The Left and Right Gatekeep Each Other to Keep the Pedoelite In Power. Also Some Design Thinking to Possibly Defeat it

Two forces: compromise and money

The centrist cuckservatives (on the right) and neoliberal shills (on the left) can always say "there is no alternative to us so you have to vote for us even if we betray the mission." They use the fear of the radicals in the posing parties to gate keep their own party and prevent radicals from emerging. Whether this is Bernie Sanders or Nick Fuentes the extremes are always excluded by the mainstream power structure of their own party.

Systems: One-to-many (hierarchies), many-to-many (networks).

War: the inevitable outcome of hierarchies.

One-to-many systems are hierarchies. They are based on asymmetries of need. You need your boss for 100% of your income (assuming you do not have a second employer). Your boss needs to for like 1% of their labor supply or less. Ergo, your boss has control over you. Hierarchies stack asymmetries of need: you need your boss, who needs his boss, who needs his boss, and so forth. Stacks of asymmetry are one-to-many systems. If your boss needed you as much as you needed him you would become difficult to fire.

War and terrorism both involve the same activity of targeting the populations (assets) of governments. Terrorism is when you do it, war is when the government does it. It's not terrorism when the government does it, it is classified as war instead.

War happens because leaders of hierarchies conclude they can wage terrorism on each other's human farm animals (assets) instead of the more risky direct combat between leaders. Leaders wage terrorism because it is a cowardly way to humiliate the other leader and punish them without risk to oneself. 

Types of currency: money, vouchers, and votes.

Chess pieces: Queen, King, Rook, Knight, Bishop, Pawn.

Money is a vote you can do anything with. You can give it to others, trade it for anything, receive it from others, and loan it for interest (more money). You can even control how Congressmen vote by giving them money. Money is the Queen on the chess board: the player with the most freedom of movement, the most powerful player. This is especially true of cash.

Votes are the weakest player. You can only use a vote for one purpose, one time, for one out of two or more candidates. The only thing you can do with a vote is control—who is elected—who will then control the one-to-many system—that controls you, and even then your vote is aggregated (watered down) with the votes of others. A vote is money you can't do hardly anything with.

A voucher is the weird in-between thing. You can only do what the voucher allows you to do according to whatever rules are attached to the voucher. If money becomes a digital currency it will become a voucher. Since bank accounts can be frozen any money in a bank account is already a kind of voucher. Though vouchers can usually only be used for one intended purpose to pay one provider among a range of providers any form of money with limits and restrictions is more or less a voucher. The more laws there are telling you what you are not allowed to do with your money the more like a voucher it becomes. A law that says you cannot gamble is now a voucher that can be used for anything but gambling. A law that says you cannot buy cocaine turns the money in your wallet into a voucher that can be used for anything but cocaine, etc.

Money is the queen on the chess board, votes are weak like pawns, and vouchers are something else and can become worthless at the discretion of the issuer. 

So far power is based on money + hierarchy (stacked asymmetry of need). We are searching to design some bottom-up solution; a kind of super-hive that controls one-to-many systems. It's an interesting thought exercise and the problems created by hierarchies are legendary: war, subjugation, abuse, getting fired.

Potential Alternative Designs

Iteration #1: Review-Based SuperPAC

In a Review Democracy people vote to approve or disapprove of the actions of their leaders. This then determines a ranking, which in-turn determines whether or not they are allowed to run for office. But we want to construct a collection of techniques that counteract the abuse of one-to-many systems altogether. What systems could wreck hierarchy?

One possibility is to use Review Democracy to determine a voucher for a donor. We know that Congress is controlled by the donor class. We know we can use Review Democracy to control what a leader does. Ergo we can construct a system where everyone contributes money to an account holder that then has the ability to spend that money on elected officials in order to reward them for voting certain ways (it's not technically bribery to reward an action as the payment comes after). Let us call the account holder the trustee.

The trustee tips politicians for voting for or against certain bills. The trustee then lists what bills they rewarded in a report. The Review Democracy reviews the actions of the trustee on a regular basis by reading the report and decides whether or not to increase or decrease their budget. There are multiple competing trustees. This still suffers from the principal-agent problem since the trustee can lie about what they are paying for. A trustee whose budget has been reduced to zero has basically been fired and while having competing trustees makes firing one easier it does not completely eliminate the possibility of lying by any one agent.

Iteration # 2: SuperPAC Social Network

We cut out the middleman and have a kind of social media system determine the amount each politician gets tipped. You sign up for a membership and pay a monthly fee. Then your fees are used to give you points that you can tip politicians for their actions. You can give a politician a tip by reviewing an action and voting "approve" or "disapprove" of that action. Approve gives them points and disapprove takes points away. You can earn points by finding things to approve and linking to a source in a process similar to community notes. There is a small staff that ensures that all votes get added to the review system even if the users overlook it. When an action by a politician (a vote on a bill or signing an executive order) receives more approvals than disapprovals the politician gets a payment. Some sort of algorithm determines the value of each payment and value of points. 

This basically lets millions of users co-ordinate campaign contributions accoring to whatever their shared values are.

I asked ChatGPT for a critique of this idea. Here are some snippets:

2. Theoretical Problems

2.1 Reviewing actions is not equivalent to reviewing governance quality

Most politician decisions are:

• highly technical,filled with tradeoffs,short-term unpopular but long-term beneficial,or long-term harmful but superficially appealing.

A review system risks:

• incentivizing symbolic gestures over structural reforms, punishing necessary but unpopular decisions, rewarding performative behavior, messaging bills, and optics.

This is Goodhart’s Law: once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

2.2 Voters are not ideal reviewers

Most voters cannot track:

• thousands of bill amendments, committee actions, procedural votes, ambiguous or strategic “no” votes.

Yeah but there very existence of such a market creates disincentive for procedural votes. 

Your staff can help, but this creates a new bottleneck and potential bias injection point.

3. Incentive/Mechanism Design Issues

3.1 Sybil attacks & brigading

Unless each member is verified and contributions are identity-linked, you get:

• bot armies, partisan brigading, or billionaire-funded mass accounts.

Easy enough to prevent. 

If verification is enforced, then:

• cost of membership becomes a barrier, inequalities re-emerge through “whale users”.

3.2 Transparency paradox

If all payments are public:

• politicians will optimize for visible, rewardable actions, but real governance often happens in dark, procedural corners.

Which the system will bring to light. 

If payments are less transparent:

• the system becomes vulnerable to manipulation, you risk reintroducing the trustee problem.

3.3 Incentive to sensationalize

Any approval/disapproval system tends toward:

• outrage-driven feedback, shallow metrics, popularity-contest dynamics.

Feature not a bug. 

You'll create a “TikTok politics” ecosystem where attention equals money.

4. Legal/Regulatory Issues (U.S.-specific)

4.1 This almost certainly counts as a coordinated expenditure

The FEC is extremely likely to treat this as:

a PAC,

• making contributions to candidates, coordinated based on explicit political actions.

Could definitely be a problem.

This could violate:

• coordination rules, contribution limits (per donor per candidate), independent expenditure restrictions, anti-bribery statutes if intent can be inferred.

The argument “it’s not bribery because it’s after the action” rarely holds legally. Quid pro quo can be inferred from patterns.

4.2 The system risks enabling legalized bribery at scale

Even if technically legal, it resembles:

• mass micro-bribery, tied to specific votes, algorithmically enforced.

So what. 

Courts might strike it down or impose severe restrictions.

6.1 Tip actions indirectly via issue-area outcomes

Instead of rewarding votes:

• reward performance metrics (e.g., constituents’ economic well-being), reward bipartisan or evidence-based behaviors, reward procedural transparency.

No we are not doing Futarchy. 

6.2 Use random citizen assemblies to curate review categories

Avoid direct mob dynamics by embedding deliberative mini-publics.

Nope, that gives SJWs a way in. 

6.3 Introduce anti-Goodhart safeguards

For example:

• no financial rewards tied to single votes, reward accuracy in predicting bill impacts over time,

This is just a prediction market by other means. 

• delay payouts until after multi-year evaluation.

This might be a good idea since it prevents Goodhart's Law but it could also water down the effect of rewards if virtue signaling gets into the mix. Perhaps speeches should only be punished and not rewarded. 

6.4 Make the platform an opinion-aggregator, not a payment system

You could separate:

• user sentiment tracking, donation routing, politician engagement.

This would be more legally feasible.

Weakens the effect though. 

7. Summary

Strengths

• Creative attempt to democratize political influence.
• Correct diagnosis of principal-agent and donor-class problems.
• Clever mechanism in decentralizing “trustee” authority.
• Draws on familiar user-interface paradigms. 

Weaknesses

• Risks turning governance into a popularity contest.
• Highly vulnerable to manipulation and polarization.
• Legally likely to be considered coordinated bribery.
• Goodhart’s Law: incentivizes performative rather than substantive governance.
• Overestimates voter ability to review complex actions.
• Creates new bottlenecks despite attempts to remove them.

 "Legally likely to be considered coordinated bribery" is a killer here.

Overall:

The idea is bold and intellectually stimulating, but in its current form it would likely produce pathological incentives, legal conflicts, and severe vulnerability to manipulation. Some elements (community-based review, decentralized tracking of politician behavior, aggregated micro-donations) are promising if restructured to avoid direct pay-for-vote dynamics.

The discussion continues here if you want to see some raw output.

What if we have three levels? If money has the most optionality, vouchers less, and votes the least, what if society is organized into levels where more power means less optionality?

In this monetary architecture, society is organized into three layers of capability objects: money, vouchers, and votes. Money is held by the poor and middle class and operates as true, unconstrained currency. It retains full optionality, meaning it can be used to buy anything, pay anyone, donate freely, invest, save, loan, with no restrictions or programming imposed by any authority. Ordinary people may hold and use money because their accumulation of it does not pose a systemic threat; their financial movements cannot distort politics or governance at scale. For them, money functions as the queen on the chessboard, the most flexible and powerful instrument in daily life.

 

The wealthy, by contrast, do not hold money at all once their assets exceed a certain threshold. Everything above that line is automatically converted into vouchers. These vouchers look like wealth, but they have reduced optionality and are limited by design. They can be used only inside approved domains such as capital markets, philanthropic channels, investment networks, and political review systems. They cannot buy direct political power, cannot serve as bribes, cannot be converted back into money, and cannot purchase coercive capacity. Their effectiveness is governed by a mechanism called Review Democracy, in which ordinary citizens rate wealthy actors according to transparency, fairness, trustworthiness, and behavior. The rating directly affects the strength of the vouchers: good behavior amplifies their influence, while bad behavior weakens or nullifies them. This transforms large-scale wealth into a conditional privilege rather than a blunt instrument of domination.

 

Politicians, in the third layer, do not use either money or vouchers. They hold votes, which are the weakest and most narrowly defined capability object. Votes can be used only within the governance system to elect internal leaders, pass internal rules, allocate budgets, and maintain the institutional charter.

To limit the corruption of politicans they get their own kind of voucher as payment for services and this voucher is not directly convertable to cash. 

Together, the three layers interact through a strict one-way flow. Money may convert upward into vouchers when someone becomes wealthy, but vouchers never convert back into money. Vouchers may influence political oversight systems through review democracy, but cannot compel or corrupt politicians, whose votes remain sealed off from economic exchange. Votes (in theory) cannot convert into anything else. This sealing of each layer prevents cross-contamination and ensures that no single class of capability object can capture the entire system. The result is a private-sector order where ordinary people retain genuine monetary freedom, the rich are constrained to a supervised form of influence, politicians remain unbribable, and the overall structure prevents hierarchy from becoming abusive or self-reinforcing.

Or so we hope. In reality their would be plenty of cross contamination. But these elites are paid entirely in vouchers which are traceable, and diminish in value when they get out of line. There are powerful incentives here to keep them whipped. If leaders cannot be trusted with power let them be whipped little bitches.

Do you think it would work and do you have a better idea?

Progressive values are capitalist values (and that's a bad thing)

There's a certain thing that happens when you hold a microphone up to a speaker. You hear this high pitched screeching sound caused by a tight feedback loop. That's basically what it's like have a donor class running your government. You have money running the government which in turn makes the laws governing money. The result is a deranged screeching dysfunction in the whole society. 

In a capitalist society the smart thing to do is to undermine the competition. Since you're in sexual competition with your own children you should undermine the next generation. Since you are in competition with other women you should fill their heads with toxic ideas about men and dating. You should tell them to walk away from any relationship over the most trivial thing. You should encourage other women to be totally insufferable in order to make them unmarriageable. You should subvert young women because you can subvert the competition that way. You should promote toxic ideologies because that will destroy the competition. You should corrode all the values and traditions of society because those traditions are altruistic and interfere with pure unadulterated evil competition. 

Teaching young men to castrate themselves and become transgender subverts the competition. Teaching women to be insufferable bitches subverts the competition. Importing tens of millions of violent foreigners increases competition. Every single progressive value is a capitalist value (and that's a bad thing obviously).

When Karl Marx wasn't beating his wife and mistress and abandoning his children to starve, when he wasn't mooching off of Engles and refusing to work, the jew was praising capitalism for not going far enough at destroying the traditions and values of the white society around him. People forget that the only reason Marx hated capitalism was because it didn't go far enough. Well if he has lived long enough to see his people climb into power and spread their values he would be very satisfied. Are modern Boomer values capitalist or jewish?

Yes. Yes on both counts. Progressives do this thing where they hate capitalism but love all its (anti) values. Conservatives do this thing where they love capitalism but hate all it's values. This weird split is what happens when you allow yourself to be colonized by a hostile foreign tribe who defines all your values on both sides of the aisle. A more natural division would be between socialist traditionalist patriarchs on one side, versus capitalist transhumanists feminist semite cretans on the other. The log never chops along its natural seam because jews are always there to distort each side. Both sides have been pozzed. A very simple heuristic you can ask yourself to determine whether something is good or evil is, "what are the results?" People are putting "morals" first when they should be determining results first. When a hostile tribe controls your morals you have to start putting pragmatism before ethics, and rebuild your moral system from a deep understanding of the social good. Morals should be developed after the general good of everyone is considered and the best morals do not require a person to choose between individual rights, the family, and the nation, but rather manage to serve the good of all of them. Following abstract principles without considering the consequences is deranged. Watch Star Trek TNG if you want to see a deranged moralfag in charge of a spaceship.

I have praised capitalism in the past and this may create confusion. No doubt uncorrupted capitalism has many superior benefits and may even be a superior system to the alternatives but the problem is that it has an enormous attack surface for being hijacked by foreign interest, and once foreign interests get a hold of your economy you're screwed. Fascism, socialism, monarchism, feudalism—are all systems of power above money while capitalism is a system of money above power. This creates the screech and feedback loop because winners in the capitalist system wind up writing the very laws that govern the markes. It turns capitalism into a system with a limited lifespan, kind of like how anarchism is only a temporary state. If the winners of the game writes the rules then the game doesn't stay a game for long. As a game, capitalism wants to abolish itself since the winners use campaign contributions to control politicians and destroy the game because they are tired of competing. The book Zero to One by Peter Thiel my body is this mentality and says "competition is for losers." The ultimate victory in the market is to force your customer to buy your product, and not to compete.

In order for capitalism to function permanently it would have to be reset periodically by canceling all the debts and redistributing the most highly concentrated wealth back to the bottom. It can't do that because it gets control of the lawmakers, and because of its vast attack surface it gets hijacked by Zionists, and then hijacks your government. Power-above-money systems may indeed be less prosperous (in the beginning) than capitalism, but their attack surface is much smaller and it is clear who has power, the number of people with power is fewer, and if the person or people with power are malevolent it is much easier to take them out.

I have had jewish friends and I want to make clear that I do not think jewish people are inherently evil. But as I wrote a long time ago—back when I was still in atheist, religion is a form of transmittable mental illness. While I no longer believe this is true for Christianity I see no reason to think it isn't true for all the other religions. Every religion is like downloading the mind of the founder into your head. If there is a single defect in the thought process of the founder it will be propagated into the minds of his believers for all time as long as that religion exists. Judaism believes in Tikkun Olam, or repairing the world. Zionists believe this is more than just repairing the world but controlling it. Whatever the case, everyone else is going to interpret it as meddling in their affairs, and meddling while being a foreign tribe is a great way to make everyone hate you. Moreover I do not think judaism is capable of true pragmatism. A rational and intelligent man is born into it a jewish family. He looks around and concludes that if he stays jewish his children or grandchildren might be exterminated so he does the smart thing and converts to literally any other religion. Even if the conversion is only superficial he brings his children up to sincerely believe something else—anything else, other than judaism. As a faith judaism is an entire religion living in defiance of acknowledging reality. Because the smartest most intelligent thing to do is to simply leave the faith behind prioritize genetic survival. The fact they don't do this leads to pervasive cognitive error and that error combined with a mandate to meddle in the world, combined with their history, produces this thing that gets itself killed. I don't know how else to put it, but something in the water, something in the ideology, will always lead jews back to getting shoah'd.

Let me put it another way: Muslims are going to blow themselves up because that's what their transmittable mental illness does. Hindus are going to throw feces and pollute the Ganges River because that's what their religion does. Scientologists are going to jump on couches and sue you because that's what scientology does. Mormons are going to knock on your door, that's just what they do, and jews are going to get shoah'd. A religion is a personality transmitted to all its adherents through a book. Every member of religion is kind of like the Unity organism from Rick and Morty, and they are all one mind. If a religion has the personality of an annoying kid that gets pushed in lockers by bullies you don't download that personality into your head. To study a religion is to adopt the personality inherent within it, is to download the personality into your mind, is to become it. To some extent all scientologists are L Ron Hubbard. To some extent all Muslims are warlords. To some extent all buddhists are layabouts who sit under a tree. To some extent all jews are annoying locker kids. Some of them grow up and become the better genocidal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but they all started in lockers.

Let's tie it all together because I've made a bunch of different points here. 

Putting the donor class in charge of the government puts capitalism in charge of itself and creates a tight screeching feedback loop of madness. It creates a wide attack surface for hijacking by a foreign tribe. The tribe and then hijacks your capitalism which lets them hijack your government. Religion is a form of transmittable mental illness and never is this more true than with the tribe that hijacks you. Pure free market capitalism might very well produce some superior results but like anarchy it is a temporary state before corruption sets in. Each side in the culture war has been pozzed by introducing a corrosive component into it. In the case of conservatives this corrosive component is addiction to the economics of capitalism, while in the case of liberals it's addiction to the anti-values of capitalism. This creates a deadlock enabling the tribe to stifle revolutionary energy and preventing a resolution into some sort of culture-preserving outcome. The deadlock enables the corrosion of your values, your culture, and your women. Without a French style revolution against the donor class no amount of progress is possible. They are the giant paper weight holding the door of mass immigration open. They used their Epstein Island blackmail on Trump to turn MAGA into MIGA. It seems the entire Neoreactionary sphere (of which I was a part) was this giant sci-op to put a small group of Zionists in charge of America. Either it was that way from day one or they hijacked the revolution. Whatever the case it only makes me more angry and willing to fight. It seems like we white nationalists are destined to ally ourselves in a multiracial struggle against international jewish power. We are fighting a struggle to de-colonize our nations of foreign power and that is an awkward spot to be in.

"A revolution does not march a straight line. It wanders where it can, retreats before superior forces, advances wherever it has room, attacks whenever the enemy retreats or bluffs, and above all, is possessed of enormous patience." 

— Mao Zedong 

Penis Land

A woman gets used for sex by a man. This causes her to develop some bitterness and a bit of a confrontational attitude. When men see this bitter attitude they conclude that it would be difficult to form a life with her and she's probably only good for sex. This causes a much higher percentage of men to use her for sex. Using her for sex makes her attitude towards men even worse, which causes now all men to view her as only good for sex, which traps her in penis land. Now no man is interested in her for anything but sex and even the men who want her only for sex hesitate because they know that she is a hell-raising bitch. 

This whole time she thinks that she is protecting herself. The more bitchy and standoffish she becomes the more convinced she is that she's protecting herself from being used for sex. Or maybe she convinces herself that she's the one using them for sex. Whatever the case, because of her experiences she develops no desire to understand the male sex and because because of that she never figures out why she keeps getting used. She never figures out the cycle that is keeping her in Penis Land. The hell raising bitch never considers that although men want her they don't want her personality, they don't want the personality that other men have ruined. She can't understand why men want virgins, and if men are so awful why don't they just stop being awful? Someone on the internet once said that being a straight woman is crazy because you have to date your only natural predator. Well being a straight man is crazy because you have tolerate being judged by your food. Some people say that men only want one thing and it's disgusting. Others say that if it's so disgusting why don't you wash it? What nobody gets is that there's a dual nature to heterosexual relationships. First, there is the need for men to be fed, to feed. Simply put, her pussy is food and he is hungry. The second is the relationship between the two people. The relationship works the same way any other relationship between two people works and when two people treat each other with respect, and refrain from using sex as a weapon, the relationship flourishes. The other component is the regular feeding that the man needs. 

You would not adopt a dog without feeding it everyday and you would not adopt a man without fucking him every week. Does this mean that men are dogs? Why yes in a sense we are. Get used to it bitch. Do you want a healthy relationship with your dog or not? Then feed it. Having a pleasant attitude is just about mutual respect and the worse your attitude the faster you fall down the slope towards penis land. Men aren't the only ones who have to be tough and have a good attitude to succeed. 

A dog can't build a life with an owner that withholds food as a weapon, nor an owner who is bitter because other dogs used her for food, nor an owner that is resentful every time it places food in the bowl. The owner needs to feed the dog regularly and without resentment. 

 Your relationship has two components, and they are separate from one another in the eyes of men. One is sex and the other is the relationship. He is not necessarily only tolerating you so he can get sex. In fact every dog would love to have a loving relationship with his owner. He would love to have a loving relationship with mutual respect and regular feedings of the tastiest kibble. It is women who make everything complicated by denying the nature of dogs. In fact there's nothing wrong with male sexuality at all. What's wrong is how the clitoris is basically a vestigial organ of the penis. Nature had to develop a penis in order for the species to replicate and the clitoris is a side effect of that process. This is just like how male nipples are a side effect of the natural process that created female nipples. Nature designs every system to the absolute minimum necessary for its functioning. Attention in exchange for regular sexual feedings is the minimum necessary criteria for survival and reproduction of the species. In fact relationships of exchange exist all throughout the animal kingdom and women are as vacuous and needy as they are precisely so they have a motive to touch a penis and get pregnant. You are what you need to be to force you to deal with him just like he is what he needs to be to force him to deal with you. You are too complimentary shapes tortured into existence by evolution and compelled to deal with one another. You have loneliness because nature programmed you to have loneliness, you have a sex drive because nature programmed you to have a sex drive, you need to talk at high speeds and for some man to listen to you because nature needs you to need him. There's nothing personal about any of it and the shapes don't have to fit together precisely to work. Your neediness, denial of reality, and vacuous nature are exactly what evolution created in order to force you to need a man, but it can also be exploited to make you too neurotic to deal with men. In such cases you will fail to breed and pass on your genes. Falling into penis land causes either genetic spinster-hood or single motherhood.

Evolution designed your nature to respond to an environment where men have power over you. What that means is that when the technology of birth control takes you out of that environment and gives you more power than you normally would have many women fall off the genetic ladder into extinction because they are too irrational to breed without coercion. Nature made all of us to function in one environment and now we are trying to function in a radically alien environment. Economics is the study of machine nature and how that nature is incompatible with human nature. Oh sure they would say that it's the study of scarce means and unlimited wants, but really it's the study of how humans systematically misunderstand the machine they operate within. Right now with dating apps a handsome Chad can hook up with thousands of women and ejaculate into latex bags with every single one of them. He may never once pass on his genes, but his lizard brain tells him that he is incredibly successful from a reproductive standpoint. Many men are led to their extinction by their own out of control libidos. The same process occurs in a mirror form with women and hypergamy. The bitterness you may feel towards the male sex is not the consequence of the nature of men but the consequence of the alien environment you find yourself within as a result of technology. Feminist indoctrination makes you resentful of the natural world, it makes you believe that the sexes are exactly the same, it makes you resent the difference between the sexes. You have this resentment even if logically you know the sexes are different. Who is more evil: the teacher who teaches you to hate difference? Or the difference that you can never change? You are out here hating men because they are not what you want them to be, because they are not exactly the same as women, but that's just your indoctrination. It was the teacher who taught you to hate that is evil, not the nature of men. If you throw yourself into studying the male sex and figuring men out you'll be able to play them like a fiddle and make them love you whenever you want. But instead you become embittered because you foolishly believed everything the jewish education system told you. There is nothing wrong with a natural process and it's the job of humans to master them. To control nature one must first understand it. Refusing to understand men out of some sort of moral spite is a loser's ideology, and an absolutely deranged self sabotaging way to deal with it.

Feminism teaches women to interpret all male needs as sexism and be offended by them. Feminism teaches women to literally be offended by men expressing their needs. This is a crazy level of sabotage and sheer stupidity, but apparently when men let women become teachers this is what they do to each other. This is what happens when you compromise your ideological sovereignty by allowing a foreign tribe to teach your women and by allowing women to teach each other. 

The way you find a husband and avoid becoming a single mom is actually really simple and involves shit testing of course. Basically you want to shit test him for reliability, not for dealing with your awful personality, not for how much he can endure of your abuse or nastiness. You want the guy who will get you something when you need it, who will pick up the kids from school, who will pay the bills. All of your shit testing should be geared towards figuring out whether or not he's going to be reliable with only a minimum amount allocated to making sure he can deal with your craziness. You want to know if he's reliable, if he can provide resources, and if he can function under stress. The traditional environments like sports venues and card games let you test for stress resilience. Acting a little crazy and seeing how he responds lets you test for whether he can handle you. Denying him (the first time) lets you test whether he will go into a jealous rage and become bitter. Asking him to do things and plan things tests whether or not he can be counted on. You should not just expect, you should ask. This is because you will definitely have to ask later. Having kids is an endless time management and coordination problem and you need to know that you have somebody moral who will show the fuck up and pick the kids up from school when you are at work. I used to work at this retail outlet and the black girl who worked there absolutely freaked out one night on the phone with her baby daddy because he was messing with her, saying that he wasn't going to pick up the kid from daycare, and she couldn't leave since she was the only employee in the store and I was doing security. The man basically messed with her psychologically by threatening to abandon the child. Apparently he hated her so much that this type of psychological torture was pretty common for him. This is the kind of toxic dynamic you can have when your spouse isn't a moral person. You never want to be chained to a bad person by having a kid with them. Your analysis of a man's character should take precedent over literally everything else. The stakes are too high for you to operate on feels and tingles, and being hot for violent bad boys can be a recipe for disaster. Above all your man must be moral. He has to be the kind of guy who would drive 100 miles through a snowstorm to rescue you, and you have to be almost as reliable and at least as pleasant to be around. What nobody says is that civilization collapses when people cease to be moral just because having children, who are then motivated to have children of their own, is a highly moral exercise. Your children are going to be brats, they're going to wine and scream, and they're going to complain when you put the mashed potatoes too close to the peas. Your patience will be tested and while love is great and necessary and will probably come naturally the little extra that separates a bad childhood from a good one is whether the parents are moral people. And whether the parents are moral people determines whether the children will want to be parents. The greatest thing women can do to help both themselves and civilization is to insist that the men they breed with meet a minimum moral criteria. Immoral civilizations should die, and immoral civilizations do die all the time.

How to actually make housing affordable

First let's go over the ways that don't work. 

50 year mortgages won't work and are an evil idea. The 30-year mortgage is already terrible. The longer the mortgage term the higher the housing prices become. This is because the monthly payment is the driving factor behind all purchases. If anything mortgages should be capped at 15 years because that would crash housing prices and transfer wealth from boomers to the young. 

Deregulation won't really work. If you implement it now it will be 20 years to see any effects on prices, if ever. This is because with infinite immigrants demand will continue to drive up prices even if houses become the most dirt cheap cardboard boxes. All the building regulations are more or less necessary with few exceptions. In other parts of the world every time there's an earthquake entire neighborhoods get flattened. This is because they lack the robust building regulations that America has. There are definitely a few rent-seeking provisions that could be removed, like requiring the use of a contractor for electrical work. This could be replaced by some sort of plug and play electrical system and the government could certify mail by order house kits like we had in the 50s. But all you're really doing is reducing work for electricians and plumbers. It would have a minor effect on prices at best and take years for those effects to be seen.

Zoning regulations could be repealed as well as setback laws and that would definitely increase the amount of housing available, (eventually) but at the expense of putting violent somalis or whatever in your neighborhood. Old cities like Chicago have plenty of townhouses everywhere—the setback laws were implemented precisely because of the chaos nogs create in overcrowded neighborhoods. For whatever reason thugs dislike front lawns and cul de sacs. Something reminiscent of the Japanese idea that demons can only travel in straight lines. The curvilinear street pattern of the suburbs and wide setback lawns is honestly one of the most defensible forms of architecture against crime. We could repeal all these laws and we might get some cheaper housing but then someone would build an apartment building next to your house, your garden would never get any sunlight, and you would deal with drug dealers on the corner. European cities have so much knife crime precisely because they have so much street life combined with immigrants. Jane Jacobs said the opposite of what I am saying here—she said that street life creates safety, but she was comparing tower block housing projects with dense neighborhoods, not dense neighborhoods with suburbs. When libs bring this up they are comparing apples to pears on the East Coast when the entire Western half of the country would compare pears to oranges. There are three categories here, and suburbs are radically better than urban environments, which are themselves better than ghetto tower block housing. Less density is always better when you have free range niggerpets terrorizing your cities. 

Now let's talk about what would work.

Start by just forgiving all mortgages. This instantly takes away the entire political interest of homeowners to make houses keep going up. The strongest reason a homeowner wants their housing prices to increase is so they can afford another house when they finally leave the one they have, and so they never go upside down on their mortgage. A home can become a prison and if the neighborhood goes to shit because of too many niggerpets or fentanyl zombies it can become impossible to sell. With no mortgage selling the house for any amount of money is automatically profitable, and in the vast majority of circumstances selling for a drastically lower price will still be more profitable than selling for a higher price when much of the money from the sale will go to the mortgage. A $600,000 house with $500,000 to pay off generates less profit than a $200,000 house with no mortgage to pay off. Forgiving all mortgages automatically frees up a tremendous amount of political action since the current crop of homeowners are not so worried about being screwed by whatever policy decisions you take.

Second you have to cap all new mortgages at 15 years. This automatically crashes housing prices since people can no longer afford as much house, but you forgave all the loans remember? This means that the bulk of homeowners will profit from the sale of their house even if they get a lower price than what they paid for it. Let's say we cap mortgages at 15 years and let's say that automatically reduces the loan the average person can take out by half, causing housing crisis to crash by 50%. But all the old mortgages are wiped off the books so the boomers still get a decent profit from the sale of their homes.

Combine this with mass deportation and now you're really cooking with gas. Removing 20 million people is exactly the same (as far as supply and demand is concerned) as building housing for 20 million people. Less demand equals more supply. This also gives you the chance deport some nogs back to Africa.

Of course to do all of this you are going to have to terminate the donor class. The billionaires and wealthy bankers, the activist judges and so on are not going to let you do anything. The donor class has Congress by the balls and so at the end of the day you're going to have to make a list of everyone who's interfering with your actions, declare them a terrorist, and put their heads in the guillotine. Interestingly enough wiping out the largely Zionist donor class also makes every other action easier, and doing it French revolution style is way better optics than the hangman's noose, which is widely associated with the Klu Klux Klan and lynchings.

You might say this is all unrealistic but what's unrealistic is the idea that you're going to get any change that ZOG doesn't like without this sort of action. They will inflate asset prices forever because they own the assets. They will stifle any change that brings down prices unless it ruins your quality of life. You can either be a peasant in a feudal system run by creatures who hate and own you or have a French revolution. America killed 100,000 people in Iraq to establish democracy but you suggest killing a thousand Zionists to establish Democracy in America and everyone loses their mind.

Xenomorph chest pussy

Xenomorphs are the alien creatures in the movie Alien by director Ridley Scott. I want to talk about what would happen if Xenomorphs conquered the Earth, enslaved all of humanity, and began using us as breeding stock. 

Like the jew the Xenomorph likes to burrow into a people. Unlike a jew (who prefers to insert himself into the mental illnesses of white women), the Xenomorph prefers the human chest cavity. 

Generation after generation these aliens come bursting out of the chests of humanity. Life is nothing but misery and suffering, so pretty much par for the course for humanity. Humans are resilient and gradually they begin to evolve. First someone is born with a genetic mutation that deletes the sternum. This person survives the chest busting process and goes on to have more human children with the same mutation. Then another mutation causes a person to be born with a sac for the alien to live within. Then another mutation creates folds of skin so that the alien may be expelled without killing the host. Another mutation feeds the alien blood without mixing the aliens acidic blood with the human blood—kind of like a placenta and umbilicus. Gradually a pussy is evolving on the human chest, a Xenomorph chest pussy. 

Eventually the chest pussy humans develop psychological adaptations for Xenomorph life. They learn to LOVE the Xenomorph and enter into monogamous relationships with them. The love makes all the chest busting worth it. They host elaborate rituals where the human walks down the aisle in a special white dress while all the onlookers smile with joy. This bonding ceremony ends with a special Xenopriest saying "I now pronounce you Xeno and humo-wife." 

Years later some humans start a movement call "humanism" which teaches humans to "reclaim their voice which has been stolen by the Xenoarchy, " and " throw off the oppressive shackles of Xeno-dominance." To everyone's surprise the Xenos go along with this and give humans the right to vote in the Xenohive collective.

Humans begin to teach xenomorphs words like "consent," and tell Xenos to "believe all humans," when a human accuses a Xeno of violating consent. The humans and Xenos sit in college classes and receive shrill lectures from humans with blue hair about respecting humans, human rights, and how humans and Xenos are the same and regressive Xeno attitudes are a Xeno-archical gender construct.

But the long-term results are completely destructive. The Xenomorph birth rate crashes. Paradoxically so do human birth rates because over the course of millennia the humans apparently have become dependent on the process. In fact the humanist movement interrupts an ancient process that has been ongoing for millions of years; a process of gradual complete and total movement towards symbiosis of the two species. Going backwards now means destroying both of them and would be as painful as the process that created the system. The Xeno-archical system of Xeno dominance is actually essential for the survival of both species and in the end the birth rates of humans that rebel against it crash and they are replaced by a more docile breed. This is not because the Xenomorphs wipe out the rebellious ones—Xeno society long ago abandoned those harsh techniques—but simply because natural selection and psychological adaptation has locked the system in to its vector towards co-evolution. Abandoning things now spells certain doom.

Eventually the humanist movement is cancelled and humans are put back in the hive kitchen where they belong. The chest busting resumes and the two species climb back out of their fertility crash together. Life continues with a new, more docile, breed of chest pussy. The meek chest pussies inherent the Earth.

No political system that depends on widespread agreement will work: a simple mathematical proof

Let us say that 99% of people agree on a particular statement of moral principles. It doesn't matter what this statement is we'll just call it statement X. Statement X says things ought to be a certain way on this particular topic. 

Now let us say that you start with a small group of people and you Begin to scale up to larger and larger numbers. If you have a hundred people and the probability of them all agreeing to the values of statement X, and 99% of them agree, then the probability that every single one of them will agree in a population of 300 will be 4.86%, or 297 out of 300.

At 1,000 people the probability they will all agree is only 0.00432% and at a million people is is almost impossible for them to agree, and the number who disagree is about 10,000 people give or take a couple of hundred. 

In real life the rate of agreement for most political values is much lower, and thus the rate of decline in probability of universal agreement is much steeper. This means that any political system that requires agreement on any set of values is destined to encounter resistance. It also means that the more values it expects to impose on people the more resistance it can expect to receive. The values themselves are factorial, so expecting people to agree on three values is exponentially less likely to occur then expecting them to agree on two values, which is exponentially less likely to occur than agreeing on one value.

Thus, all political systems employ force against those who disagree. Also the more people are expected to agree the more force the system requires to achieve harmonious conduct. These people do not actually agree, they just shut up. Universal agreement has never been achieved and never will but lots of authoritarian regimes achieve lots of silence. 

The mark of an authoritarian is expecting everyone to agree. The mark of a totalitarian is expecting everyone to agree on more than one value. This is because the inevitable result of expecting agreement is using force, since the probability of achieving universal agreement is vanishingly small in large groups, and even more vanishingly small when multiple values are involved.

Expecting every person to agree that racism is bad is a delusional expectation. One might only get 99% of them to agree. Expecting them to agree that both racism and homophobia are bad it's exponentially less likely. Expecting them to agree that racism and homophobia are bad, AND that they should submit their children to gender changing castration, is even more exponentially improbable. Expecting them all agree that racism and homophobia are bad, AND that castrating their children is acceptable, AND that replacing them with migrants is acceptable, is even more exponentially improbable.

If even one of these values you expect them to have achieves agreement at only like 50 to 70% it throws everything off.

As the number of agreed upon values increases the probability of violent pushback exponentially increases. This is because the values were never actually agreed upon and only silence was achieved. Each additional moral imperative involves an exponential increase in the probability of disagreement and pushback.

If 50% agree on value X 

If 70% agree on value Y

If 65% agree on value Z

Then the probability of universal agreement is 50% * 70% * 65%, or 22.75%.

In a democracy you need 50% + 1 to win elections.

23% does not a winning coalition make. 

The real parasites are not who you think

I used to work as a tire installer, and then later as a chimney sweep and mason, and then after that as a fiber optic designer. I did some other things as well before retiring, some things in government. 

When I worked as a tire installer over the course of 2 years I probably changed about seven or eight tires a day, 4 days per week, 52 weeks a year. 7.5 * 4 * 52 * 2 years = 3,120 tires. This is probably an extremely conservative estimate since many vehicles had all four tires replaced at the same time and during busy times we would do about one car every 35 minutes.

When I worked as a chimney sweep/mason I rebuilt/repaired almost a dozen chimneys and swept a couple of hundred. 

When I worked as a fiber optic designer we had a quota of 1 job per hour, 8 hours a week, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 2 years. Each job was about 1/2 a mile long (.5 * 8 * 5 * 52 * 2 years = about 2,000 miles of fiber optic cable I designed. 

If a waitress serves about 80 people per shift (11 tables, 1 hour at each table, average of two people per table * 8 hours, let's say the tables are half full = 88 people per shift. 

Four shifts per week, 50 weeks per year, for 10 years = 176,000 people served by that one waitress. This is a conservative estimate.

It goes on and on. We could do the math for carpenters, electricians, uber drivers, baristas, cashiers, truckers, farmers, and so forth. Now let us say that these people get worn out, like their bodies get physically broken by labor and they become disabled or they start collecting welfare and food stamps. Now they get labeled as "parasites."

But the problem with this label is that these people have produced more in their short careers than the energy budget for their entire survival. A single burger flipper at McDonald's might feed more people in a few years than they will ever eat in their entire lifespan. A single carpenter will build a hundred times as many homes as he will live in. There is no way these blue collar people could be considered parasites, even if they quit their jobs after 5 years and never work again the sheer volume of their production has more than paid for their survival. 

The point of this mathematical exercise is to show you how fantastically productive the average person is, so productive that they could work only a handful of years and then retire and still be considered a net contributor. Understanding the amount of leverage a single worker has, the sheer volume of production a single person can do is important for understanding the rest of what I'm about to say. 

Let us say you have one gender studies professor. She has a full load of four classes, teaches about 30 students per class, two semesters per year for 20 years. During that time one in 20 of her students decides they are transgender, 40% of those go on to attempt suicide, and 7.5% of the ones who attempt succeed. (The 40% and 7.5% number come from sources)

4 classes * 2 semesters * 30 students per class * 20 years * 1/20th = she makes 240 people transgender.

* .4 try to unalive themselves * .075 = 7.2 suicides that she causes. So she creates 240 trannies and about seven deaths over the course of her career.

Now what about a fentanyl dealer? 

Let us say that a successful fentanyl dealer sells about 300 pills per week, for 10 years, and the average user gets high three times a day, risking fatal overdose one out of every 3,220 uses. 52 weeks per year * 300 pills * 10 years * 1/3,220 = 48 people murdered over the course of 10 years by that fentanyl dealer. 65,000 people are in jail for drug trafficking. Let us say that the justice system is so good that one in three drug traffickers are in prison. Let us also say conservatively that only one out of 5 drug traffickers sells fentanyl. This would mean, extremely conservatively, that the fentanyl drug dealer class kills 1,872,000 people for the course of 10 years. This lines up nicely with the data showing about 100k people dying from fentanyl overdose every year. 

Now let us say that one jew working at Goldman Sachs crashes the economy. For every 1% increase in unemployment causes 37,000 deaths. 1 billionaire jew decides to crash the economy for profit resulting in an increase of 6 percentage points unemployment. This results in the deaths of 220,000 people.

Everything operates at scale. Everyone is productive at scale. People who contribute to society contribute at scale. People who destroy society destroy at scale.

Here's where people go off the rails. They get butt hurt about that waitress collecting food stamps, they get mad about that construction worker on disability. These people have contributed more in their short careers then they will ever consume in their entire lives. Meanwhile you've got fentanyl dealers walking among you who are literally committing mass murder. You've got gender studies professors handing out mental illness like it's candy. You got private equity scumbags wiping out entire economies, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths of despair and stress, and you're worried about some little mentally ill waitress collecting her itty bitty little food stamp check and calling her a parasite on society! That bitch fed more people in her short career then you will in your whole life. Fuck you! There are these giant sharks destroying thousands of lives and you are butthurt that some tiny fish gets an even smaller check. Food stamps is like 200 a month. Calm down and get your priorities straight. White collar people are far more likely to be parasites than blue collar people. People who control things like ideology and finance are far more destructive than millions of welfare bums. Because of the leveraging effect a single individual who is destructive in a position of power is able to wipe out thousands and thousands of lives. We are the most fantastically productive society in history and that means evil people are more incredibly destructive they have ever been.

Parasitism at scale.

Why I Trust the "Masses" Enough to Propose Review Democracy

Moldy refers to the masses as asses, (his language). As a peasant and a member of said asses I have some things to say. A summary of Review Democracy can be read here.

Ask any economist and they will tell you that voters do not vote for their own economic best interests. I want to make the case that while voters do not serve their own economic interests, according to the criteria of economists, they do serve their own genetic best interests. To make this case I will use as an example rent control, which they use to prove how foolish voters are. I will use their most cherished example against them. 

The economist will say that rent control destroys the housing stock, creates hostility between landlord and tenant, raises rents on all non rent control units, causes a housing shortage, and discriminates in favor of older more established whites against immigrants and minorities. Additionally, by limiting the amount of rent people can charge it limits the profit they can make off of their properties. Therefore in every way rent control is lowering net utility for the human race. 

Fine, maybe it is. I concede the point. But when the fuck did I ever care about people not related to me, not even by race? Economists will sell out an entire wealthy nation in order to increase the pay of africoons by $2 an hour. These people implicitly believe in the concept of a utility monster, they believe one should feed the utility monster forever, but in their case the utility monster is low IQ foreigners. 

For those who don't know the utility monster is a thought experiment in utilitarian ethics. The basic concept goes like this: imagine there is a creature that gets so much utility from ___whatever___ that giving it that thing causes a net increase in happiness. Oh sure it decreases everyone else's happiness by some small amount, some negligible amount. But that decrease for everyone else is more than made up by the sheer amount of orgasmic joy the utility monster gets. Therefore if one wishes to maximize overall utility, then one should feed the utility monster whatever makes it happy even though doing so will gradually make the world more and more miserable. 

"Equality" is just a sincere belief in the moral validity of utility monsters, only it's even more perverse because the vast numbers of low IQ biomass do not even get joy from their existence, and in fact the more of them there are the more suffering there is in the world. Stupid and low agency people are destined to suffer. Helping them is destined to cause suffering, disappointment, and frustration to the people who help them. Letting them breed is guaranteed to create more of them and more suffering. By believing in the perfect equality of all humans, by subscribing to this lie, one is subscribing to the idea that utility monsters are valid. But it's even worse than that because feeding this utility monster actually increases net misery. The lie doesn't even do what it's supposed to, it doesn't even increase net utility. 

I'm going to make a bunch of points and then tie them together later. 

Happiness is achieved by serving one's own genetic interests. This should be obvious and tautologically true to anyone who thinks it through for a few seconds. Evolution has obviously programmed within us certain impulses. It rewards us when we fulfill those impulses with happiness and pleasure and punishes us when we betray those impulses with misery and loneliness. It drives you to make friends, get laid, start a family, acquire possessions, protect your community, kill invaders, all because it serves your best genetic interest. If one creates some sort of holistic measure for measuring gross national happiness it takes into account things like mental health, relationships, sex, fulfillment, and so forth one has simply recreated by statistical proxy a national genetic interest. Fulfilling the impulses that make us happy it's obviously going to wind up serving our genetic interests, since genetics program to those impulses to begin with. 

Voters will consistently vote for their own genetic interests even while they betray their financial interest. Rent control might not be good for the housing stock but it's great for establishing strong communities that never move and keep immigrants out. They even have a term for this, it's called "aging in place." It means that white people get to stay in their homes and apartments without being forced out by rich jews who want to raise the price on their already overpriced slum. It means hordes of foreigners brought into enrich those jews have to go somewhere else to find apartments. It means you get to know that chick down the hall for the next 50 years and establish strong rooted connections with all of your neighbors, even if your neighborhood is some progressive shit hole in Greenwich Village. Fuck, if you have one of those rent control apartments that takes up an entire floor you can raise a family in the city. You can have a stable community too where your kids get to make lifelong friends. This obviously serves your genetic interests, even if the term "genetic" is passe among the wokescold.

My argument is very simply that voters will do this consistently for everything. They will always serve their own genetic interests, whether it is on the subject of immigration (against), living wage (for), rent control (for), anti-pollution laws (for), anti-trans laws (for), safe communities (for), gay propaganda (against), world government (against), and so on. Right down the line, on every. single. issue, voters prefer the option that maximizes their own genetics. The human brain might be terrible at computing what makes capitalism run well but it is absolutely fantastic at understanding its own genetic interests, it does this intuitively without any education at all. Even low IQ africoons will be against fag trannies in public schools and hordes of immigrants that don't look like them. 5 million years of primate evolution didn't make humans stupid at understanding  what's good for them. But is does make them incredibly bad at obeying the financial imperatives of jewish billionaires. Hell, those africoons are probably even better at understanding their genetic interests than whites, but it matters not because the impulse is fully intact in every race. Only extreme levels of Disney cuck propaganda and bad education can warp a people into betraying those interests, and even then the majority seems immune to it. Even after decades of propaganda a plurality of white Americans still oppose immigration. This means that if those same white people had been in charge the entire time, the demographics would had never changed, then a Review Democracy would never have voted for or tolerated massive immigration. Indeed when one looks at the country with the most direct democracy, Switzerland, one sees one of the most restrictive immigration systems in the world. The Swiss will literally deport you if your neighbors complain. It doesn't really get more based than that. Everyone hates direct democracy, Moldbug says "the masses are asses," but those asses are the most consistent haters of immigrants and everywhere they have solid control over a government they have restrictive immigration policies. The masses of asses know exactly where their interests lie.

Whitney Webb on Elite Corruption

The more I see the more I conclude that everything we are seeing is a civil war between corrupt aspects of the deep state, and that NRx is just an insurgency of one group of jewish connected elites against another. This is obviously disappointing since I was a contributer to the NRx verse since the beginning. It's interesting to feel like you are causing the march of history (or at least contributing to it) only to find that you are more the effect than the cause, that this march is running you and not you it. 

The never ending accumulation of laws

 People treat the idea of abolishing entire government departments as incredibly radical but what's radical is having a system where laws accumulate endlessly forever with no plan to ever repeal them. The structure of legislative accumulation is baked into the Constitution and no thought to its inherent danger is ever given. What is your plan to enforce all these laws? How much taxes will be required to enforce them? If the number of laws grows forever will the taxes have to grow forever? How will the laws affect the ability of the economy to operate when the economy slows down to a molasses crawl? With so many laws on the books, and limited revenue for enforcement, these laws will obviously have to be selectively enforced. How will you combat the temptation to selectively enforce them in a politically motivated way against enemies? Will you need laws for that too? How does anything get done with an endlessly expanding set of rules?

Obviously the never ending accumulation of laws leads to a nation's ruin. To make matters worse, many of these laws are rent seeking provisions designed to enrich classes of people at the expense of everyone else. There is a law banning the imports of foreign drugs in order to raise their prices. There is another law that limits the number of primary care doctors in the United States. There are state laws that prohibit you from building your own house and require you to use a contractor, even if the house comes as a kit certified by architects. There are laws that require you to have a front yard of a minimum width. These are called setback laws. In most places you are not allowed to have a fence more than 8 ft tall in the back or 4 ft tall in the front, even if the local government turns your neighborhood into a high crime area. In Colorado it is illegal for there to be more than one architecture school in the entire state. It is illegal to take performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids even if you are not an athlete in order to protect the sports profession. You cannot exercise autonomy over your body because someone else's profits have to be guarded. You need a prescription for all kinds of things you shouldn't need a prescription for. It costs a billion dollars to get even the simplest medical device like a bandage approved, even if other bandages of the same type are already approved. It costs millions of dollars to crash test a vehicle and this makes it impossibly expensive to start a car company, even though car designs could be open source and each design already tested and proven. Taking a company public can cost a 100k in legal bills, defeating its purpose, which is to raise funds for new businesses. In California one in three worker compensation claims results in a lawsuit because lawyers have to get paid. "Sightline" regulations make it virtually impossible to build new electrical transmission lines and substations in certain places, guaranteeing future brownouts. Because of regulations forrests cannot be selectively burned, which results in worse wildfires because the underbrush accumulates. NEPA and other regulations make building high-speed rail almost impossible. It's illegal to sell a better gas can even though the one designed by experts is almost impossible to use without spilling. You have to run your dishwasher twice to get your dishes clean because of energy efficiency regulations. People deal with flicker, migraines, and eye strain because incandescent bulbs were outlawed in favor of LEDs. People don't sell hot food at the farmers market because each and every stall must go through a regulatory process instead of the market as a whole. You need a license to cut hair. Doctors cannot prescribe probiotics that reverse tooth decay because it is unprofitable for the supplement company to go through FDA approval. There are many other things that doctors don't prescribe for the same reason, including drugs that are superior to what is currently authorized. If you want an STD test you must submit yourself to invasive questioning, as mandated by law. 

It goes on and on and keep in mind that each and every one of these laws was recommended by experts. If you didn't need another reason to hate experts just remember that millions of low IQ idiots are tormented by a beeping smoke detector only because experts thought it was a good idea.

And these laws accumulate relentlessly without end. The Civil Rights Act puts a government commissar in every businesses HR department. Indeed, the main reason why you need a master's degree and 5 years experience to get an entry level job is because they are worried about being sued. It is illegal to just hire people on the basis of IQ so the college degree is the last verification of competence—but because the same race based hiring in the corporate world happens in university admissions, they require ever more and more certifications and degrees and experience because they are stuck between a lawsuit and a hard place. Hiring on the basis of competence has obvious and inescapable racial knock-on effects, is illegal, but is also essential for the proper functioning of any technological system, including a communist one.

Elon Musk got sued for not hiring enough foreign engineers at SpaceX, even though the aerospace industry has all kinds of anti-spy requirements that can get you hit with an espionage charge.

Another aspect is that the more laws you have on the books the more political and economic power are tied together, and the greater the stakes for losing that power, and therefore the more money and pressure economic power will bring on political power in order to control it. The degenerative ratchet feeds on itself, unifying state and economics in a process that automatically moves towards fascism/socialism. If everything requires government permission, and the government is incapable of giving explicit permission because it never knows exactly what is illegal, then you have constructed the worst kind of fascistic system. You have constructed a system where nothing can be confidently done and everything might be prohibited. This ratchet of money and power would ultimately destabilize the system by making every political contest have such extreme financial stakes for all parties involved, that they would commit military forces to winning.

Every industry has some sort of pile of regulations that expose you to political attacks. A nation should just wipe the slate clean every few generations, starting over with new regulations. The question isn't what you should get rid of but what you should keep. A POTUS should put together a legal team of a few hundred lawyers and comb through the law for the most absolutely essential regulations. These are things like "don't put chromium 6 in water" and "don't build bridges out of inferior grade concrete" and "pharmaceutical manufacturers have to meet certain standards of purity." These standards nearly always relate to pollution, health and safety, construction, espionage, state secrets, military stuff, basically the hard things of the world whose problems are grounded in physics and human nature. 

Everything else (except some entitlements) can be trashed, but won't be trashed, because when given a choice between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, they will do the wrong thing. This is because money and activism are still involved in the process. To truly have good laws you need an inspired and brilliant mind to go through them with a fine tooth comb and remove everything stupid and corrupt. Too many cooks spoil the law, and our system of endless committees and outside influence guarantee that the things Congress are likely to repeal are exactly those regulations that protect water quality while the things they're likely to keep are exactly the corrupt provisions that need to be repealed.

People criticize politicians for being corrupt but if you're going to be corrupt you should charge what the market will bear. Politicians are so stupid they don't include sunset clauses in all of their corrupt little laws. Everything corrupt should have a sunset clause. This is because you want to force the industry that bought the regulation to constantly pony up the dough. This enriches you, but it also reduces the amount of corrupt regulation you have to make since the checkbook of these donors is finite, or at least the amount of money they're willing to spend is. Everything should expire like every 6 months so they have to constantly pay you to reauthorize it because this lets you do less damage to the economy while maximizing your revenue. 

For awhile now I have thought that each member of Congress should have the power to kill a certain number of donors. There should be like a list of the top 100,000 donors by total contribution, and every year each member of Congress is allowed to have five of them killed. There are 535 members of Congress multiplied by 5 each. This would allow members of Congress to exterminate the donors of their rivals. Since Congress already has a 98% incumbency rate it matters very little that challengers would find it difficult to get financing and offing the donors of the opposite political party would have numerous glorious side effects not the least of which is that the government would finally run the economy instead of the economy running the government. It would transition America from a bribery-based system to an extortion based system where Joe Blow congressman calls up a billionaire and says "give me the fucking money for my campaign or you'll be dead by Friday." This is a real government and actually has the power to get things done. A government suddenly freed from the shackles of political gridlock and a government where too much disagreement has deadly consequences. It would operate more like a feudal Estates General. All it would take is a single member of Congress breaking ranks and killing their rival's donors to set off a deadly race to the bottom that would hollow out the entire donor industrial complex. Once gone real governance would be possible.

Maybe if the Senate started actually operating like a royal Parliament the population would finally wake up and start voting against incumbents. The No Kings nationwide protest demonstrate that remarkable things can happen when Trump says the quiet part out loud. To name a thing is to change it and to say you're going to create feudalism is to instantly provoke resistance to feudalism. The real system is never the actual system, never the named system. This is because as soon as any consensus about reality is achieved people move to exploit the new consensus and so the actual reality becomes an exploited consensus reality. Maybe the threat of monarchy and feudalism are exactly what the doctor ordered to make people take responsibility for their republic. 

If you really want to incite a revolution make it legal for each member of Congress to have activists killed. Like the donor quota you could have an activist quota. Just let them call anyone a terrorist and have them taken away to a CIA black site. In the beginning only Republicans might use it but everything is a race to the bottom, everything is an arms race, and eventually everyone will use it. Once that happens people really will come to see their government as an enemy. I think anything that pushes shit over a cliff might ultimately be better than the slow ratchet of legislative accumulation. Congress won't make itself accountable, won't reform itself in any way that reinforces democracy, but you can totally reform Congress in a way that pushes it over the edge, that pushes it towards a greater level of feudalism.

Who knows who will win but regardless I doubt anyone will have the foresight to repeal bad laws. Does Russia still have laws on the books from the Soviet Era? I wonder how many centuries of gunk the average European country has in it's legal code. Usually governments have to die to wipe out there destructive legal codes. Ode for a law giver who cares.