What is a woman? Gender weirdness and the burden of proof

 

I don't know what a woman is and don't need to care. Conservative treat this like some sort of gotcha but then you look into the issue and you find out that there are all kinds of weird little intersex conditions that can make you have female parts while being a male or have male parts while being a female. There's a whole discussion on the subject of intersex individuals so defining a woman as a person with two X chromosomes doesn't quite work. Defining a woman as a person with larger gametes also doesn't quite work. Defining a person based on how they present externally doesn't work either because of the very same surgical modifications that transgender individuals practice. Then there's a second entire discussion about what constitutes gender. There is one discussion about biological sex and another about gender, and that adds even more confusion to the issue. I think that all of this is a giant red herring that distracts from the real thing that needs to be discussed, and it isn't the gotcha that conservatives think it is—and makes you look quite stupid when you bang on and on about "define a woman!" "See, you can't even define it!" Yeah but that's the point, they can't define it because nobody can. 

Everyone's missing the real issue here. 

Which is that patriarchy, or heteronormativity, or whatever feminists want to call it, is undoubtedly required for the continued survival of the species. You can't just deconstruct something is ancient as male dominance and expect humans to continue to survive and reproduce. The oppressive structures (and I say that with no irony) that feminist rage against are probably the reason we all exist. 

Whatever the case, there is a non-zero probability that deconstructing those oppressive structures will result in the termination of the species. With such drastic consequences at stake the burden of proof is on anyone tampering with it to establish beyond any doubt—not just a reasonable doubt—that it is safe to do so. Sorry bitch, you have to prove that abolishing patriarchy is safe. We look around and we see that the more education women receive the less children they have. We see that allowing women to have access to the internet has ruined their mental health (far more than it has affected men). Every statistic is pointing to the conclusion that giving women freedom crashes birth rates. 

Feminism, and genderfuckery in general, need to meet the following minimum requirements and burdens of proof to be taken seriously;

1. That the human species will have the numbers to continue even with women liberated.
2. That these numbers will skew sufficiently in favor of the high IQ to prevent the dysgenic collapse of civilization.
3. As a contingency regardless of the above two;
1. Come up with a configuration for a system to replace patriarchy that guarantees the survival and reproduction of the species, and establish that this new system has a high probability of working 
2. Describe in detail the methods by which the species will continue to survive: artificial wombs? Education and lifestyle choices? Men hooked up to sperm milking farms? Trad lifestyle with safe words?

The discussion is completely backwards because they have shifted the burden of proof to you to argue against change even when such change may be disastrous. No one is obligated to consider the opinion of someone who is engineering the collapse of the species and won't even consider that what they are doing is disastrous. No one is required to respect these people. It is dishonorable, dishonest, weasel behavior to use vague terminology to evade responsibility for one's program, to pretend one doesn't have a program or system, to pretend that one only wants to deconstruct the existing system, to ignore the potential implications of that deconstruction. Feminism proposes an alternate system even when it refuses to propose anything. The burden of proof is on the weasel to establish that humanity will continue.

And this goes to an entire problem with modernity; the problem that people who question technological progress are treated as mad and not the people engendering revolutionary change. There's micro plastic in our balls for God's sake, and you want me to have blind faith in revolution? We have endured a thousand revolutions already and gotten for our troubles: global warming, microplastics, ocean acidification, low sperm counts, collapsing birth rates, transgender suicides, 95 million dead from communism, mass migrations, dysgenic demographic change, the loneliness epidemic, porn addiction, a fentanyl epidemic, political tribalism from smartphones, should I continue? Every technology is a revolution. Every social change is a revolution.

Demanding proof before another revolution is not oppressive. It is revolution which is oppressive, it is revolutionary change which is oppressive, and it is all the revolutions of the past that must be cancelled if humanity is to survive. Technology must once again be made to serve man and not man to serve it. That is going to mean drastically limiting its use. It is going to mean canceling gender ideology and feminism and everything else revolutionary.

Thank you Mr. Hanson

If going to high school teaches you anything it should teach you that the annoying kid gets bullycided. People think that when they grow up high school goes away, but grown people show all the behaviors of children who believe in make-believe, how else to explain magical thinking among adults? 

The annoying kid always gets bullycided, and always has. This is because no one can tell if the annoying kid is psychologically torturing you because he enjoys it or is just stupid. People with social skills assume that other people also have social skills—because that's what social skills are. Social skills constitutes putting on a performance and assuming that everyone else is also putting on a performance. If you are annoying it must mean that you want to annoy. The first rule of social skills is that all emotional affects must be intentional, and even if they aren't we are allowed to react as if they are because it's the obligation of the person doing the performance to produce a pleasant effect. Social skills are an implicit moral obligation—a moral agreement—to produce effects in the minds of others that they enjoy, or at least that are deliberate. 

Look at the history of genocide, look how the annoying always get killed. People pretend this isn't the case, like being an adult means we are more "objective" than that or something. Who even knows what the word objective means in this context. The point is that if you become too annoying you get killed. 

The left virtue signaled for ages. This is a puritanical and performative behavior designed to inflict humiliation on anyone who watches while giving the person who does it, the performer, an immense sense of superiority over others. Part of this performance was presenting oneself as a victim and therefore beyond the questioning of others. America has a very long history of tolerating Puritans. It's possible free speech was invented just so Puritans could get away with virtue signaling, but then it got out of hand as those damn racists also used it as a excuse to be annoying. Hence we need limitations to enforce the proper expression of free speech.

The right discovered this interesting trick; if people want to virtue signal on their feet you can make them virtue signal on their knees. The left is too dense to realize that their enemies figured out a way to turn the suffering that rightists experience at the hands of leftists into pleasure for the rightist. We now have a whole agency that does that called ICE. This agency says "Oh so you want to throw yourself in front of the cops huh? Here's a bullet for your trouble." The right figured out a way to convert the pain of dealing with Puritans into a pleasure. 

Leftists cannot not virtue signal about minorities. Rightists cannot stop enjoying punishing leftists by punishing their pets. Brown people are caught in the middle. The whole purpose of right wing authoritarianism is to make the spiritually Puritan suffer, because the spiritually Puritan make everyone else suffer with their virtue signaling. It is remarkable that it took 384 years to figure this trick out. I guess you have to name something before you can do something about it. We have Robin Hanson to thank for that since he invented the term virtue signaling. To name a thing is to create a world where changing it is possible, so thank you Mr Hanson.

Since putting the virtue signaler on their knees is a brand new trick for the West it is unlikely to end soon. There are too many hundreds of years of seething resentment against leftist Puritans—too much rage built up. Virtue signaling has the effect of destroying the values it ostensibly upholds. It does this by making those values a suffering to all who witness them. In real morality only the criminal pays. But in (old fashioned) virtue signaling both the criminal and the witness must pay. The criminal pays with justice, while the witness with degradation. Today modern Puritans don't even believe in justice anymore—they clearly don't want the criminal to pay. In fact the goal is that both the witness and victim pay. First the victim pays by being a victim of crime. Then both the victim and witness pay by being victims of virtue signaling where the Puritan leftist defends the criminal to the humiliation of both the victim and witness. This completely inverts justice, making virtue into evil and an evil out of virtue. Demon energy. 

People were content to let leftists make the witness pay as long as the criminal also paid. In the late 90s a TV show called The Practice came along and taught Puritan leftists that criminals were also victims so long as they were brown. This was the beginning of the end for virtue signaling. Although nobody talks about this TV show it's effects and all subsequent shows that borrow the motif reinforce the notion and it has been internalized by academia. Maybe the TV show got its ideas from academics, maybe academics got their idea from the TV show, whatever the case it corrupted the public notion of justice with the idea that "systems" can abuse people and that abuse will absolve them of not just sin, but crime with real victims involved.

Here's the thing about equality. If people are equal they're obviously equally accountable, and therefore equally punishable for the same crime. Justice can therefore not make exceptions. On the other hand, if people are not equal they are not equally deserving of Rights, and therefore the fate of the brown is even worse. In neither case does the brown colored person get to exempt themselves from any of the same moral standards as anyone else. If you are brown it is far preferable to be equally accountable, since the alternative is slavery. Thomas Sowell understood this which is why he was such a staunch defender of equal standards. To participate in the defense of exceptions to equal standards is to participate in undermining the whole notion of justice, since turning good into evil and evil into good was the whole point of humiliating the witness and victim with virtue signaling. Once equal standards are killed by virtue signaling there is nothing to stop the return of slavery. So anything other than equal standards attacks the brown man. If the brown man benefits from exceptions standards will be corrupted until nothing stops raw power against him, and if the racist wins he will be considered inferior and (again) nothing will stop raw power against him. His only chance to benefit from equal rights is to play the game on a playing field of equal standards. Sowell instinctively understood this.

Since a trick has now been learned to punish the liberal Puritan by punishing their pets, and since 300 years of resentment is now built up, and since virtue signaling corrupts all respect for justice, implicitly endorsing raw power, there is nothing to stop a few centuries of counter-punishment. I wonder if raw power was what originally lead to Puritan fanaticism. It's too bad I can't look into the past and see the attitudes of people back then, at least not without reading a large pile of ancient and obscure books.

For progress to happen the myth of progress must die

The myth of progress, or the Right Side of History is a blindfold that prevents us from seeing what we need to see, doing what we need to do, and changing what we need to change. This is because the idea of eternal progress is based on flawed assumptions. 

First is the assumption that technology is always a net good

Second is the assumption that culture must always become more liberal 

Because of these two assumptions it becomes impossible to course correct. We have a number of fatal problems;

Birth control may lead to the extinction of the species through low birth rates

Microplastics may lead to the extinction of the species 

Endocrine disruptors are lowering sperm counts and may cause the extinction of the species

Birth control creates women's rights, women's rights lead to the invasion of the First world by the Third world. Women's rights are dysgenic

Smart phones are a dumb tech destroying community and creating social isolation 

AI and weird internet ideologies are creating psychosis 

All of these problems are enabled by faith in technology. Solving all of these problems is inhibited by the belief that the world must always become more liberal. 

For progress to occur the myth of progress must be smashed. 

We need gladiators. We need death races. We need triumph style parades where we march captured foreign leaders through the streets and pelt them with garbage before beheading them. We need to embrace barbarism in order to demoralize the liberal myth of eternal progress. Legalize and promote duling and fight clubs.

Then we need to ban and limit certain technologies. We need to ban plastic. We need to ban the flame retardants used in furniture and cross laminated timber that destroy sperm counts. We need to ban synthetic rubber and artificial fabrics since most of the microplastics in our balls come from synthetic rubber and synthetic fabrics. 

We need to genetically engineer bacteria that breaks down the long lived chemicals destroying us. One bacteria for each and every chemical. If there are a thousand long lived persistent organic pollutants we will need a thousand unique strains of bacteria.

We need to shut down social media at least two nights a week. We need to ban every kind of pornography except magazines sold out of the back of some creeps trunk. All digital porn on the internet will be laced with viruses that brick your computer. We need to raise birth rates by tying the number of children you have to status and even promotions.

We also need selective breeding and genetic enhancement. We need embryo selection and designer babies. We need people riding horses through the street and growing wheat on their front lawns. We need mandatory organic food.

We need privateers that round up non-whites and deport them. We need a whole private industry that enriches itself through deportations. We need to deport the most insane communist too — to Africa so they can live among their brown pets.

We need to lean into a blend of Warhammer 40k barbarism, Mennonite style Ludism and return to nature. The future is going to have to be weird and inconsistent. It's going to be based on whatever works and not dogma. We're going to have to throw moral consistency in the trash. You're going to sip your soda from a glass bottle, grow corn on your lawn and watch the fight club tournament at your church. You're going to get a raise because you had your second child — but not before that. We're going to build commie blocks in the art deco style for families with children on the way. Your wife won't be able to get a birth control prescription until you have two kids. You can get some porn but not on video without destroying your computer. Your social media and streaming will be turned off twice a week to make you bored on purpose so you go out and have a life. We're going to parade Keir Starmer through the streets and behead him with a guillotine after a show trial on national television where he is convicted of aiding and abetting the rape of Europe. We're going to watch this on TV while sipping craft beer at a bar with a weight lifting room. Then you can ride home on a horse to your house with a wheat field in the front yard, fuck your state appointed trade wife drunk and pass out.

You still don't know what you're up against

I told myself I would stay away but apparently I have one more thing to say. Things have gotten way stupider with me gone so I feel the need to weigh in this one time.

Moldbug's entire strategy proceeds from the flawed assumption that decentralized governance would never work for the right wing. This is because he has no actual experience with government. Dude has literally never been to a city council meeting. 

I keep harping on city council meetings, I keep saying that you should go to them. Local government seems like the most useless thing, right? Why would you sit in the galley and watch these tedious proceedings? And yet a person can never really know a thing until they have some hands-on experience with it. An architect who has never laid a brick is not a real architect and the academic architect is always the one that produces garbage modernism. Old cathedrals are beautiful because they were designed by stonemasons who touched every single stone that went into the building. When you can touch a stone, carve a stone, and place a stone with your hands, it affects how you see architecture in ways that sitting in front of a computer aided drafting interface never could. Even the most basic experience with local civics is better than nothing. You can just go into State houses and sit in the galley watching the proceedings, you can just see how the sausage is made, no one can stop you, at least not yet.

The vice president is taking his advice from a man who never even sat in the galley. Unlike Moldbug I have real government experience.

Getting back to decentralized governance. Government is divided between two groups: lunatic activists and grifters. At the local level the grifter side is composed of real estate developers and construction companies that receive government contracts to build roads and stuff. The other side of the local level are crazy activists who show up to every city council meeting and push for communist policies. These guys also have a homeless grift since they are embedded with "nonprofits" that generate jobs in the homeless industrial complex. The activist will show up for everything no matter how tedious. The right wing grifters will only show up for money. This asymmetry is why the right wing loses and not the decentralized nature of the situation.

The only reason the government is not complete lunacy is monetary influence. Watching the two groups try to dominate my city government I quickly came to realize the developers are far less harmful. The activist would turn the entire city into a homeless pile of garbage and needles it they could.

To get right wingers to show up there has to be money. To get right wingers to do activist things, or the sorts of things that neutralize left-wing activists, you need privateers. There has to be money involved to get the right wing to do anything at all.

The definition of a privateer is basically a pirate who has been given official endorsement by a government to seize foreign vessels. (As a side note this is how you deal with Chinese fishing boats invading our waters). I am going to be using the word privateer in a much more expansive definition that includes mercenaries, private deportation agents, bounty hunters, thugs who crack the skulls of lunatic activists, and even the existing police. Really anyone that gets paid to attack gay race commies, and I do mean attack, as in lawful or pseudo lawful violence. Privateers can also include the lawyers that make their money suing companies for failing to follow DEI policies. These lawyers are currently left wing but as the situation at the University of Oklahoma shows they can become right wing. Since discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint is now illegal it is possible for the right wing to use DEI to harass the left. If the list of protected categories (discrimination prohibited on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, veteran status, political belief, pregnancy) was changed (oh say prohibited on the basis of Christian belief, Caucasian descent, white male descent, veteran status, stay at home motherhood, or conservative political belief) the entire DEI apparatus could be weaponized as a lawyer-based privateer against the left. I believe I have said this on Twitter but nobody seems to care.

Privateers are a sustainable form of right-wing activism because, (a) government is ruled by monetary donations, (b) privateers will give donations to keep their jobs, and (c) the combination of the two will cement an industry that works tirelessly against the activists, and (d) the very nature of a privateer repels left wing personalities. 

The only thing that sustains itself in government (is sustainable) is that which gives money to the government and then receives power from the government. Without a cycle of money and power nothing is sustained. The left has a collection of cycles of money and power while the right only has cycles of money and money. Meaning: the left gets power from the government and gives money to the government through left wing billionaires. The right typically gives money to the government and then receives money from the government (through contracts and defense spending). The left also receives money from the government (through welfare spending). Basically, you have to destroy all their cycles of money and power and build up your own cycles of money and power. 

Here are some of their cycles: 

Money for somalis in exchange for votes 

Money for latinos in exchange for votes

Salaries for college professors in exchange for indoctrinating students 

Salaries for teachers in exchange for indoctrination

Donations from lawyers in exchange for money/power to DEI lawyers to harass people 

Salaries for activists in exchange for activism (See USAID)

Salaries for spooks in exchange for color revolutions 

Salaries for experts in exchange for bogus science

Private donations to leftists in exchange for prestige

The right wing needs to conduct a deep survey of all cycles of left-wing money and power, identify those cycles, and pass laws and executive orders to destroy them. The right wing then needs to construct its own cycles of money and power. This is how you entrench yourself beyond a single election.

People think the entire reason that immigration occurs is because of ZOG who hate you, and that is somewhat true, but there is also a tremendous amount of institutional inertia and governments are shockingly unwilling to repeal stupid and corrupt laws. This is because politicians are generally uncreative and dull people, but also because the existing collection of cycles entrench themselves and resist repeal. 

Power is destroying the cycles of your enemy and building up your own. These cycles will outlast you, they will outlast your administration, they will even last for centuries after you are dead. Right now there is a huge cycle of money and power that profits from bringing foreigners into the United States. You need to build up a huge cycle of money and power for deporting those same foreigners. You need a giant industry of privateers. The shape of power is its cycles, and you alter that shape by altering those cycles. Contrary to what you may think a lot of the people involved are much more cognitively flexible than you would imagine and will change allegiances and go wherever the money is so if deporting a somali is now profitable and giving him free legal aid is not profitable and lands you in jail they will switch allegiances. Anyone whose sociopathic enough to destroy their country is generally sociopathic enough to deport immigrants. Most of these people are sellouts whose values are an after the fact justification for selling their souls. They go wherever the highest bidder makes them go so become the only bidder and destroy all competing bidders.

The right wing thinks that it can challenge power by electing inexperienced businessmen to run things. This then gives you an inexperienced politician who spends the first few years of his administration simply figuring out how to ride the proverbial horse. Meanwhile the activists have been going to every single city council meeting and sitting in the galley of every state house watching the proceedings and gaining understanding of its machinations. The right wingers only show up when they want their contracts renewed or the police budget increased — only when there's money on the line. In fact as soon as they get their business completed they almost run out of the room. I have seen developers walk out of council chambers the absolute instant the vote ruled in their favor — so eager are they to leave, so uncomfortable are they with power. This naturally gives the left a lot more experience with power. Privateers help to solve that by bringing the kind of right wing people who like power into government. The Police Union is always the right wing power source that left-wing activists fear the most: shitting on them literally risks them taking a couple of hours to show up for you 911 call (or so they believe). I have seen leftists who talk about abolishing the police openly worry on Facebook about retaliation from the police. Because that is what they would do.

We need privateers;

Private deportation agents 

Literal privateers who go after Chinese fishing boats

Reprogrammed DEI lawyers

Paid Christian activists who get leftist professors fired 

And

Money for white South Africans in exchange for votes 

Money for Russian immigrants in exchange for votes

Salaries for conservatives college professors in exchange for indoctrinating students 

Salaries for conservative teachers in exchange for indoctrination

We also need some system that removes leftist judges.

Power builds on itself. The ability to harass your enemies makes it easier to repeal their cycles. Any system of privateers will make getting and keeping power easier. Getting power makes getting power easier. You build up your own cycles and destroy the enemy's. That is how you create power that outlasts an election. 

Also, one last thing. A right wing alternative to Hollywood is desperately needed. And it can't be some stupid ham-fisted Christian thing like "Angel Studios." It has to be actually good fiction. Larry Niven is an excellent right-wing author who has never been made into a media. I'm sure there are others. The fact that there are right wing multi-billionaires who have never even considered starting a movie studio is remarkable to me. Everything should not depend on The Will Stancil Show. Cultural production is severely underrated among the right. If I were a billionaire I would have recruited Emily Youcis long ago and given her millions for a whole new right wing Cartoon Network and she would be supervising a dozen different shows right now as their producer. Cultural production matters but especially media that ridicules the enemy.

Indefinite Hiatus

When I started this blog I had a collection of rants in my head for things that I would like to get out. These rants eventually turned into a comprehensive worldview where all parts interlock and support each other. I don't know if my worldview has any contradictions although it feels like it doesn't, or at least like it doesn't have very many. Each and every entry on this blog was crafted with the deliberate intention of creating profound insight into the problems of America. I absolutely hate wasting the reader's time, and unlike your teachers who forced to to write unnecessarily long essays about boring subjects I took it as my mantra never to waste a single word of print, making everything I wrote as computationally dense as possible.

I have done the thing that I came here to do, which was to put in writing the ideas in my mind. Having done that I'm not sure which way to go or if I should go anywhere. I could rehash my old ideas into increasingly comprehensive essays. I could dig into my own viewpoint looking for contradictions and try to iron them out. I have also strongly considered pivoting to fiction. I've also considered pivoting to news about current events. But for now I'm going to do nothing and take a break. This blog will remain idle for the time being and may be reactivated in the future if and when something new comes to me. 

The archives will still be here and you can peruse them at your leisure. Most posts contain a unique thought or insight into a problem and they all more or less reinforce each other and help flesh out a comprehensive worldview. That worldview may still be somewhat of a rough draft but it's now complete, so until then,

On Hiatus

@smolfeelshaver

Got tolerance? The new landscape of warfare

The purpose of a thing is what it does and not what it says it does. This is the basic axiom that can disentangle all kinds of lies and nonsense. The instrumental purpose other thing is the effect it accomplishes and not the words of politicians trying to morally justify things.

Let's first talk about the instrumental purpose of intolerance.

Intolerance makes people straighten up and fly right. It makes people conceal they're inadequacies. It makes people "mask" their mental health issues. It makes gay people lead straight lives. It makes mentally ill people pretend to be functional, get married, and have children. In short, intolerance keeps people with bad genes in the gene pool. Human society did this for reasons that will become apparent in a minute.

Tolerance does the opposite. It baits people with bad jeans into exposing all their inadequacies so that women can judge them and refuse to have children with them. Paradoxically these same women also don't believe in having children and want to lead the "child-free lifestyle." Tolerance is all the runts of the litter encouraging each other to expose their weaknesses and inadequacies so they may be judged lacking.

Males who make the mistake of believing that tolerance is real don't breed unless they already have hot and handsome genetics. Only females get to enjoy the benefits of tolerance, although these benefits are superficial and a false economy. What is a "false economy?" A false economy is when you buy a cheap pair of shoes that wear out quickly and have to buy more shoes as a result. A false economy is when something looks inexpensive but actually cost more in the long term. Tolerance is a false economy for females, because in the short term, yes, men will fuck them no matter what—a hole is a hole—but in the long term men don't want to marry a vegan woman with two mental diseases, a chronic illness, and a lot of excuses. They don't really want to breed with her and certainly can't stand living with her. The "child free life" becomes a glamorous cope for rejection. 

Why do people do this? Well if you think about it, there are two worlds. There is the world prior to the invention of birth control and the world after it. These worlds operate in two completely different modes. Before birth control life is a death struggle against malthusian conditions. The population is going to constantly grow and you're going to outgrow your resource base. You're going to have to conquer your neighbors in order to get food to feed your growing population. In this situation you want to keep as many people in the gene pool as possible, you want even the most inadequate person to have children. It doesn't matter if they have bad genetics because the next famine or war will take care of that. It's not your job to judge whether they have good or bad genetics. Nature is so harsh, so brutal, so utterly terrifying, that all you have to do is sit back and let nature do its work. Nobody has to organize a regime of tolerance. Everybody is incredibly harsh and expects you to straighten up and fly right and conceal your mental illnesses and this thing and the other thing. Who knows? Maybe that bipolar guy who's occasionally manic will lead his nation to victory. Nature is the one that decides. This is the first mode of human existence, it is Mode 1, and it strives with futility to defeat nature while brutal natural selection does it's work.

But then you invent birth control and the population is no longer growing relentlessly. This means you're no longer outstripping your resources, famine and war are no longer inevitable. For a brief period of time in the 1980s you enjoy a blissful period of complete relaxation of both nature and society's rules. They're still sort of telling you to straighten up and fly right, you're still being encouraged to conceal bad genetics. Women are still normal and don't necessarily have a bunch of mental illnesses. Or at least they don't look like they have a bunch of mental illnesses. Whatever the case, they're more or less tolerable to be around. They are nice, and feminine, and demure, and caring. The men are basically competent, and heroic, and functional with money. You think nature has been banished so you get the best of both worlds, but little do you know you're entering the era of Mode 2.

In Mode 1 they force you to stay in the gene pool and nature kills you off if you're inadequate. In Mode 2 they usher as many people out of the gene pool as possible since nature is no longer doing it. Mode 2 weaponizes tolerance to remove mutants from the gene pool. It baits people into advertising their inadequacies. It kind of makes sense that the baby boomers would sabotage their own mutant offspring. In Mode 2 the whole culture is low-key subversion. 

But Mode 2 suffers from a bunch of problems. One is that because of birth control the population is imploding and subverting everyone is going to drastically exacerbate that. This could lead to extinction if not careful. The second is that it is untethered from reality. How do we know the bipolar guy is genetically inadequate? He might have stormed the beaches of Normandy in a previous era. He might have been the most effective killer in his Roman cavalry unit. The doctors tell us what's normal and abnormal. But what the fuck do the doctors know? They won't even deal honestly with the subject of eugenics. And what is eugenics other than natural selection untethered to nature? In the Mode 2 subversion era the 1940s are the hidden standard everyone references since that was the last time selection mattered. Therefore you are worthy of breeding with if you would have fought against Hitler. Why? Because that's the last time natural selection mattered and that's what they did. Or maybe it's just decades of Hollywood propaganda, or maybe the Holocaust really is the thing all ideology should be centered around and against, and no new ideological inventions that are indifferent to it should ever be invented, because the liberal worldview is magnificently perfect and explains the entire universe with zero gaps in knowledge, and nothing better will ever succeed it.

Mode 2 is really a secret other thing called Mode 3. What is Mode 3? It is ideological natural selection. In this system society fragments into competing tribes and cults. Natural selection works by favoring some of these cults and destroying others. The feedback loop is all about having the right mindset for navigating the world. Not necessarily even a functional mindset, not even necessarily a sane mindset. Just "right" enough to get you to breed.

Ideology becomes the point of natural selection and this becomes increasingly true as designer babies and genetic engineering are introduced. In fact an ideology might turn out to be a blind cul-de-sac, meaning that for the first few generations you think you're going in the right direction and everything seems to be going well. A cul-de-sac is a point of termination. You are practicing genetic modifications according to your ideology and it seems to be working fantastically. But this process is recursive and maybe you push one trait too far and the result is you get people who don't want to have children of their own, or who insist on designing their children in maladaptive ways. Mode 3 is all about avoiding both visible and invisible cul-de-sacs. It's not enough to have the right ideology you have to also have the right meta ideology, your ideology has to work not just today but after centuries of recursive self modification.

Of course in all the different Modes ideology is a weapon to destroy others. In Mode 1 you use ideology to hype up your own tribe to destroy the other. In Mode 2 you weaponize ideology to subvert people you hate, even people within your own tribe, even future generations. In Mode 3 you concentrate the most on having the correct meta ideology for your own survival and treat all ideology with suspicion, especially outside ideologies. The goal is long-term survival and reproduction, you must not only have the right ideology, your children must also want to adopt this ideology without being forced, and it must not lead them into a cul-de-sac of self-termination. It's really really really important to get it right. You might borrow from other ideologies when you see something working. You might even have ideological trade secrets and conduct the religious version of corporate espionage. In the beginning of Mode 3 the landscape is pretty relaxed and it's easy to get a foothold since there aren't any competitors. As time goes on this landscape of competition will become increasingly vicious and cut throat, with ideology crafted lovingly to guarantee the survival of one's own tribe, and counter ideologies crafted viciously to drive opponents to extinction, with spys stealing meta ideological trade secrets, and entryists sent in to confuse and destroy opponents. It goes without saying that public school won't exactly work in this landscape since the ideologies taught to children is itself part of the battlescape. Since Mode 2 is really Mode 3 in disguise it already doesn't work and public school teachers are too often high mutational load subversives who hate children.

The formalized version of this system is some sort of meta-election where first voters choose left or right, then with all the voters (or only the subset that has the majority) chooses another category (libertarian or nationalist if right, socialist or social democracy if they chose left), into increasingly smaller and more fragmented niche ideologies.

Or maybe formalization of the process takes the form of start up cities who's governance continuously forms, fractures, and forms again according to a war of all against all. Even when a monopoly emerges it behooves one to run competing city state or neighborhood or ideological experiments least one fall into complacency and be upstaged by a new arrival. When one buys out and destroys the competition the smart thing might not even be to consolidate, but rather to fracture again on purpose by modifying the opponents ideology / city state / neighborhood into a more potent or healthy form and then strategically replacing some of the population with persons more fit to propagate. In this formalized version of Mode 3 the government landscape itself is reconfigured to facilitate the ideological war of all against all and prevent consolidation, since consolidation is fatal by consolidating selection effects into a single entity—an entity who could make a single mistake and ruin it for everyone.

Stop dumping on Erica Kirk

I smell a psy-op.

I don't care whether or not she deserves it. I don't care what the details are or whether or not she's a grieving widow and completely innocent. None of this matters. It's bad optics and it's abusive, it disincentivizes women from joining our side. The relentless shitting on Erica Kirk tells every woman in this country that being a conservative won't save you from being hated by conservative men. It is strategically foolish to dump on the widow of a martyr. It makes me think that Candice Owens is being artificially boosted by the YouTube algorithm and the special tiny hat people who run it. Even if the whole thing, including the murder of Charlie Kirk, is a giant Israeli Mossad psyop it's total effect on the on the right wing is destructive. First it creates a martyr out of a boring moderate conservative. Second, by denigrating his widow it casts doubt on whether or not the Mossad had anything to do with Kirk's murder. For a short time the narrative was going to be that Mossad had Charlie Kirk killed. Now every useful idiot including that psycho bimbo Candice Owens is piling on to Erica Kirk taking the wind out of the sails of that other narrative. It proves of course that all algorithmically manipulated social media is controlled opposition, that the very existence of an algorithm combined with social media means that your feed and your perceptions are being manipulating.

Algorithmic social media truly is the ring of power, because no billionaire can withhold himself from using it, and because it always inevitably leads to left-wing empowerment. Any completely unmoderated social media network rapidly turns into 4chan, since 4chan is the most acerbic, shocking, and (maybe) truth seeking configuration. It might be possible to improve on that configuration by allowing competing moderators to create their own algorithms which users then subscribe to. That would probably be even more truth maximizing and suppress some of the toxic shock that completely unmoderated social media creates, but it would also involve a loss of control by the owner, and that loss of control is too much for the average billionaire to resist. As long as a central single algorithm or AI system determines a person's feed there will always be an incentive for controlled opposition and astroturfing. That ring of controlled opposition is the Ring Of Power that no one can seem to resist, but which always inevitably undermines true democratic coordination because the Ring of Power serves only Sauron.

Nothing astroturfed is ever truly against power.

Perhaps she's just a bimbo who doesn't know how to do social media well. Perhaps she was a beauty queen Mossad plant the whole time. Or perhaps she's being manipulated by her Mossad handlers to make her look weird and discredit Kirk's martyrdom, or perhaps she's under duress and intentionally botching the whole thing in order to disappear from public life. Blink twice Erica if you need rescue. 

Let us think about what this whole situation has managed to do for Israel. First Kirk gets assassinated. This deters other conservatives from speaking their minds on college campuses and raises the security fees which effectively bans them. Censorship works and bullets are the most powerful form of censorship. Then Kirk gets made into a martyr. Then Israel is implicated. Then the narrative pivots shitting all over Erica Kirk and insinuating that she had something to do with her husband's death. So the effect of all of this is that 1. conservatives are deterred and banned from exercising their free speech on campus, 2. conservatives are lured into a trap so they can be called anti-semites, 3. the trap closes and the widow is thrown under the bus, 4. the trap makes all the anti-semites look ridiculous, 5. women who were thinking about becoming conservative see conservative men trashing Erica Kirk and are sickened by it, 6. conservative men become even bigger losers in the eyes of women, 7. the white race is successfully undermined again, 8. and the right is deprived of its version of George Floyd.

And of course anytime Bari Weiss shows up you should be hella suspicious.

Stop giving your clicks and engagement to things that smell like a psyop. You don't have to weigh in on every crisis manufactured to manipulate you. Keep your eye on the ball of your own liberation against the foreign tribe that colonizes you. Whenever you vote, look up whether your politician takes money from Israel. Vote against all candidates that take money from Israel. You don't need to consider any other issue.

Call them cowards; the accusation that stings as much as "racist!"

The best insults are both true and highlight a character flaw to everyone including the recipient. They are really great if they cause introspection. 

Tolerance and equality are the highest virtues of cowards just like courage and truth are the highest virtues of the racist. Aristotle said that virtue was found in moderation but I think that people only have vices, and virtue is the lie they tell themselves and others to cover the turd in perfume. There's no moderation because the extremes are just two craven impulses masquerading as virtues. There's really only the craven impulse underneath it all. Are you a cowardly weasel or a bigot with the will to dominate? Your "virtue"  will be tolerance if the first one and courage if the second one, assuming you have either. 

The mirror image of calling someone a racist is calling them a coward and culturally it is just as powerful as an accusation. It is powerful because it is true. It is powerful because it induces self-reflection in the target. It is powerful because every time somebody quibbles or refuses to understand things like mass replacement it's because they are coward. When they inevitably call you a racist tell them they are a coward. It works, and it's embarrassing, and it's true. 

When you become so communist you become capitalist again

 One of my hobbies is studying how corruption works in different countries. The reason for studying this is that every political system has both a formal structure and an informal structure. The formal structure gets recorded by history books and teaches you almost nothing since the informal structure is what's actually governing a country. In the US, for example, instead of giving bribes to cops, the law itself is the product of bribery. In many countries it does not work this way, with most corruption being extra-judicial (giving some plausible deniability to the politicians in charge). The laws will be reasonable or (morally rationalized but stifling for business) while pervasive bribery and insider dealing happens under the table. Doing it this way gives the people in charge my parents of moral legitimacy while allowing them to remove uncooperative subordinates whenever they want using charges of corruption. I find it fascinating how Russia has an entire pyramid structure to its bribery. In essence they have reinvented feudalism as a workaround to a failed communism. In ancient British feudalism everything was a property right and even a job like tax collector could be purchased from the king. In Russia you get a government job so that you can stifle the ability of anyone to get anything done without paying you a bribe. Every position from the lowest clerk to the highest senior official is collecting bribes from subordinates. In fact you MUST collect or you will not have the money you need to pay off your bosses and keep your job. Your boss will fire you and replace you with somebody who generates more revenue if you don't pay him enough in money or favors.

I have talked in the past about legislative accumulation and how it can destroy a nation's ability to get anything done. Once it is impossible to get anything done one might imagine that the bribery mechanism would become much more important, as a way of lubricating transactions and getting bureaucrats out of the way. This informal structure then becomes the new structure. And this process by which the functionality of a system is destroyed by an inherent flaw that no one bothers correcting might just be the engine of change that causes nations to cycle through the various constitutional forms described by the Greek philosopher Polybius: (Monarchy, Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Ochlocracy). But many nations do not cycle through these forms in any fixed sequence and discovering the exact cause for a change of form would be really interesting, and might explain why cycling between forms is so irregular from one country to the next. 

But it is interesting that a nation could become so stifled by its own regulations and past communism (laws they never bothered to repeal) that everything would require permission from a bureaucrat, and the bureaucrats would all wind up taking bribes, and so a form of feudal capitalism would re-emerge.

Update: the video below has been removed but the channel is here 

https://youtube.com/@silenteast1?si=xwfIR9Z309omAddD

We are lucky that most Sci-Fi technologies are nonsense

If you look into it closely the supposed physics behind most science fiction technologies is complete bullshit. This is actually a great thing since the cultural, military, and political implications of these technologies are absolutely disastrous. Science fiction rarely explores these implications instead opting to project current year values into the future. Let's think about the real results:

Teleportation: this is one of the most obvious disastrous technologies. You think immigration is bad now? Imagine a billion Africans having the ability to materialize in your living room, steal everything you own, rape your whole family, and be back to their village in time for dinner. There is no way that humanity operating under its existing genetics and culture could endure teleportation. Imagine a corrupt cop watching a woman sleep, imagine instantaneous movement of vast quantities of lethal drugs. In every conceivable way it would make crime that involves moving things around much easier.

Imagine what it would do to real estate prices. It would cause the cost of all real estate everywhere to basically be the same except for prime locations like buildings that overlook Central Park. One block away from Central Park the real estate prices would instantaneously drop back to the global level since only the views would have value.

Thankfully it's impossible to deconstruct the entire pattern of a person's atoms and then reassemble them. Doing this would also kill them and the person who came out of the machine would not be the same as the one going in. The transporter would kill the ability to keep people out of one's home. Repeated use of the transporter would also probably cause degradation of DNA patterns leading to horrific mutations in the species and the eventual extinction of humanity. Humans would probably create some sort of cult of the transporter that involved human sacrifice, since the machine is killing you every time you go through it.

Technological feasibility: 0%

Cultural impact: totally destructive

Usefulness: extremely useful for crime and moving things

 

Wormholes: these would require "exotic matter," which is just another way of saying something that doesn't exist but can be plugged into a math equation. There's no observable anything with negative mass and so no way these things could exist. Even if they existed going through one would shred everything that entered and what came out would just be a soup of atoms. In a sense most black holes are wormholes anyway that take you trillions of years into the future when they finally evaporate.

Wormholes would create time travel and the implication of that is being invaded by both humans and aliens from the future. Creating the smallest navigable wormhole would require something like the mass of Jupiter.

Technological feasibility: 1%

Cultural impact: none because it doesn't work

Usefulness: pointless, takes too much energy, shreds anything that enters it

 

Faster than Light Travel and warp drive are probably impossible. For complicated reasons it violates causality and leads to time travel paradoxes. Most scenarios require planet size levels of energy or negative energy (which is just a made-up math concept to plug into a formula). Really any kind of faster than light travel does this. Additionally, a warp bubble produces a bomb of gamma rays at the front of the ship as soon as the warp drive is turned off. This would kill all the passengers on board and anything in front of it. It would even fry the electronics. If warp drive existed it would probably serve more as a weapon than a means of transport. It would probably also be limited to less than or equal to the speed of light which makes it no better than really any other form of slower than light transportation. Even if it existed it would probably never be used since there are less energy intensive ways to get around.

Culturally, the implications of warp drive are basically galactic empires and the destruction of planets. Star Trek is presented as utopia but you'll notice in its own fiction various planets get destroyed or almost destroyed all the time. In Star Trek the Earth is almost destroyed when an alien probe shows up and wants to talk to whales. Then it almost gets destroyed by the Borg. Before that it almost gets destroyed by the Xindi. Vulcan and Romulus get destroyed in one alternate timeline. This is a surprisingly grounded scenario for a franchise built on utopian nonsense. A universe without warp drive is a much more libertarian universe where planets are forced to leave each other alone. One with warp drive is one filled with empires, vast political struggles for domination, and the never-ending specter of terror that comes from living on a big target like a planet. In fact in a universe with warp drive it would probably be best just to live in space and to keep moving. People would abandon living on planets altogether. Culturally, any kind of FTL automatically involves being invaded by aliens or at least extraterrestrial immigrants.

Hyperspace and "jump ships" are complete nonsense with no physics to back it up and have all the same military problems associated with them that any other FTL technology does. The biospheres of different planets are not compatible and merely shaking hands with extraterrestrials could do something like transfer bacteria to Earth that would convert the entire atmosphere into nitrous oxide or whatever. If aliens ever landed on Earth the consequences to the biosphere would be even worse than all the various invasive species that have been unleashed by global trade. If you think cats in Australia decimating wildlife are bad imagine something whose DNA is not even compatible with the existing biosphere and thus cannot be digested by predators. Imagine something that is like a walking prion disease and if a buzzard eats its rotting corpse it transmits some sort of wasting disease through the food chain. Nobody knows what horrors could be unleashed by mixing two biospheres and so it's great that this technology is nearly impossible, and even if possible, pointless.

Technological feasibility: 1% probability

Cultural impact: utterly destructive

Usefulness: mostly destructive

 

"Shields" and directed energy weapons for starships. The problem with shields is that once you have these governments will inevitably put them over entire cities. This abolishes the balance of nuclear terror that keeps the world from engaging in hypersonic nuclear warfare. You really don't want to speed up the ability to strike foreign countries since it gives them the idea that they might be able to hit their enemy blindsided before they can react and that's a very dangerous presumption. Hypersonic missiles are worrying in and of themselves but America has nuclear submarines and even if a first strike is possible without missile retaliation it is not possible to avoid retaliation by submarines. Defensive shields potentially change this calculus. In Star Trek they put their shields up and then proceed to tap each other repeatedly with antimatter weapons. This means they are showering each other with gamma rays in space. In real life such weapons would have negative consequences to any planet below the battle. Shields are a pointless escalation of warfare that makes everyone worse off than when they began.

And they are impossible! There is no magic substance they could be made out of. Plasma is the closest thing and it is a superheated material that might vaporize small things that touch it. But even a plasma shield can be penetrated by a big enough object with ablative technology. Just wrap whatever it is you are trying to protect in a giant heat shield and fly through, or fly through fast enough to survive. Making a shield hot enough to disintegrate everything would be pointless since that same amount of energy could be turned into a directed energy weapon. Concentrating that energy in one spot is far more effective than distributing it over a bubble. Navy ships already have Close-In Weapons Systems that defend them far more effectively than any energy weapon or shield ever could. Literally a rain of projectiles will always beat plasma. There is no such thing in physics as a "phaser" either. Antimatter weapons are also kind of pointless since they require trillions of dollars to produce a tiny amount of antimatter and the money could be better spent just building lots of nukes. It is possible to make tiny amounts of antimatter in particle accelerators and capture it but this is totally pointless and expensive. Projectile weapons will probably always be superior so while you might technically be able to make a shield out of plasma controlled by magnetic fields there's no point.

Technological feasibility: 0% for "phasers," 100% for plasma weapons/shields

Cultural impact: politically and militarily negative

Usefulness: pointless, nothing that a gatling gun can't handle better

 

FTL communication or Sophons like those described in the Three Body Problem. There is no way to inscribe an artificial mind onto a proton by unfolding it and then folding it back up. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. Also, quantum entanglement doesn't work over light years and even if it did a single fluctuation could break the connection and then you would have to send another at sublight speeds. "Subspace" communication is also nonsense. There is nothing in the laws of physics that lets you send anything faster than light, and for reasons I won't go into quantum entanglement simply doesn't work that way. Also it would cause causality paradoxes. If the technology worked as portrayed in science fiction it would probably change very little culturally it simply is impossible. All the technologies in the Three Body Problem are impossible except one. The droplet attack is impossible. The dimension folding foil is probably impossible since astronomers would observe two-dimensional regions in space and they don't. "Death lines" caused by "curved space propulsion" (warp drive) probably don't exist because warp drive will undoubtedly never exist. The one technology that is possible is a small amount of matter accelerated to near light speed.

Technological feasibility: 0%

Cultural impact: moderately positive

Usefulness: high

 

Kinetic kill weapons. The "photoid" is the one technology that is sort of possible. The reason it is possible is because the cross section of such a tiny object means that it is unlikely to run into any interstellar dust. But to hit a star you would have to hit it using dead reckoning from light years away since making course corrections is basically impossible. The photoid has no mass to shed and therefore no thrusters to change its own direction. The logistical problem of such a weapon is being accurate enough to hit something from light years away. This is like firing a bullet and trying to hit another bullet traveling in a different direction from the other side of the planet. The most likely outcome is that your photoid simply sails right by its target. But launching these things is cheap so an alien civilization could shower the entire solar system in these tiny kinetic kill weapons and we would basically be helpless to stop them. HOWEVER, you are talking about the amount of energy released by a small nuclear weapon at best and more likely a grain of sand dropped from a few feet up. If the kinetic kill vehicle was the size of a BB it would hit like a small nuke, but also have a much higher likelihood of running into space dust on the way here. Making it smaller would make it more accurate but more pointless, and you are assuming that you could even hit anything at such distances. More than likely such a weapon would just piss off whatever civilization it was intended to kill.

You can make larger kinetic kill vehicles and they are basically impossible to defend against unless you want to live as a swarm of rotating habitats around the Sun. Even then you might take some losses. The KKV will have to be big in order to make course corrections and that means it is more likely to run into space dust (which will explode with the force of a nuclear bomb) this means that it will have to go slower. KKVs will either be tiny and incredibly accurate or huge and slow with multiple warheads. The huge and slow ones are more likely to reach their target. The problem is that if you detect a civilization with radio signals and then launch a KKV by the time it reaches them they probably will have already evolved into a Dyson swarm or gone extinct through technological self-destruction. If you hit them it is actually next to impossible for them to trace where it came from, but it's kind of like, what's the point? It takes hundreds of years to get there. You either won't destroy them completely (because they are now a Dyson swarm) or they won't be worth destroying when you arrive (because they already destroyed themselves).

Technological feasibility: 50%

Cultural impact: devastating

Usefulness: dubious

 

So when you look at all this stuff you realize that science fiction is basically selling us a bunch of impossible technologies that would be absolutely terrible if they actually worked. The fact that physics doesn't allow most of this crap is probably the only thing keeping humanity and any other intelligent species in the universe safe from total annihilation. We're stuck with slower than light travel and kinetic weapons and honestly that's probably for the best since it means we can't immediately destroy ourselves or get destroyed by aliens showing up out of nowhere. The universe is set up in a way that forces everyone to leave everyone else alone and that's a feature and not a bug. 

Parasitic storytelling

 

Hierarchical Review Democracy

I want to describe another iteration of the concept. 

To recap: in a Review Democracy the public reviews the votes of politicians, collectively approving or disapproving of the way they voted on proposed legislation. This creates a scoring system with the highest ranking politicians at the top of the leaderboard and the lowest ranking at the bottom. This leaderboard then determines who advances to higher office, in essence it functions like a primary election and is used in place of primary elections. The highest ranking politicians at the local level become eligible to run for office at the state level, and the highest ranking politicians at the state level become eligible to run for office at the federal level. There are  of course still elections as normal. The lowest ranking politicians at each level are banned from seeking election or re-election at any level and so the system acts like a kind of natural selection that continuously filters out politicians whose actions are hated. This forces the public to pay attention to what politicians do and not just what they say and creates constant pressure for politicians to conform their behavior to the will of the public.

In a regular review democracy the public reviews politicians at every level: Municipal, County, State, and Federal. But in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public reviews only their leaders at the municipal and county level, while the politicians at those levels review politicians at the state level, and the politicians at the state level review politicians at the federal level. This is similar to the Chinese system the presently exists where the Village People's Congress votes for Provincial People's Congress which votes for National People's Congress. The Chinese have hierarchical elections but in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public still vote for for all levels and it is only the primary process that becomes hierarchical.

Each level of government reviews the way politicians voted at the next higher level, determining who is allowed to run for office. The public still votes for all levels of government as usual. 

Perhaps this will mollify critics who are worried about such a government being too populist in nature. I am not sure hierarchical review is a good idea since it fundamentally alters the nature of the system from one where the people are forced to be aware of everything their government does to one where insiders are reviewing insiders. Granted, a system of insiders potentially insulates itself from outside financial influence much better, and would not be populist at all, but I am reminded of the Catholic Church where the Pope appoints bishops and the bishops elected the Pope. It's a completely circular system of power totally immune to outside reform efforts. One immediately notices the effects of that lack of accountability on it's abuse metrics. Overall I have more faith in the people than most—or perhaps less desire to have my preferred oligarchy dominate since all oligarchies betray.

Imperialism by gaslighting tolerance

Every in-group only exists because it has an out-group. For a thing to exist it must not be other things, it must not be identical. For there to be "us" there must also be a "them." 

But one special in-group wants to abolish all out groups by making them in-group. This predictably leads to no one having an in-group; total social atomization through altruism. 

Since no one can police the borders of their own group without being intolerant only the homogenizing swarm can have an in-group, and it does have an in-group within the in-group, a kind of in-group made of super-tolerance.

Congratulations, you have reinvented imperialism through hyper tolerance. No one is allowed to have an in-group but you. You are the perfection of tolerance, therefore everyone must be tolerant like you, therefore everyone must be part of your group, except when you exclude them by being even more ultra-tolerant. Thus no one can have an in-group but you, for you are the Holy Super High Goddess of Super-tolerance and all others must come to know the benevolence of your tolerance through the understanding of YOU.

Ultra tolerance is a form of hostility and it's remarkable that anyone falls for it. Ultra tolerance is accomplished through gaslighting both the target and the one targeting. You must first gaslight yourself into believing in your own supreme tolerance before you can gaslight others into believing you are tolerant. Once you are super tolerant enough you have earned the privilege of being intolerant of anyone who is also not super tolerant. You can now have an in-group, and your cowardly ass can live secure in the knowledge that no other in-groups are coming to get you, because your super-tolerance has defeated them. They are all part of the homogenizing swarm now, and you control the swarm by gaslighting everyone—including yourself—into believing that you have the right to define the definition of tolerance, and through this definition all else must accept YOU, but you do not have to accept all THEM, for they are insufficiently holy and super-tolerant. You now have a license to both be intolerant and have an in-group while no one else has a license to do either.

All worship the Supreme Goddess of High and Mighty Super Tolerance! Behold the majesty of the Tolerant One, without from which we would be lost and degraded in our shameful bigotry. Oh hi and mighty Super Tolerant Goddess, please tolerate us so that we may tolerate others.

"Our Super Duper Tolerant Goddess, whom tolerates our intolerance, hallowed be Thy super tolerance; Thy un-problematic world come, Thy therapy be done, on earth as it is in Thy un-problematic world."

"Give us this day our daily guilt; and gnash your teeth and bear our microaggressions as we gnash our teeth a bear other like us; and lead us not into wrongthink, but deliver us from racism, for We are the unproblematic world, and the lust for power, and delicious glory of wielding it, forever and ever, Amen to Us"

Tolerance says: " we are more tolerant than you because we don't believe in the in-group, therefore we are the only ones who are allowed to have an in-group, and if too many people join our in-group we will make the things you have to tolerate even more unbearable to ensure you reject it and stay the out-group. We practice exclusion through making ourselves insufferable and forcing you to tolerate it. This we call radical inclusiveness."

Ideology and the ugly Asian bitch

Back in my real horny days I once used one of those international dating sites to meet women across the world. Surprisingly, it was not a scam and I actually did meet some lovely Asian women in the Philippines desperate to escape their country. 

There was this one bitch, she kept going on and on about how ugly she was. Now I'm not Asian and all Asians kind of look the same to me, so this Asian chick just kind of looked Asian, maybe a little bit different than most Asians—a little unique, but otherwise just another Asian foid. Mainly I just cared about finding one with a good attitude, finding one that wasn't damaged by all the other "white breeder pigs." But she kept talking about how ugly she was, she couldn't stop mentioning it and eventually I began to see it too, and once I saw it I could not unsee it. That bitch became totally ugly in my eyes and I lost my attraction to her. 

That's kind of like how ideology works. You create some really elaborate ideology whose entire purpose is to convince people that white men are evil. Or maybe you want to trick everyone into hating foids so they become gay, or maybe you want to convince white women that men are all predatory so they die childless. Ideology is like a pair of glasses and you put it on somebody's face and once they have it on they can't take it off. Once you train them to see white men as evil, or women as traitorous hypergamous sluts, or jews as rats, or all blacks as speer chucking barbarians, they can't stop seeing it, they can't take off the glasses. You've got em! 

Now if your ideology is honest I suppose it reflects some truth about reality. I mean white men kind of are evil and blacks are definitely spearchucking barbarians! In fact if there is a lot of truth in your claims the glasses work a lot better. The more truth the better the glasses work and the harder they are to take off. In fact truthful ideologies can be the most pernicious and toxic to human happiness. But what even is truthfulness? How do you even know you're being honest? Before you put the glasses on someone else's face somebody put the glasses on your face, right? I mean I'm convinced that I'm right, but am I right? How do I know I'm right? How do I know ZOG is real? You're just going to have to put these glasses on and trust me. (Evil laugh) Of course once you put them on you won't want to take them off. You will be convinced that you are right and won't want to take off the glasses. Someone convinced me to switch out my Cathedral glasses for ZOG glasse and now I can't unsee ZOG.

Are the glasses just schizophrenia? I mean, let's put it another way, is schizophrenia just normal human cognition turned up to 11? Everyone I know thinks there's some sort of conspiracy to keep everyone down. Some call it capitalism, some call it financial oligarchy, some call it The Cathedral. I have never met a primate that did not believe there was some sort of great conspiracy to keep him on a farm. After all, civilization is a farm and we are the animals, right? The glasses you choose will simply show you a different version of who runs the farm depending on which pair of glasses you put on.

Some think the conspiracy is patriarchy while others think it is capitalism, some think white supremacy while others think it's ZOG. Believing there's a great conspiracy to keep you down is schizophrenia, right? Everyone thinks there's a conspiracy—schizophrenics just take it personally. It's like what's the difference between negative self-talk and hearing voices? Well when you hear voices the self-talk talks to you! See, schizophrenics are just normies with the dial turned up to 11.

Once you see the ugly bitch you can't unsee her. Since everyone is wearing glasses the purpose of ideology is to preemptively convince somebody of your personal flavor of schizophrenia. I could say something like, "before you promote your ideology to others you should try to make your pair of glasses reflect the world in which you live," and that's definitely nice although that just makes the glasses more pernicious. A better heuristic might be that you want a pair of glasses that makes you happy and not one that is accurate—because the accurate ones are pernicious. What is accuracy anyway? Who even knows what is accurate? The worst pair of glasses is the most accurate and what if it is also the most shunned? What if the schizophrenia of seeing ZOG is more pernicious and destructive of one's mental than seeing patriarchy everywhere? What if some pairs of glasses are worse for you than others? There might be some sort of ranking of how horrible the evil glasses are. But under this theory if you believe something that everyone believes—like that white men are evil—then you should have better mental health than somebody who thinks it's all ZOG. Running with the herd should make you happier but bovine normies seem just as miserable as anyone else.

What if it's a wash? What if all the glasses are equally destructive. What if no matter what pair of glasses you put on, seeing a conspiracy is destructive to mental health? What if accuracy is destructive to mental health? Mental health and accurate perception may be orthogonal to one another. What I really long for is the ability to take off the glasses and go back to a child like wonder.