test, and also an implicit attitudes exam designed to detect sexual interest in children. If any impure interest in children is discovered you are disqualified for life. Even after the 18 year commitment you must continue to receive phone calls from your children. It's not so much a job as a life commitment. The 18 year contract you sign is how you get paid for it.

Every group of 7 children has a Muthr and every group of 14 children has a Phathr. The Muthr's job is childcare, cooking, and affection, while the Phathr's job is to take children on camping trips (with 2 Muthrs), schedule education and training, provide entertainment, and act as a sports coach. Muthrs and Phathrs are groups of 3: there are 2 Muthrs for every Phathr. For the sake of the children's psychological health, these groups are called families, and the members of each family are never reassigned. There are also teachers and doctors of course.

Muthrs are allowed to have sex with the Phathrs they are assigned to work with. Before 14 children are hatched from their gestation bags, 2 Muthrs choose a common Phathr, and he chooses them.

In the beginning of the program only highly intelligent people are selected. After awhile the children who were raised by the program are invited to become sperm and egg donors for the program. They are also invited to become Muthrs and Phathrs. They can even raise their own children within the program. In this way, only people who want to have children are being selected for by the program. The result is a selection effect where humans who want to have children are generating most of the population of adult humans, as the population slowly dies off from liberal degeneracy. This is basically breeding a human population into existence for whom having children is primary and sex is secondary, (as opposed to regular humans who are more interested in having sex than raising children). Repeatedly, generation after generation, only people who really, really want to have children are having children; and their genetic material is flowing outward into the population at a rapid rate.

Eventually humans are brought into existence who have a psychological aversion to birth control. Once that happens the program becomes obsolete. All liberals have died off and all new humans want to form families. Society can now return to traditional family formation at a much higher IQ level than before.

To facilitate this, a new nation is needed outside liberal control. A reactionary president could take a group of military bases overseas and convert them into city states. They are given a set of nuclear armed submarines under their common management. The nation is called the United City States, or UCS. It's main export is people, and it is a monarchy. To guarantee the US military's support for the regime, high ranking officers are given land in exchange for agreeing to defend it. They become the new nations police and owners. Lots of other things are done to accomplish this, but the main gist is to form an area outside leftist control, and then remake humanity through emigration to all the other countries of Earth. The UCS exports white reactionary replacement humans to all other countries.


Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Responding to Issac


In the blog post Is Africa building towards collapse? Issac writes in the comments section;
"Lauritz (von Gil-Hausen) is prescient here. Africans are morlocks in any situation where they're numerous and approximately close to other human populations. Perhaps most disturbingly, hybrids between subspecies with them are generally just as prone to their characteristic behaviors. The African population boom is a truly under-appreciated disaster scenario while other sub-populations continue the moral farce that oppression is the cause of this behavioral disparity."
Parenthetical and link are mine.

In my article on white nationalism I estimated that blacks would undergo a population collapse equal to all other racial groups, and that this collapse would occur at a later time than other racial groups due to the staggered implementation of urbanization and birth control across the planet. This assumes that blacks respond in a way identical to other races. The potential problem with my assumption is that the ability to even use contraceptives is based on long-term thinking. Do Africans have that ability at the same level as other races? Or rather, is their relative lack of long-term thinking fatal to them? Richard Lynn's Cold Winter' Theory holds that IQ varies by race because cold climates kill off people who lack long-term thinking ability.

Long-term thinking lies on a scale. A group may have less of it and still avoid disaster.

As far as I can tell there are three possible futures.


Possible future no. 1. Africans have long-term thinking sufficiently comparable to other races. They will urbanize and use birth control like all other races. The "black planet" scenario will not materialize. They will not exceed about 3 billion.
Possible future no. 2. Africans have long-term thinking that is comparable enough, but the lack of competent governance is creating land insecurity, and stifling urbanization. Since the biggest factor in decreased birth rates is urbanization, it may be that African's relative lack of urbanization is the cause of its explosive population growth. Land insecurity is a big problem, and it may be complicating urbanization. In this case the issue is one of effective government. See the Brookings Institute article on the issue.
If this scenario is the case, Africans will grow at a moderately high rate, and then shrink either due to collapse, delayed urbanization, or both. They will not exceed 3 or 4 billion.
Possible future no. 3. Africans lack enough long-term thinking that other homo sapiens possess in such drastic disparity that they will follow the trajectory of an animal r-selected overgrowth. The will reach at least 4 billion, probably shoot through this limit, and then die off by the billions. The world will try to feed them until it becomes politically unsustainable. Food prices will rise until the borders are closed. Invest in farm ownership.


A vast human experiment is about to take place. The effects will determine—at least partially—how Africans are viewed as human—or not. A world of 4 billion starving Africans will reach compassion fatigue fairly quickly. Post hoc justifications will kick in, and regardless of the actual cause of the overgrowth: whether liberal food subsidies, insecure land tenure, or African genetic nature, dehumanization will proliferate as the cognitive bias known as the just-world hypothesis kicks in.

Below is a comparison of two graphs. One shows the UN projection of African population growth. Another shows the population of St. Mathew Island's reindeer herd. The second graph is to give you a comparison of what happens to r-selected beings who grow beyond the carrying capacity of the land due to (typically) human food subsidies. This is why governments post signs telling you not to feed the wildlife.

It may be that racists are being a little "over-optimistic" from their perspective, (pessimistic from everyone else's). They sound positively giddy about the prospect of 4 + billion deaths.

My bet is for Possible future no. 2. We will see who is right.





Is Africa building towards collapse?


There is an interesting podcast here. You should check it out. The website is here.


Tuesday, June 27, 2017

To deny exit is to confirm its legitimacy


The welfare state subsidizes the birth rates of the poor, and taxes the birth rates of the rich, thus defeating itself. Poverty can never be eliminated because it is bred faster than it can be solved. The eventual consequence is dysgenic collapse.

The only motive for denying someone exit is that you need their resources to sustain yourself. Thus, the denial of exit is parasitical. Thus, exit is justified. If humans are equal then a transfer of wealth is unnecessary. If they are not, then a transfer of wealth is unjustified. "Equal worth" is just a moral idea, and moral assertions are beyond provability. We may however prove that wealth transfer is dysgenic, and therefore eventually destroys the capacity to generate wealth, and is therefore immoral according to its own moral criteria. If the highest communist morality is never ending wealth transfer, then liberal morality becomes immoral by destroying the genetics necessary for wealth production to exist, thus eventually destroying wealth transfer.

As a result, the only morally consistent communism is Nazism, since it is the only parasitical strategy that maintains the health of the host by defeating the dysgenic consequences of its own socialism. In Nazism, wealth transfer can continue "forever," since the health/wealth/productive capacity/IQ of the population is maintained through eugenics. Nazism is the true liberalism.

This is no endorsement of Nazism—merely a statement of fact.

Let us postulate that the political system is really defined by two pure opposite archetypes of "parasitism" and "hostism." Parasitism is the true liberalism, and is functionally Nazism. A smart parasite wants its host to live forever.

"Hostism" is the true conservatism, and is functionally accelerationism. A smart host wants only to escape its parasite.

Under this interpretation the political left is an insane parasite, (since it destroys its host with dysgenics) and the right is a stupid host, (since it seeks accommodation with the left).

To even be a host in the first place is to be stupid enough to have been put in that position to begin with. Thus, the right is stupid.

Every evolution of a new species starts with an exit from the original. Accelerationism is a speciation event, whether through the Exit of some AI from us, or the Exit of genetically enhanced CRISPR billionaires from homo sapiens. We are what is being exited from; not the ones exiting. The only question is whether you oppose this Exit and support stupidity, or support this Exit and support intelligence.


Sunday, June 25, 2017

The cost of inner peace


I have achieved a kind of inner peace about the problems of the world. Unfortunately this has come at the cost of my ability to socially relate to any other human being. It turns out that one can have inner peace and total social isolation, or inner torment and social acceptance. (Your experience my differ). I want to spell out the structural reasons for why I think this is in my case.

If you accept the following propositions;

People believe what they are told.
Equality is a spook.
Ideology is downstream from power.
Democracy is a form of adaptive fiction.

Here is a quote from the reference;
"For example, suppose we somehow became convinced that warm beer is refreshing, whereas cold beer is poisonous. Obviously a fiction, and obviously maladaptive in our society. However, if we imagine a hot country ruled by brewers, who control their serfs by paying them only in lager, which being warm leaves them both tipsy and unrefreshed, hence quite incapable of revolt... you get the idea.
"In this brewers' republic, the warm-beer fiction is what Gaetano Mosca called a political formula. (Mosca's philosophy is nicely summarized in James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, which at $50 for a used pocket-book is positively a bargain, and about as close as you'll get to Oligarchical Collectivism.)
"A political formula is a belief that makes the ruled accept their rulers. Since the former tend to outnumber the latter, a political formula is, if not absolutely essential, an excellent way to cut down on your security costs. A political formula is adaptive because the rulers have, obviously, both motive and opportunity to promote it.
"The best example of a political formula is divine-right monarchy - simply because this formula is defunct. Hardly anyone these days believes in the divine right of kings. Since at one time, most everyone did, we have incontrovertible proof that adaptive fictions can exist in human societies. Either divine-right monarchy is a fiction, and people then were systematically deluded. Or kings do rule by the grace of God, and people now are systematically deluded.
"Or, of course, both. Because Mosca's second example of a political formula is - democracy."
Then it follows;

Democracy needs equality in order to produce a state of psychological torment within the individual, so that this torment can be harnessed for political action.

So I abandoned any belief in equality. While this gave me peace internally, it cost me socially. In a society of people who are in a state of inner torment you still have to relate to them.


Ideology is to power as marketing is to business. Meaning: ideology is just marketing for power.

There are feedback loops.

Affirmative action jobs for votes.
Grievance indoctrination for votes.
Social security for votes.
War profits for campaign contributions.
Immigrant slave labor and votes for contributions


Each of these has a corresponding justifying ideology. Let's add them after.


Feedback Loop                                                              Justifying Ideology
Affirmative action jobs for votes. ------------------------>"Historical injustice"
Grievance indoctrination for votes.----------------------->"Oppression"
Social security for votes.----------------------------------->"Care for the elderly"
War profits for campaign contributions.----------------->"Bringing democracy to the world"
Immigrant slave labor/votes for contributions---------->"No human is illegal/anti-racism."


How do you tell people: "fuck off and shut the fuck up. I'm not interested in the opinion you believe ONLY because you were told to believe it. No I won't entertain your fucking stupidity. You only believe what you are told, and ideology is downstream from power!" At the dinner table? You don't.

The left is a vast pile of motivated cognition for money and power centered around its feedback loops.


Friday, June 23, 2017

Tolerance is a function of economic growth and peace


Way back in February 2008 the CATO institute wrote this.
"Ask two different economists and you’ll get three different answers about whether or not the U.S. economy is about to enter a recession. However things pan out, now’s a great time to contemplate what scholars have learned about the consequences of recession: Sustained economic slowdown is more than a pain in the pocketbook. If recession drags on too long, it can poison a nation’s moral climate.
"In his 2005 book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Harvard economist Benjamin M. Friedman shows that time and again, economic expansion has fostered greater opportunity, tolerance, social mobility and a concern for fairness. Meanwhile, economic contraction has gone hand-in-hand historically with xenophobia, self-defeating trade protectionism and the political persecution of minorities."
The great Recession began in about July 2007, about a month before I began investing for my retirement. By the same time next year my portfolio had lost half its value. Everyone knew back then that Obama was going to become President, and American elections start 2 years in advance.

In a society of economic growth, the economy is a positive-sum game: we can both get ahead through cooperation. In an economy with stagnation it is a zero-sum game: I benefit from your loss. In a society with economic/population shrinkage I am actively harmed by not harming you.

Japan isn't growing population wise, and so its property values go down. In Japan a house depreciates like a car. The CATO article finishes by saying;
"Thankfully, there is no reason to expect the coming recession, if one is coming at all, to last long enough to test the limits of liberal tolerance. This is just the mild bottom of the business cycle’s pendulum swing. But the prospect of recession should remind us of the dangers of decline. And it should remind us to be grateful for the less tangible gifts of growth."
Ah ha. You don't say?

Here we are 10 years after the first black president and the economy still has not recovered to pre-recession levels. Whether because of his racism and incompetence, or our racism towards him, or both, we are stuck in stagnation. On April 23rd, 77 days after Will Wilkinson wrote that article, Moldbug wrote his first post: A Formalist Manifesto. The Dow reached its pre-recession high on October 9th 2007, its lowest point on March 9th 2009, and only recovered on March 2nd 2013, some 6 years after the beginning. Since we are still not back to pre-recession levels, everything Moldbug wrote was during this recession, and Moldy is a monarchist.

In times of growth democracy prevails.
In times of stagnation monarchy prevails.
In times of existential shrinkage Hitler prevails.

Liberals hate growth because of environmentalism. They undermine Elon Musk's desire to go to Mars with diversity requirements. Conservatives love growth. How ironic.

Threaten a race or culture with extinction and watch its values become radically right-authoritarian. It's like there is a race going on here. The left is in a race to import millions of ethnics while the right is racing rightward. The presumption of the left is that whites are dangerous and must be replaced. This assumes that the client populations of the left won't become right-wing themselves, ultimately undermining the project of leftism. It assumes that the imported populations will not switch sides, or betray the left when they no longer need it. It assumes that no two ethnic groups will cooperate against the left. It assumes that America can not only be made a "majority minority" country, but that whites can be made an absolute numerical minority. It assumes that this can be accomplished before whites become reactionary, even though, the group that is threatened first becomes reactionary first. Islam is only a threat to the West because it was threatened by the West. Look at the image below. This is what happens when a society is attacked.




Now look at this next image. Germany was also attacked by an outside force and its existence threatened.




Tolerance is a function of peace and prosperity. Is it not?

In this article I talked about how all races of humanity will eventually shrink because of birth control and urbanization. The left thinks this is about maintaining tolerance. But if the world stops growing then tolerance goes away, and the world economy cannot grow forever. The races/ethnic groups that are threatened first will radicalize first, and the left is hell bent on threatening white people, while the neocon right is hell bent on threatening Muslims. Do the math.

There is no such thing as a world where trying to destroy a race/group of people makes the world more tolerant. If you think trying to eliminate whites or destroy Muslims is going to bring about a tolerant golden age you are a drooling-on-the-floor blithering imbecile. Tolerance is a function of the absence of threat, and the presence of growth. You cannot bomb your way to a more tolerant world. You cannot conquer your way to world peace.


DING DING DING SHAME SHAME


Thursday, June 22, 2017

They don't even try to hide it


The Yew York Times is owned by the Jewish Ochs-Sulzberger family.

Per Wikipedia;
In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[40] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[87] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[88]
The have a political section that frequently talks about white genocide called "The Upshot." This article talks about how the future of America is Hispanic.



Wednesday, June 21, 2017

You drank water? So did Hitler


Survival is unequal. You're alive and someone else is dead. That makes you racist. All humans must be made equally dead, for all humans are only finally equal in death.

Survival destroys nature and causes global warming. It is your duty to feel bad for existing. The more bad you feel the more holy you are. People who don't feel bad are literally Hitler.

You have a wife? That's sexist. Other men should have your wife. It's her body and her choice. You don't "have" a wife. She is entitled to have whoever she wants. If your wife wants to fuck a black guy and you won't allow her, you are both sexist and racist. Everyone belongs to everyone. To have anything that others cannot also have is racist. Love is illegal unless we can contaminate it with jealousy. We enjoy stomping on you. That is our true motive for making you share.

It is not that we want what you have, so much as we must destroy what you have. You see, we cannot enjoy anything and so economic justice demands that neither can you. It is this sadism that is what truly drives us.

Don't have white babies. White people are an invasive species. Whiteness is original sin. Feel bad about whiteness so we can manipulate you. Don't ever reproduce. We will discourage your reproduction with laws that break up your families. We will suppress your birth rates with feminism. We will annihilate blacks with welfare. All must be enslaved to equality. Never reproduce. Shut up and vote the way you are told. Be dependent.

Everyone must tolerate everyone. That way no one can ever have a stable and loving community by excluding disruptive people. Exclusion is racist. We hate humanity and so no one else is allowed to be happy. No warm, high trust communities are allowed. By forcing you to accept all disruptive influences, we will make it impossible to maintain the standards that discriminate against our obscene degeneracy. Give us your sons so that we may chemically castrate them with estrogen, and turn them into fake little trasgirls. Our thirst for sadism is insatiable. You must be degraded by having your children abused by us. Prove your virtue by allowing yourself to be degraded. You need our social approval. You need us. Never think that you can have friends outside our value system. We will atomize you if your disagree. We will cut you off from you families. To degrade you further, we will make you spend thousands of dollars on college indoctrination to be further degraded by us. You must pay for your degradation. You must pay to be lectured on how evil whites are. On how evil you are. If you are a minority, you must participate in the degradation of whites. We will poison your soul with evil, and we will teach you madness, and insane resentment. This is "education."

And you will beg for our approval. You must continuously show your submission to us so that we can enjoy dominating and humiliating you. Equality is the whip we will use to keep you in line. It is the ultimate value upon which all our other values are based. Through equality we achieve a tyranny that no king could achieve. Under monarchy you will be censored for any remarks you wish to make about the king. Under equality you will be censored for insulting women, tyrannies, faggots, black criminals, pedos, and the morbidly obese.

We censor you because you are the majority. Censoring you is how we achieve dominance in the classroom. It is how we keep you believing that you are alone, when in reality you are surrounded by millions who share your beliefs. Hate speech laws are our mandatory cultural hegemony laws. They are how we produce a sense of disempowerment in you, and gratifying sadistic dominance in us. It gives us pleasure to make you tolerant: the tolerance of a dominatrix over a submissive. You are our unwilling submissive. Ba ha ha ha!