Thursday, May 16, 2019

Recommended music

Only one this time

Sunday, April 28, 2019

gamified dating apps

Swiping apps need to be replaced with dating game apps. This is because people are wasting too much of their time and defect/defect behavior is being tolerated.

Level 1: you go on the app and set up a profile with pictures. You earn points by rating which of two pictures is hotter, over and over again. The one on the left or the one on the right? This assigns you a secret score based on your hotness, ie., 8/10, 5/10, 7/10 or whatever. Once you have rated enough pictures you move on to level 2.

Level 2:

You are assigned to a hotness dating pool based on your looks and you can only see people who are hot/ugly as you are.

If you are a woman you earn points by sending sext messages. The AI recognizes weather or not the content of you message is sexual. If a woman sends you content that is not sexual you flag it and this trains the AI to better recognize sexual content.

If you are a man you earn points by sending romantic messages. Again, the AI is trained to identify non-romantic messages.

Conversations take the form of women sending sexual messages to men and men sending romantic content to women. Dick pics kick you down to level one. Failing to be sexual if you are a woman costs you points. Defection is penalized.

Level 3: You are only allowed to talk to someone for a week. Once you have messaged for a week all you messages disappear and a notification appears saying YOU HAVE LEVELED UP. Then it tells you, if you are female;


If you are a man it says,


The woman has to select a local coffee shop/restaurant from a list that pops up. The game tells her that if she shows up for the date she will earn extra points and be allowed to continue playing the game. If she ghosts the man she will lose points and be kicked down to level 1. If the man fails to show up same penalty.

The GPS on his/her phone determines if s/he actually shows up.

Again defect/defect behavior is penalized.

Level 4: as you go on dates with a number of people incentives are offered. Dates are reviewed (mandatory review to use the app) and the better you behave the more rewards you unlock. Rewards are offered before every event. If female, sleeping with a man who is no better looking that yourself gets you extra rewards, being well behaved more rewards. If male, being a gentleman gets you rewards. Rewards come in the form of better looking partners offered to one.

Saturday, March 9, 2019

Again, the future of natural selection is self-destruction

The essential problem of modernity is that humans evolved to cope with external threats, (was genocides, plagues), and we have very little sympathy for those who are self-destructive.

But everything in the future will be genetic self-destruction enabled by technology, (drugs, sex robots, abortion, porn, birth control, spending too much time in cyber space, too many calories, too little connection to the natural world, chemicals, etc.)

And self-destruction enabled by the ideologies that follow like a shock wave after the flash, (anarchism, feminism, libertarianism, gender theory, xenofeminism, accelerationism).

Guns arrive. Ideologies of democracy and anarchism follow.
Birth control arrives. Ideologies of feminism follow.
Medical procedures arrive. Ideologies of gender theory follow.
Massive self-destruction arrives. Libertarianism follows to justify it.
Even more self-destruction. Accelerationism follows to justify it.

First the flash, then the shock wave.

Men like Nick Land who want to enable the problem or accelerate transition to AI are part of the problem.

Nobody is inclined to care because we evolved to be indifferent to self-destruction. There is a natural revulsion to disease, pathology, etc., which is absent from self-destruction within ourselves. This means that we are much more inclined to engage in a self-destructive act that much a turn sandwich, even though the effects may be the same. We look down on degenerates. But it is imperative we slow self-destruction down to prevent a genetic bottle neck from developing in order to ensure the survival of our species. There will be more plagues of self-destruction: sex robots, new ideologies, and so forth.

Original version of this article.

Monday, February 25, 2019

Barter Body: adventures in degeneracy

So you want to whore around and fugger people who are way hotter than you, but your a lazy degenerate, and you like your Cheetos a little too much, and your poor as shit and can't afford to pay for it, so how do we solve this?

Well there's a app for that!

You build an app. The way this app works is that you fugger fat bitches and earn points, then you turn around and spend your points to fugger hot chicks. You have to fugger like 10 fat bitches for every hot chick you get, because economics.

Now there are a lot of men who will go hogging for free, so you might think this wouldn't work. But here's the thing, all you have to do it get a few guys who are like 9/10 or 10/10. Most hot guys won't lay with ugly or fat women, so this allows those chicks to earn points and get a piece of hot ass.

Once you have got a few hot men that fat women can't normally gain access to, a rush of hot guys will come in to get paid, since this app allows points to be converted into currency. The cost of hot males will decline, and fat girls will work to earn points in order to gain access to them. This sets off the initial cascade that fuels your network to grow, and as your network grows it gains value as the square of the number of members.

Now eventually your "sexual ride sharing service" (ahem) grows powerful like Uber, and you begin a plastic surgery financing system where people can earn whore points they can redeem for enhancements. Gradually the number of hot people in your network increases, and the network becomes even more powerful, until everyone in the world has a quantified sexual market value, a bunch of whore points, a plastic surgeon, and date scheduled with the supermodel down the street.


Sunday, February 17, 2019


1. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. But democracy moves slow, and it moves so slow that technology can, for the most part, reroute around its rent-seeking. This stimulates new technologies by creating exploitable market inefficiencies. These new technologies keep the economy going and prevent democracy from destroying itself, and thus in a weird way, the process of rent-seeking, when slow enough, stimulates both technological development and social revolution. To the degree that technology cannot reroute democracy decays, the economy stagnates, and rent-seeking grows.

2. If the left is a religion then the right is the degenerate force that opposes that religion, and thus, the right is left-wing and the left is reactionary.  This idea earned a block from none other than Nick Szabo. We will never know what the state religion of the Cathedral could become because online technologies will destroy it, by routing around it, before that day comes. People forget that the highest moral values of the past came from the most degenerate processes, and that celebration of the king, belief in divine right, and "graceful" acceptance of suffering were degenerate ploys to get the peasants to accept abuse, much the same way the constant howl of the left, ever driving people into a frenzy about their supposed victimhood, is really just about driving people to the polls and economic rents, sinecures and corruption, and make-work jobs for gender studies professors and HR departments.

3. Every era's most holy values come from a sewer of craven political desire. The Catholic Church hates birth control because it wants more Catholics, the Left hates white people because it wants less Republicans. Examine any politically associated value and you will find it has low origins. Those institutions and business with the thickest ideologies have the most corrupt internal practices.

4. Now the mutualists say that there are three monopolies: patents, land, and money.

Bitcoin routes around the government monopoly on money. The internet routes around central control of information. Gene manipulation routes around female sex selection. Space travel routes around land constraints. Gene 3D printers will route around pharmaceutical companies. Future multi-material 3D printers will route around manufacturing chains.

5. Jordan Peterson says the dominance hierarchy can't be overthrown, but that is exactly what has happened with dating apps like Tinder. The apps facilitate the ability of beta males to reroute around the perpetual cock blocking of alpha males and present their virtues directly to females for the female's approval, and guess what, it seems most females actually prefer them.

Moreover, when women take the time to screen applicants they do a better job than the dominance hierarchy does. Women appear to favor responsible men who fulfill their paternal obligations, whereas the dominance hierarchy favors aggressive, large, and psychopathic males. A dominance hierarchy is merely an algorithm for sorting men by their success at controlling others and climbing social hierarchies, and as such is a poor system with the side effect of producing rapists, monsters, serial killers, and dictators, as well standard beneficial consequences of engineers, technologists, leaders, and pastors. Contra Jim, female sex selection is overwhelmingly pro-social when allowed off the leash.

5. The system, whatever you want to call it, is a very simple process with a large set of manifestations.

Humans are a software program built on communists tribal impulses written 10,000 years ago.

Capitalism is a machine that alienates humans from the tribe so it can sell them the fulfillment of those impulses through commodities and services.

Through the process of selling things to monkeys it acquires technics, (technological process of self-replication), by having the monkeys build higher and higher levels of technology.

Capitalism relies on tribal communism.

Tribal communism is the "unchanging baseline" of predictability that prevents a defect-defect equilibrium from emerging.

Tribal communism defines the set of market demands.

Supply defines what the machine provides to satisfy those demands.

First capital alienates you, then it sells to you, then it has you produce the products to alleviate your alienation.

Alienation is always social in nature.

There are multiple forms of alienation:

Law and order alienates you from your own capacity and desire to commit violent acts, rapes, and so on. This produces a market demand for violence. Then capitalism sells you porn, prostitutes, action movies, thots, cam whores, etc. Want to commit violence? The military sells you endless war.

In Yanomami society the men literally go on raids where they murder men in other villages, kidnap and gang rape their daughters.

You just beat off to gangbang porn.

The second form of alienation is Distance.

Capitalism gives you the technology to move far away from your family, clan, tribe. Westerners don't even have clans anymore.

Distance makes you lonely, which creates market demand for things that ease loneliness. Politics, religion, sportsball, and the nuclear family are all substitutes for the tribal clan.

The xenophobia of left/right politics is a substitute for the internecine genocide of tribal war.

Property is the third form of alienation.

You are not allowed to own land, and so are disconnected from your own food and survival. Capitalism then sells you food and apartments as a substitute for gathering and a hut.

Partial list of substitutes;
squatting           apartments/houses
gathering          shopping
rape                   porn
killing               military enlistments
togetherness     politics
tribal clan         nuclear family
care                   medical care
barter                trade
respect              money
The inevitable consequence of capitalism is that the behaviors we MUST engage in become our religion, since humans always make a religion out of their material circumstances.

Sunday, February 3, 2019

The future of natural selection is self-destruction

In the past natural selection was all about external threats; predators, invading armies, bacteria, viruses, criminals, highway robbers, famines, snakes, lions, hyenas, etc.

The future is all about forms of self-destruction that destroy your genes, e.g.,

homosexuality (causes sterility)
hormone replacement therapy (causes sterility)
feminism (causes sterility)
liberal Jews (cause sterility for whites, and even for other liberal Jews)
sex robots (causes sterility)
atheism (reduces birth rates)
porn (reduces birth rates)
xenoestrogens (lowers sperm counts)
chemical pollutants (lowers sperm counts, causes autism)
chasing career and money over having families (causes sterility)
chasing sex over having families (causes sterility in men)
chasing romance over having families (causes sterility in women)
women's education (lowers birth rates)
social justice warriors (causes sterility for themselves, but making family formation impossible)
genetic self-experimentation (causes disasters)

All of these are enabled by technology.

And there are also collective versions of this problem;

global warming
ocean acidification
plastic pollution
mass extinctions
the slow accumulation of nuclear radiation sites from nuclear disasters
the accumulation of chemical brownsites

Going forward every form of natural selection is going to be an invitation of humans to destroy themselves individually or collectively with technology.

A basic heuristic for determining good versus evil, friend versus foe is this: everything that attacks your genes is evil, and your enemy, whether pollution, degeneracy, bad ideology, or collective problems like global warming.

The survival heuristic should be taught in every high school in the world.

Friday, January 11, 2019

Fuck the poor

Imagine that there are two types of people, the first kind prefers having more children to having more money, and the second type will prefer to have more money and fewer children.

The people who want children over money will have more children than they can afford. If you give them more money they will simply spend it on having more children.

The people who want money over children will get lots of money and have few children. The few children they have will have few children of their own, and lots of money. If you give these type of people more money they will simply invest it and not have more children.

Inequality will rise.

The poor will say, "give us more money!" But if you give them more money they will simply have more children.

And if they have more children they can't afford they will simply stay poor.

Fuck the poor. Don't give them money.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Why government teachers are evil and stupid

JJ's Razor states that "The intentionality of an agent with behavior sufficiently indistinguishable from malice, is irrelevant."

Institutions are subject to filtering effects. The nature of any given institution brings in certain types of people, pushes out other types of people, and so forth.

Fluid intelligence is the ability to think while crystallized intelligence is the ability to remember.

The type of person that is suited to work in a government school has high crystallized intelligence and low fluid intelligence. In other words, they are good at memory but bad at thinking. This is because they need to remember information so they can spit it out in front of students, but they don't particularly need to scrutinize that information too deep because that would hurt the agenda of their employer.

This is because the curriculum of government schools is determined by the elites who run the government, and the elites craft a civilization's ideology to entrench their own power, and thus, a professor or teacher in government schools is always repeating the words elites have put into their mouths using ideology elites sponsored.

Power obeys material forces. Power generates ideology to justify and excuse its obedience. Government teachers constitute the mouth piece that repeat that ideology. This type of institution favors the kind of person who can either remember well and not think too much, or who lacks the integrity to care. Such a person will be stupid or evil, or both, and if they are neither they will be forced out of academia. The public institution will filter the evil and stupid in (stupid as in high crystallized/low fluid intelligence), and filter those with high fluid intelligence out. The high fluid intelligence will disproportionately wind up in entrepreneur endeavors, while the low fluid/high crystallized become mouth pieces for power. If there is no innovation because of socialism or feudalism, there will be no satisfying employment for the high fluid intelligent.

The only teacher who can have full integrity is the self-employed one. Serving a master will always mean repeating the masters words. Only private schools are capable of modest integrity, and only completely free agents full integrity. The more elaborate an ideology the more elaborate the corruption of a given institution. Masters pay for ideology, oligarchies have multiple masters, and thus systems that are dominated by many masters have more elaborate ideologies than kingdoms and dictatorships.

All of these problems are solved by raising the fluid intelligence of the population sufficiently high that they can no longer be manipulated.

Sunday, December 2, 2018

The McKibbin Method for shit testing a man in order to find a husband

It's often said that men don't care about women's personalities. This isn't true, its just that most men don't think they can afford to be picky because women are already so picky that nothing will happen if men express their standards.

Personality wise the most attractive feature a woman can have is a loving disposition towards children. A woman who is good with kids is hot as hell.

Next comes having a good head on her shoulders. That means street smarts, financial skills, being self-supporting, and most importantly, NOT a brain washed man-hater.

These are the standards men have for marriage, not for SEX. A guy will stick hid dick in a hole in the wall. Men have really abysmal standards for mere sex, but they do have standards:

Typical male standards for sex:
No HIV or other incurable STDs
Human, not animal or vegetable
Over 18 (or whatever the legal age is)
Not dead
Didn't say "no"
Not a stalker
Not a false rape accuser
Her father won't kill you
Most men are actually incredibly strict about these standards, and thus, we may say that almost all men have "strict standards" , ahem cough, when it come to sex. There are exceptions; some don't care if you are female, some don't care if you are consenting, and and in the Middle East (and some American farms) some don't even care if you are human.

Superficially is appears like all men are cads who run away, but standards for women's behavior have fallen so low that simply being good with children/ a little domestic /not a bitch, can qualify the vast majority of women for marriage.

It's like how in a world of obesity 90% of getting laid is just not being a big fat shit.

Oh sure, lots of people are incels, but get fit and watch how you suddenly go from incel to Chad. One minute nobody will sleep with you. Start working out and acquire some muscle and the next minute everyone wants it.

In the same way that you can go from being incel to chad, a woman can go from being unmarriageable to having multiple marriage offers. She can do this just by having the classic feminine standards all other women have abandoned, because in a world of man-eating feminist bitches just being nice to men actually goes a ridiculously long way. With traditional values and kindness a woman can secure herself a husband. That doesn't mean you're automatically going to get a Chad with washboard abs: that's a separate standard and you have to be hot to get what is hot. But you can still get a guy around the same age and hotness level as you and get him to commit.

We understand that revealed preferences and stated preferences are not the same thing, that lots of people think they want one thing but consistently pay money/ pull the vote lever/ sleep with a different thing. But this is all relative to what the market is offering. If there are no nice feminine women around then there will be no apparent demand for it, even if the latent market demand is enormous.

Consumers often don't know what they want; men and women often don't know what they want from each other, and traditional standards were developed to help us cut to the chase and discover it. The point is, if men have never experienced feminine care they won't know they want it, but if a man experiences it then the desire is awakened in him and suddenly he realizes that he has a woman that cannot be replaced. Giving them this care sets her apart as a provider of the kind of love no other woman will provide, and he cannot afford to lose that so he commits to her. It is precisely when everyone else has abandoned standards that those standards generate the highest reward.

So what is the McKibbin Method for getting a husband?

Well, it's a shit test designed to filter out men who are not interested in marrying you, and its the best kind of shit test because it doesn't annoy or drive away a high quality man. The test is a procedure that goes like this;

1. Get a man that you like to let you hang around his house for two weeks. During this time do "domestic stuff." It doesn't have to be too much. Do one chore every two days, (like laundry or making him dinner). Rub his feet or massage his scalp the other days. Make it very clear to him that no sex will happen for two to three weeks. To find this man literally just ask a guy you like, "do you mind if I come around every night for two weeks and spend time with you? I want to get to know you." Also make it clear, "that no sex will happen until I'm good and ready, so don't try anything."

Literally say that so the lines are clear.

2. Have long conversations and discover what his values, politics, and religious beliefs are like. If at any point he makes you feel unsafe, then leave and never see him again. When he asks you, "why no sex for two or three weeks?," answer, "I want to get to know you," if he pushes it say, "I want to see what kind of man you are like," if he really pushes it say, "I never sleep with a guy until I know what he is like at home." During these two weeks you are auditioning for the role of wife. Your goal is to see whether or not he wants a wife, and whether or not he would want you to be that wife, and whether or not the two of you have values in common.

3. Ask yourself the following questions;
Does he appreciate having me around?
Does he like talking to me?
Does he enjoy me or find me annoying?
Is he respectful?
Do we have values in common?
Also ask him point blank, "do you want to get married some day?" and "Do you think that I would qualify as a possible wife for you?"

Don't lie to yourself. Don't gloss it over. If the answer to any of these questions is negative then leave and don't fuck him. It's not true that it is too early to ask those questions: a person can tell within seconds whether or not they would have sex with someone, and a person can tell within days whether they would ever marry someone. The point of coming over to his place every night and doing these things is to give him exposure to you so he can make that decision, so he can decide if you are wife material. Every guy who is looking for a wife is always sizing women up as potential wives, so if he is exposed to your presence for two weeks he will have already made a decision. Every guy who is NOT looking for a wife will have NOT made that decision because he wasn't even thinking about it. If after two weeks he doesn't know the answer he is either (a), a cad, or (b), decided he doesn't want to marry you and is lying to get in your pants, aka., still a cad.

While you are auditioning for the role of wife you are also sizing him up for the role of husband. Your goal is to determine (a) his intentions towards you, and (b) whether you want him as a husband. Ask yourself a second set of questions;
Do I enjoy is presence?
Do I feel happier or sadder around him?
Could I see myself with him in 10 years?
Does he arouse me?
Is he verbally abusive in any way?
If the answer to any of these questions is bad then leave. If he makes you feel unsafe then leave.

While you are doing this wear modest clothes. At the very end of the two weeks , (or three if you need more time) wear something sexy on the day you are going to have sex. Don't be vague about anything. Set a date, "We're not having sex until December 21st, and even then, only if I like you." Don't tell him you are reviewing his performance, but don't be ambiguous with the sex. Men need clear information where sex is concerned.

The theory behind all of this is that a man who wants a wife will be willing to wait. He will be polite and respectful because he is committed to the long-term. A man who just wants sex will be obnoxious, won't appreciate the chores you do for him, and won't like having a woman around. Since all he wants is sex when there is no sex he will not behave himself. Does he like you? Do you like him? Is he an honorable man? These are the questions that matter. This is a shit test designed to filter out cads. If it doesn't work out with him rinse and repeat with a different guy. If it does work out then at the end of two weeks you don't ask for a ring, but you do say, "I don't want to get sexually involved unless I know that one day you intend to marry me." Watch his reaction, and don't sleep with him unless you think there is a future there.

Saturday, December 1, 2018


Why does "progress" happen? Or more specifically, why does change occur? Drilling down even further, what moves hyper-capitalism forward? And why doesn't it collapse under the weight of its own contradictions?

Six forces.

There are two progressive forces; redistribution and voting, and there are two regressive forces; hierarchy and competition, with two additional neutral forces; rerouting and technological innovation. The regressive forces move power from the bottom to the top, the progressive from the top to the bottom, and the neutral forces move power from whichever of the two parties (rich or poor) is beginning to gain enough power to destabilize the arrangement, to its opposite.

This is because without innovation and rerouting the circle would have long ago collapsed into either dictatorship or tribal communism. When the powerful are too powerful technologies are introduced that reduce their power, e.g. guns, printing presses, labor unions, transportation, Bitcoin, and when the poor gain too much power regressive innovations halt their progress, e.g. AI, surveillance tech, mass media, face recognition, social credit, mass education, and so on.

And all parties tirelessly work to reroute around the power of their enemies, e.g. weed legalization, gay marriage, ending prohibition, the enclosure movement, the bourgeois against the nobles, the American frontier, the cowboy, etc.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Sex vouchers are feminist, fam

The other day I was standing in line at Starbucks and there were two groups of women in front of me; fat ones and old ugly ones, with not a single MILF in sight. Not one of them probably went to the gym, and I thought, "these are the perfect people to be helped by sex vouchers."

Old ladies need lovin too.

When I first proposed sex vouchers (yes, I literally proposed government vouchers for prostitution), the idea was to help lonely men find girlfriends, and to create a more equitable distribution of sex. But I have since come to realize that there are a lot of women out there with a low sexual market value, and unlike men, who may count on money, charisma, or charm to seduce women, a woman is pretty much solely dependent on her looks to get by in the dating market. Most women would be ashamed to pay for sex, and what most women really want is actually more like companionship or validation than sex in the strictest sense of the word, and that means there is a yuge missed opportunity for meeting feminine needs.

One may imagine that the majority of voucher redemptions would be old ladies contracting gigolos to perform chores around the house; take out the trash, fix the roof, change the oil, help her out of the bathtub, dress her. If one is going to pay for at-home nursing care or a handy man fix-it guy one might as well hire a hot 20 something young man with washboard abs who will provide the extra something at no additional charge. Why hire a male nurse when you can hire a gigolo? Only to supplement the first one when he is not in the house.

The concept was always that one would make a yearly election to be either a voucher redeemer or voucher receiver; it is not sex dependent, and so one may imagine that a certain class of butch lesbians would always elect to play the "male" role and receive vouchers rather than redeem them. One may also imagine a similar fate for some gay men, many fat women, and many people with disabilities. Since one cannot redeem their own vouchers it doesn't matter if you change categories from year to year.

Moreover, by limiting the number of vouchers a single person can redeem a wider distribution of partners can be achieved, and by creating such an obvious and clear signal of who the "givers" and "redeemers" are people are motivated to raise their sexual market value and become redeemers. After all, there is money to be made, and nobody has any ambiguity that some fat screeching blue-haired feminist degenerate is low status. "Brah, do you even redeem?"

Furthermore, it creates a more equitable distribution of partners and their age ranges over the course of one's life. Getting old does not automatically equate to having an older sex partner, and one may imagine a situation where people have a primary partner that they age with and a secondary partner that is brought if for the occasional fling, leading to more fluid relationships.

Next, if formalization is your thing then having sex formalized like this allows it to become an employee benefit, since employers can contribute to voucher accounts, and you can attract high quality corporate talent by fucking it; "girlfriends for programmers," and so forth, and you can offer vouchers as a production bonus for sales teams that meet their quotas.

Also, instead of monkeying around with giving high status to degenerates, aka., "bioleninism," you can just fuck your coalition of voters in exchange for their votes, meaning no more need for immigration to win elections, since you've got your voters by the balls. Literally.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Of fuck monsters and killbots

The whole reason an organism develops self-awareness is so that it can more effectively deceive other organisms within its species. In fact, self-awareness is never complete or whole in its construction: a person is never aware of their own self-deceptions, or if they are, their attention span avoids focusing on the area where they are lying to themselves. Superficially they may have moments where they say things like, "oh yes, I'm aware that what I really desire is X, even though I say I desire Y," but this never sinks in. It is never felt emotionally. A man may know that he hates women because he hates his abusive mother, but he rarely feels this fact. A woman may know that she is shrill and abusive because her mother was shrill and abusive, but she does not feel the connection.

What I am driving at is that while humans are self-aware animals their self-awareness does not extend to their own self-deception, which they habitually cover up and bury and pretend doesn't exist.

When we look at a puritan we see someone who appears to be very concerned with their own righteous indignation. This is the self-deception part. When we look at history we see that the philosophies spawned by these shrill, hysterical, virtue signaling, moralizing people have a habit of getting everyone killed, burned at the stake, or sent to the gulag. What I want to assert is that this is the whole point. The whole purpose of virtue signaling is genocide and the social justice warrior, puritan, or whatever you want to call it, is practicing a reproductive strategy of getting other people killed.

Nature doesn't care if you have hundreds of children or murder millions of enemies. If the prevalence of your genes in the population is increased then the great god Darwin has been served either way. In other words, the moral obsession of a certain phenotype of white people is actually a genetic conquest strategy in disguise. Kill your political enemies and you clear the field for more of your own genes to spread. This is the true origin of progressive intellectual hysteria, and considering that America is the most violent and dominant world empire to ever exist, and considering that whites have conquered the world many times over, it appears to have worked.

People are constantly putting the moral cart before the horse, and that is the whole point. That is, they are always serving their ideology rather than their genes more directly. Ideological wars are genetic proxy wars in disguise. They serve the idea because the idea serves their (perceived) genetic interest. Of course liberalism does not actually serve the genetic interests of liberals anymore, not unless auto-genocide is a strategy employed to self-select mutants out of the gene pool. Abortion, immigration, communist mass murder, hormone replacement therapy, homosexuality, and atheism all follow the pattern of terminating or reducing the genes of the people who employ them. That might be the point: maybe centuries of Darwinian relaxation have triggered an auto-genocide mechanism in the human species, and maybe white people are afflicted first because they developed medical technology first. Maybe the death drive is there to purge the species of mutations, and maybe what we are witnessing is a large section of our people committing mass suicide, in a kind of mass manifestation of the death drive. "Please replace me with immigrants daddy."

Or maybe a kind of mental obesity has developed where people, being far divorced from murderous threats, are now free to mutate their ideology in ways that are contra-survival.

In a healthy meatbot, the moral logic is the ideology that furthers genetic expansion. Genes only recognize one logic, "more of us and less of them." If every progressive thinks only in terms of zero-sum power games and finds it impossible to realize that economics can be positive-sum, it is only because genetics is always zero-sum, at least from the point of view of the genes. "Let's get rich together" is just interpreted by genes as "this generation I will be defeated because my offspring will be no more numerous than yours." If some libertarian says, "non-aggression principle," the genes simply hear, "this sneaky fucker thinks he can pull one over on me by limiting conflict to a non-violent struggle."

None of this will be rationally understood by anyone. What I am driving at is that surface cognition — that thing we all do when we think and talk to each other, is this self-deceptive proxy for something else that is driving the whole process. The real AI behind the eyes of every human is the gene maximizer AI, and like a demon it is what really runs the show. "Self-awareness" is this sub-module of cognition that serves its master with utter loyalty, while thinking itself independent, and mediates with all these other foreign intelligences to get what the prime AI, the base AI, the "Freudian Id," of the self really desires. The real human is actually the demon, and the surface consciousness is the puppet. The "self" that is experienced as real is really just a puppet self, and a puppet to something other than self. When we become truly self-aware we see that something else is running us from behind the scenes; that we are demonically possessed by a fuck monster, by a killbot, and that what we really desire is to grind our bodies in great piles of sexual ecstasy, and kill our enemies by the millions. Revolution and pussy, babe.

Ideologies are built in waves of larger and larger structure. Large ideological systems are built in order to deal with larger and larger enemies. First one adopts a tribal god. This allows one to survive murderous threats from other tribes. Then one bands together with other tribes and "polytheism" develops. Then develops monotheism, where god is standardized as a single mono entity. Then one sheds god and adopts a secular ideology like communism, and at each stage in this process a bigger and more totalizing idea is being adopted. All of this happens as an inevitable result of war; humans adopt bigger and bigger ideas to survive bigger and bigger threats. But what happens when they get atomic bombs? Then it becomes impossible to conquer many states directly, but the totalizing ideology still remains, and without an external threat to keep it grounded in reality is decays. Since the most high status thing a human being can do is destroy their genetics for the rest of us: "sacrifice themselves," it follows that auto-genocide becomes the norm. That's fine in a society that throws women on the dicks of warriors; new altruistic people come out to replace them. But what about when there's no war? The genes for altruism go crazy and have no way to die for the herd, so now the herd must die. Society fragments, patchwork ensues. Ideology gets divorced from survival and even turns against it. Sociopaths breed out of control. Every man for himself.

Saturday, November 3, 2018

How bout no

Women create patriarchy by fucking alpha males. To allow sexual liberation for women is to exacerbate social inequalities. That is why in the 1950's 30% of men owned 70% of the wealth while today 1% own 99% of the wealth. Female sexuality was heavily constrained by social pressure to marry average men. Since an average man could count of finding a wife men were both more invested in society and society was more equal in every respect except its treatment of women.

Male dominance occurs in every species where the female fucks the alpha male: horses, sea lions, lobsters, cattle, elk, wolves, bison, chimps, and humans to name a few. Women are the progenitors of patriarchy, and their sexuality is fundamentally in conflict with equality. Humans will eventually be liberated by patriarchy with the development of artificial wombs and this will be a cataclysm for the human species, since the sexual incentives that bind men and women together will collapse and the tensions between the sexes will supersede them. Assuming that outright war between the sexes does not occur the happiness of the human species will be greatly reduced. Men will prevail in any war between the sexes because women have selected them to be far more violent than themselves, and men will simply use violence to get what they want.

Technology is the engine of moral, social, and environmental catastrophe and decay. Technology liberates people from consequence, (or so they think), while subjecting them to far more insidious and malevolent consequences in the long run. Technology is the daemon that destroys social technology, (also known as tradition). Tradition is the habits and customs of social technology that humans have developed through trial and error to suppress chaos and bring order to their environment. Consequence enforces discipline of the human species and machine technology destroys both discipline and consequence, while social technology (tradition) works with discipline and the natural order to create happiness. to develop technology is NOT to liberate yourself from natural selection but to simply kick the can down the road and create a whole new set of problems that you then need to solve. Currently we need to develop traditions of recycling and stewardship of the earth to counter act pollution. We need new traditions to bring order to the sex lives of people and suppress promiscuity and pornography. But by the time these traditions are developed they will be destroyed by the next round of technology. Capitalism is NOT the engine of revolution; the Romans had capitalism and never developed technology beyond the level of the arch and dome. The engine of revolution is technology, or more specifically the socialism of intellectual property rights which subsidizes technological change and accelerates it by granting artificial temporary monopolies to tech companies.

It is true that socialism drives change. It is also true that "change" means global warming, the ocean's garbage patches, the destruction of marriage and family, the castration of homosexuals by hormone replacement therapy, the toxification of the earth by plastic, the mass extinction of species; yes, socialism is lots of change.

Many seemingly capitalist problems are actually socialism in disguise: traffic is caused by free roads (car socialism), inflated health care prices are caused by limits on competition in healthcare, (healthcare socialism), war is military socialism, and the low birthrates of the middle class are caused by the need of women to obtain degrees to gain employment because the government had raised both the supply and the cost of college education with subsidies, (education socialism). Real capitalism is feudalism, (a system where the state is private property). Democracy is a soft form of communism and historically was understood by all ancient philosophers as nothing else.

The real catastrophe is not capitalism by capitalism drugged up on socialism.

Technological development can be greatly limited or stopped by abolishing intellectual property rights. Shakespeare's works were developed under a capitalist system where authors were free to plagiarize each other without consequence, and so stories were told and retold and embellished over time to give them greater richness. Socialism of creativity favors the new over the old, the foolish over the wise, the untested over the tested. All of the churn in the arts is created by an environment of subsidies; modern art is the epitome of socialized art. The Renaissance is the epitome of capitalist art. Without socialist limits on plagiarism art is free to copy and re-copy itself and perfect a high form of the same image, sound, composition, symphony, etc. Plagiarism is good since it improves art and Shakespeare was the greatest playwright because he was the greatest plagiarist.

The human species has a sexual division of labor: men build and women populate. This is just the way it is and it does not matter what you think about it. All of the people were put here by women and all of the stuff was generally designed and built by men. Exceptions exist of course: there are female construction workers and male childcare workers, but the freer a people are to choose their occupations the MORE, not less, segregated by gender occupations become. Countries with the highest levels of gender pay equality also have the highest levels of occupational segregation.

People have less sex in a free market of sexual selection. Most men are too ugly to get laid in bars, and most women are too ugly to get commitment from hot men. 8 out of 10 people is in the 80% of people who are two ugly to win at the game of promiscuity. A free market for sex is an 80/20 market where 80% are having 20% of the sex. A society with compulsory monogamy is happier and healthier than one without; men get more sex and women get more reliable support and their are far fewer single mothers and abandoned women. The nation of Qatar for example has outlawed premarital sex. If you go to a hotel in Qatar they ask for ID and you must either have the same last name as the women you are renting a hotel room with or have a marriage certificate to prove you are married. Obviously this is a good thing. Why make men pay child support when you can just force them to stay married? A man will think twice about sticking his dick in if he knows he is stuck with the nag for life, and women will have a greater incentive to be nice since they can't get laid without a husband.

There are only two kinds of society: the kind men build and the kind women destroy. You're not equal, no one is, you will never be equal, and equality is a massive fraud. Fuck you.

Friday, November 2, 2018

My reasoning on my previous post

Writing a blog post on how to deport 30 million people isn't something I take lightly and I hesitated or a long time to publish it. I want to explain why I am talking about this now.

Civilization is built on its bio-capital, that is, on the "quality" of the genetics underlying it. "Quality" doesn't mean superiority since domestication of the human species (by power) does not automatically equate to an improvement in genetic stock. In fact, all the various things governments do, from killing criminals,to (de facto) subsidizing the birth rates of the poor, from encouraging marriage to having state religions, may actually breed lunatics (state religion), reduce human health levels (killing high testosterone violent males), increase IQ at the expense of increasing insanity (mandatory marriage), or decrease IQ while increasing social dysfunction (welfare), or decrease the breeding of healthy middle class people (education inflation), or destroy safety (immigration of criminal elements), or create pathological psychiatric neuroses, (ghettoization and subsequent inbreeding of Jews), or breed violent warriors (Zulu marriage practices), or breed moral hysterics, (Anglo religious practices). . .

The point is "quality" is a mixed bag, and in this context means simply "the quality of being capable of production and paying taxes," and "the absence of sickness and crime that increases the costs of running a government."

Civilization can and will collapse if ever the level of crime and sickness rises above the level of of the ability of the government to pay for it; in other words, if expenses rise higher than assets can generate revenue. Before this happens violent and radical right wing governments will come to power and destroy liberty with fascism, because they have to, because democracy is a luxury system that only a people with high IQ can afford, and if democracy imports millions of new low bio-quality voters to win elections in the short term it guarantees Brazilian-style dictatorship in the long term. People will vote to exterminate criminals if the crime rate gets high enough.

Some ethnic groups are more domesticated than others. This shows up in crime rates and education attainment levels, as well as income levels. The societies with the highest levels of domestication have the lowest crime rates, and vice versa.

My reasoning is "if you are going to deport 30 million people do it with taxes." My reasoning is "well they're going to do it anyway so they might as well do it right." But they are not going to do it right, and something tells me the more extreme elements would prefer cattle cars to financial incentives...

Fundamentally bio-capital is an economics problem. Any society with high bio-capital will be successful and attract immigrants from societies that either have low bio-capital (Latin America), or suppressed potential, (Asia, old Europe). Civilization is built on layers on discrimination, and since civilization is better than not civilization...

Keeping out low bio-capital means creating an economic pressure/river that runs from high bio-capital outward to low bio-capital to counteract the natural attraction that high bio-capital produces. Since governments are unwilling to determine the genomes of the population, discriminatory methods must be employed. Otherwise "equality" would simply be a matter of manufacturing all humans to a common standard, or even just writing a desire for equality out of the genome altogether.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

How to deport 30 million minorities without firing a shot

There is an oft repeated claim that an ethnostate cannot be established without human rights abuses. That is nonsense. How is it done? Taxes, brah.

"Push and pull."

Taxes on renting to minorities "push" them out of certain states.

Subsidies for renting to minorities "pull" them to other states.

The average American moves every 7 years anyway.

Set up two dumping grounds. Call the first dumping ground "New York" and the second dumping ground "California."

In these two states there are subsidies for both renting to, and hiring, minorities and Jews.

In all the other states there are taxes on hiring and renting to these people.

Gradually, the taxes and subsidies are steadily ratcheted up to extreme levels.

Whites who move to the ethnostate receive a subsidy. Minorities who move to New York or California also get a subsidy. People who move the wrong direction pay a tax. Their employer pays a tax for hiring them. Their landlord pays a tax, etc. People, employers, and landlords who move the right direction receive a subsidy.

Gradually "push" and "pull" segregates the entire country.

After 20 years or so there are only a few stragglers remaining to deport.

A DNA test is the minimum for qualifying as legally white unless someone appears to be non-white based on an objective measure of skin color. A skin color measuring device is developed to provide an objective basis.

DNA test results confirming Whiteness
- minority physiognomy as measured by the machine
- ( those with > 1/16th Jewish heritage)
= classification as legally Caucasian.

I leave it to others to decide if Asians should be legally classified as White. I favor that they should.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

The invasion of capital by the social: a democratic conquest machine

In light of China's new social credit tyranny I think it is time to release this. I struggled a long time over whether or not democracy was better or worse than authoritarian government, but now that the Chinese have turned their back on any semblance of freedom I have decided that it is time for the technique of democratic conquest to be talked about openly.

I came up with idea back in June of 2017.


Last time in The invasion of the social by capital we looked at the process of bringing capitalism into democracy through non-aggression insurance. The general idea behind that article was that a form of compulsory insurance might eliminate democracy's tendency to destroy the economy over time with an accumulation of burdensome regulations, and to elucidate an intermediary step between the present condition and a more anarcho capitalist order.

The founding text of this site is Necameral Future, which was invaluable in helping me flesh out my ideas, but which deals (rather poorly) with the issue of "rift": a term that can be defined as follows;
Rift, definition:
the tendency of capitalism to produce ever greater levels of social dysfunction and personal alienation by taking humans farther away from the conditions under which they evolved, which they are adapted to, and which their natural cognitive biological software is designed to navigate. "Rift" is the steadily widening gap between the conditions we currently live under — conditions produced by our technologies — and the conditions we evolved under, or the conditions of the "ancestral environment." Rift is THE problem of the modern age. Every philosophy and ideology is engaged with the problem of rift whether it realizes it or not.
This whole site is about rift. The whole philosophy of accelerationism is a careless desire to exacerbate rift with the goal of either causing the system to collapse from its own internal contradictions, or using those tensions to accomplish radical emancipatory change. This is a rather naive view of the situation because in the same way that the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, capitalism can remain alive longer than the species can remain fecund.

Here at AP we are far more pessimistic than any other camp, seeing no salvation available in either collapse or transcendence, but our pessimism in factual matters is coupled with an optimism in possibilities. Where some believe the system will destroy itself, and others believe it will save us, we believe the hell will only get worse, that it will go on forever, and that the only salvation will be the one we make for ourselves. We also believe WE CAN save ourselves. Call this the "optimistic non-lazy approach," since all the other approaches are either lazy in thought or lazily pessimistic. (Pessimism in action is a form of laziness, and people who think the world will end generally want it to end because it solves all of modernity's problems).

Anyway, a possibility exists for the rift to be closed, by either invading the biological with the technological, (e.g., CRISPR gene editing, embryo selection) or invading the technological with the biological, (e.g., social technologies, organizational methods, new religions adapted to modern circumstances).

As a topic, this follows non-aggression insurance by invading the capital with the social, because it is an idea for democratizing the whole world.

The idea is simple: a foreign dictatorship is flooded with vouchers. These vouchers are only given to small business owners, and can only redeemed by leaders in a dictatorship authorized by The State Department. The theory is that democracy evolves when the middle-class achieves the financial power to influence their government, and that if you set up an operation that mimics the financial pattern of a campaign contribution engine then you turn every general into a politician who must money-grub for contributions.

Once the people are paying the salaries of their generals the generals will grub for shekels, the people will achieve power over their leaders, and the leaders will start to make concessions, including possibly the right to vote.

Also, since you control who receives the vouchers and who redeems them for cash you can influence the election by saying, "you get a voucher but not you," and "you can redeem a voucher but not him." And so the regime become a "colony democracy," rather than a fake/puppet democracy. In fact, nested campaign contribution voucher systems can form the basis for an alternate form of federalism, or even for a form of federalism with multiple centers/political capitols. You simply have several nations flooding a country with vouchers to express their political will in that nation. All have the aggregate effect of supporting democracy while shaping its internal policy.

Now imagine that your have a dictatorship like North Korea or Egypt. Imagine that the dictator gets news that vouchers have flooded into his country, and that diplomats are handing out cash for redeeming them. So you do what any good dictator would do and you send your chief of secret police around to gather them up and redeem them with the US government so you can get all the money. But the US government says that you can only redeem vouchers given to you voluntarily, and that there is a limit to the amount each general can redeem, so you burn the vouchers you cannot redeem.

The other generals see this and decide the next time they come across some vouchers they aren't going to turn them all in, but instead will redeem them for cash on the down low, while giving every peasant who hands over his vouchers a small kickback to encourage redemption. Now you have sewn mistrust among the senior staff. The generals who break ranks will wind up financially empowered to move against the dictator, or against the generals who do not break ranks. One day they will have the resources to overthrow him. You have created an engine of financial pressure that selects in favor of generals willing to let the voucher system work. If this dictator doesn't play ball, someone will.

The key is to make the cost of gathering up and burning the vouchers more costly than redeeming them. Multiple levels also help and should be introduced as soon as possible. Voucher Level "C" is redeemed by Level "B" which is redeemed by Level "A." You make it so that the top level needs the one below it, and the one below that to participate, otherwise it cannot get paid. To redeem Class A Vouchers requires multiple accompanying vouchers, maybe two Class B Vouchers and four C Vouchers. You make sure there are two times as many B's and four times as many C's in circulation.

After breaking the senior staff of their loyalty you move to build up the financial structure as rapidly as possible, so that the whole country comes to resemble a campaign contribution engine, and even if they never get democracy the vouchers are a form of democracy, and the feedback being produced is measured in terms of how thoroughly the man at the top chases redemptions.

You use the payments from vouchers to select in favor of pro-democracy characters within the regime, you pit people against each other and make the grub for contributions, you make the people at the top compete for the favor of the people in the bottom within the business community, who they cannot exterminate because they depend on for tax revenue, and you break the dictatorship of its cohesion using money as a weapon.

And by the way, this is probably how democracy developed in the first place, using actual money rather than vouchers, and local rather than foreign operators.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Now Accepting Submissions

If you would like to get something you have written published you can email me at or talk to me on Twitter at @AMK2934. You can either get my prior approval or just wing it, write up whatever you have to say and email me. Either works fine. Nearly all submissions will be accepted, unless you write "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" or "The fucking J*ws did it!" for 200 pages. Even grammar is not that big of a deal as long as you are consistent. Seriously, you could write an article in all lower case or something, and as long as you have a consistent style I don't care. You will of course be credited under whatever name or pen name you choose. Being published here isn't really a small thing since this blog gets about 9,600 pages views a month, and that's better than you would probably get by trying to start your own blog. It can take like 3 years to break 10K monthly views, and you can get that for free here and link to your own site to drive traffic there.

What should you write? Anything you want. Subjects favored but not required include accelerationism, NRx, reaction, general philosophy, genetic effects of technology, libertarianism, anarcho capitalism, futurism, Jean Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, Nick Land, HBD, freedom of speech, economics of ____, sexual market value, women, women's rights (for or against), The Federal Reserve, guns, cryptocurrency, smart contracts, political constitutions, communism, epistemology, mathematics, CRISPR, gene therapy, selection effects, mimetics, Vox Day-style articles, Jacobite-style articles, and Quillette-style articles.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Understanding xenomorphic anarchist activism

Xenomorphic anarchism is the concept of using the resources of the state to destroy the state from within. Why xenomorphic? Because in the 1979 movie Alien an organism infests its host, gestates inside of it, and then comes bursting out of the chest of the host. The ideal xenomorphic anarchist runs for President of The United States while pretending to be a completely normal pro-Cathedral Democrat. He (or she), then proceeds to direct hundreds of billions of dollars in funds to anarchist technology projects, off the books, without being noticed. He seeks to make statism technologically impossible.

The perfect xenomorphic anarchist gives you 3D printed atomic bombs in 3 to 5 years, decentralized ISP, drug 3D printers that can make any drug you want, international untraceable crypto currency, smart contracts that can be used to build alternative political and economic systems, and everything else, and uses taxpayer dollars to do it.

A brief write up on police brutality

Read from the bottom up.

Thursday, September 27, 2018

On the Rectification of Names in Politics (republished in light of the Kavanaugh hearings).

Why repeat myself when I can just republish myself?

First a twitter comment:

Actually Existing Democracy, Part One

Powerful people don't think like you. You look up at the system and see injustice. The powerful look down at you and see incentives for wealth, power, and success. It is these incentives that drive their behavior, and it can be shocking and enraging to see the world through their eyes. But that is what we are going to do. We are going to look at how the system really works.

The Subject of Economics is Incomplete

Economics is defined as the study of how humans fulfill unlimited wants with scarce means. It is the view of this author that the entire economic profession erred when it classified the study of government as something separate and distinct from itself. This occurred because the economist failed to correctly rectify the terms used to describe what the state was doing. He took the states terminology of itself for granted rather that realizing that all worlds the state uses to describe itself are meant to conceal its true activity. The state is by nature a corrupt and coercive institution. As such, it's politics is never rationally described on the face of things because it has an institutional need, one may say a marketing need, to hide what is really does in order to gain public support and minimize insurrection. Lying saves money are reduces the number of people you have to kill; it is utility maximizing.

The second flaw in economic analysis is the idea that humans are motivated by greed — that man is homo economicus. But money is only one path to utility, and the ultimate utility for a human primate is sex, and more directly, what sex produces in the form of children. Humans are biological organisms and thus all utility is derivative of those things that yield reproductive fitness. As a result, the whole range of what yields fitness is the proper study of economics. An expansive and complete economics would be defined in terms like, "the means by which humans further large wants of sexual fitness in the face of limited means of achieving sexual desires," with wealth pursuit being only one of those means, and pursued typically by men. Women do not typically pursue wealth for reproductive success since men are not hypergamous like women are, and since a high status female (high in the financial sense) may actually harm her reproductive success. For a woman, high status is found in high attraction, and not in high wealth. All of these forms of utility are proxies for reproduction and sex.

Utility does not just come through money. In point of fact, money is one of the weakest motivations. It also arises through the pursuit of power, status, popularity, charisma, and beauty. Popularity often translates more effectively into reproductive success that any of these other ones.

Secondly, economics must contain the full range of human behavior that enables physical survival, since one cannot reproduce if one is dead. And thirdly, the subject of economics is incomplete if it does not encapsulate politics completely.

One often hears endless debates over what exactly IS capitalism. Oftentimes the libertarian argument is made that "this isn't the true capitalism," meaning, and activity that is exploitative and corrupt cannot really be indicative of capitalism because it occurred under market conditions that were distorted by the violence of the state. This debate is even more pronounced when left libertarians point out that the state nearly always puts its thumb on the scale on the side of capital and against labor.

These endless arguments over terminology are useless and I won't engage in them. We will define ALL human activity through economics and start by defining the role of the state in it. Then we will see that there is no such thing as this "ism" or that "ism," but that it is all just a market of human behavior, and that the state lies at one extreme of coercive market behavior while the "free market" lies at the other extreme. It is a continuum of market behavior ranging from one theoretical state of pure voluntary exchange on one side, to another extreme of pure coercive slavery on the other, with the vast majority of human behaviors ranging somewhere on this continuum and all being more or less distorted by asymmetrical coercive force. Even the simple relationship of an employee to their employee involves an asymmetry; the employer knows more about what the employee is worth financially than the employee does, and the employer has more bargaining power since the employee may become homeless if chronically unemployed for too long. So a simple, seemingly consensual transaction can be less consensual that it looks.

A lot of economics is about the behavior of humans under conditions of theoretical pure competition. It is easy to model mathematically. This is about actually existing economics as it really occurs, and specifically about actually existing democracy.

The Rectification of Names

Our goal is to understand economics completely. This means that the political realm must be explained economically. Since all politicians have an incentive to lie, the study of government has been systematically misrepresented. The entire field lies in confusion. Our first task then is the rectification of names. We must accurately describe what government really is.

Let us go through a list of terms and replace them with more correct ones.

The free market is actually a theoretical pure archetype. In reality all transactions are semi-free in modern corrupt states since the state is producing various market distortions for its clients. The free market is thus semi-free and always operating under distortion.

The state is actually a coercion market. That is, it is a market that sells coercive force to private buyers. While it is true,that it often legislates in the general interest, (the criminal code is an example of this), it is also true that it is in the general interest of its client lobbyists and public interest groups to have a properly functioning society and economy. Just as the selfish desires of individual businessmen may lead to an "invisible hand" of collective public good in production, so the selfish interest of various pressure groups acting upon the legislative process may also produce legislation in favor of the general welfare, especially if they negotiate and compromise their interests against each other. So despite the fact that the state is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, it may still legislate for the common good most of the time. Even parasites need a function economy to expropriate.

A senator or congressman is actually a coercion market broker that sells other peoples money. The state has a monopoly on the use of force. But it sells this monopoly through either bribes or campaign contributions. A very real example is the ban on Canadian drug imports. Canada has a process for drug approval that is adequate for drug safety. There is no legitimate reason to prohibit the importation of Canadian pharmaceuticals. Yet, this is done anyway. Every truck driver that is arrested for crossing the Canadian border with safe drugs that are legal in Canada is being arrested to enforce the cartel rights of American pharmaceutical manufacturers. This is done only to enforce artificially high prices for drugs, and this sort of thing is done in countless industries.

A lobbyist is actually a buyer of coercion market services, (force) or defense from force, (protection).
A campaign contribution is actually the financial sponsorship of a coercion market broker with the expectation of future reward in the form of economic rents, favors, or protections from force.
A bribe is a direct purchase of a vote from a coercion market broker. A bribe entitles the purchaser to buy the vote of a Congressman on the honor system: the Congressman may not vote the way he is bribed to. Generally, all bribes are aggregated with the others, so that the highest total aggregation of bribes wins out. Bribes are less effective at buying political positions than candidate sponsorship (campaign contributions), thus, the buyers of the coercion market (lobbyists) have allowed laws to be passed that outlawed bribery because it was less effective at controlling politicians than sponsorship. Campaign finance laws are not intended to protect the voter. They are intended to make the process of vote buying more reliable by switching the market to a model of candidate sponsorship, similar to the way individual athletes are sponsored by advertising.

There are two voting systems in a democracy. One is the formal vote that all Americans may participate in. The other is the market vote. In the market vote, first the market decides what candidates it will sponsor (give contributions to). It chooses from a range of options the candidates that are most likely to produce a return on investment. The longer the candidate has been in office the more established his voting record and the more predictable and less risky he tends to be as an investment. Thus, the market favors incumbents and they tend to win elections more often than challengers. A conservative war hawk may receive market sponsorship (contributions) because he is tough on crime (good for the pockets of police unions), a war hawk, (good for the pockets of defense contractors and veterans), while a Democrat may receive sponsorship from labor unions, teachers unions, academics, and students because of their financial interests. Conversely, a libertarian will often not receive much sponsorship because he enriches no one. The market vote has the effect of sorting out unprofitable candidates. Since sincere politicians tend to be mentally unbalanced, it often times also has a screening effect on the mental health of candidates. AFTER, the market has sorted for profitability through sponsorship the formal vote is held where the people "decide" who will be their leader. Of course, all candidates have already been chosen through this market sponsorship mechanism that behaves exactly as if it were a formal vote that uses money instead of ballots. Thus, all elections are really two-part affairs; one involving money and a second part involving ballots. The first election, the monetary election, produces a sorting effect of candidates in favor of the market. The second election then chooses from these candidates.

  • A monarchy is a monopolized coercion market that "underperforms" at redistribution. If performance is measured as redistribution then monarchy underperforms at it best. Note that "redistribution" here says nothing about its direction upward or downward, and the term "performance" does not make a moral assertion.
  • A multi-party democracy is an oligopolistic coercion market. These oligopolies are usually operating on various versions of the Westminster system. Oligopolistic coercion markets have the most generous welfare states and the most responsive governments. 
  • A two-party democracy is a duopolistic coercion market that remains duopolistic because the two players (political parties) cooperate to exclude third parties with winner-take-all rules.
  • A political party is actually a firm whose "profits" come in the form of votes. Since profits in a coercion market are a zero-sum game between competitors, and a negative sum game for society as a whole, one firms "profits," (or votes), must always come at the expense of the other. Actors are willing to participate in a zero-sum game because their utility comes from power, and because of the economic rents they receive. Costs are ultimately paid by third-parties.
  • Voting is actually giving profit to one or more of the coercion brokers sponsored by a party and it's campaign contributors (financial sponsors).
  • Votes are a form of property in government which is non-transferable, cannot be accumulated, can be used only once, are exercised anonymously, and are theoretically equal. Votes are a type of share, or corporate stock which pays no dividends directly, and which has zero transferability rights. The act of eliminating transferability rights (sale of votes) protects small players at the expense of larger players.
  • Redistribution is actually "market performance" in a coercion market.
  • Indoctrination is actually marketing for power. Indoctrination is to the state what marketing is to the firm.
  • The coercion market has at least five actors; the buyer (client of the lobbyist), the sales broker, (lobbyist), the primary seller of other peoples money, (the permanent civil service), the secondary seller of other peoples money, (Congressman), and the defender against attack (person or group being expropriated). Usually, the defender is absent from negotiations.

Friday, September 14, 2018

The benefits of MEAT

Jordan Peterson: fat shit. Here he is in 2010 eating a standard American diet filled with carbohydrates, chemicals, and processed foods. He used to have depression too.

Now here he is after eating MEAT for years. He also ate some greens for a while.

Peterson is on a meat only diet. I have trouble believing any human can do that without going blind, but whatever. What do I know. He says that it has cured his depression and his daughters medical problems. I have no reason to disbelieve either of them because body types differ radically.

I have my own theory about why the meat only diet might get results, which is that micro plastics and phthalates are laced in absolutely everything. There are two biological effects that occur in the natural world that are mediated by animal protein, and those are bio-magnification and animal liver filtration.

Simply put:

Bio-magnification is what happens when toxins accumulate as they move up the food chain. This is why fish have mercury, and why sharks have more mercury. The larger the fish the higher the mercury content since it is higher on the food chain.

Animal liver filtration is what happens when the liver of an animal processes out toxins so that the resultant product is less toxic to ha human being. Basically the animal performs some of the process of processing harmful chemicals for you, kind of like how cooking is a form of partial digestion.

Anyway, my theory is that Mikhaila Peterson is actually just allergic to some chemical that is in everything BUT meat, since whatever that chemical is is filtered out by the livers of the cows she eats. Micro-plastics? Phthalates? Triclosan? Even our water supply contains trace amounts of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, birth control, opiates, pesticides, etc. By the time water flowing from Colorado (my state) reaches Louisiana it has been through the bodies of an average of 3 humans or 5 animals. We piss it out and it goes to the waste treatment facility where it is cleaned almost to the point of being drinkable, yes drinkable. You could almost get away with holding a cup up to the sewage treatment plant outflow spigot and drink from it. Almost. You can thank the EPA for that.

She might just be allergic to Roundup or something, and cow livers are the only thing that can process it out. How do you go on a chemical elimination diet?

Remember: chemicals versus elements. Mercury is an element. As such it will bio-magnify as it travels up the food chain. So is lead, strontium 90, etc. All poisonous metals and some chemical compounds will bio-magnify, but with most chemicals there is the possibility of natural metabolism and breakdown in the livers of other animals. Thus, it can be safer to eat meat than fish, and safer to eat meat than plants, especially if the animal is just eating plants all day and running toxins out through its liver.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Facts versus values

Thinking is an art and people who do it well have far less psychological pain that others. For example, take the following two statements;
"Capitalism will destroy us all"
"Capitalism is the best thing ever."
The first statement is a factual assertion, that is, it is an assertion in the category of positive information. The second statement is a normative statement, or value statement. Alternately it might be rephrased as the positive statement "capitalism is treated as the best thing ever by humans."

The above two examples are just examples, and not important. The important thing is that the above two statements are not actually contradictions. It is possible for capitalism to both be the best thing ever and to be destroying us. In fact, only the best thing ever could destroy us because humans would fight against obvious danger. Only something that was so good we could never give it up could destroy us.

The reader may be tempted to concentrate on the issue of capitalism, and I apologize for distracting you with that, but this is not about capitalism. It is about category errors and cognition.

Inevitably people think badly because they respond to one category with another category of assertion. Someone will say something like;
"X is a fact"
and another person will say;
"X is immoral/evil/racist"
What is going here is that a person is responding to information in one category: "potentially factual statements," with another category, "moral statements or objections."

The same happens in reverse;
"Y is evil"
"Yeah, but factually it is economically efficient."
People are always tripping past each other with category errors. Simply put;


Doing this one thing (keeping the factual separate from the moral) will alleviate almost all the psychological tension in your life surrounding politics.

People think badly because they cannot stop their knee-jerk reactions from interfering with their judgement. They cannot stop their knee-jerk reactions because they refuse to separate factual and moral information. Morality is the end of logic. The minute you say "ought" "should" or "must" you have already stopped thinking.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

The division of racial labor

Bitch rant. . .

The Old Testament is a book written by jews, for jews. It tells them how to survive in the midst of enemies who want to destroy them. It advocates compulsory monogamy, suppression of degeneracy, and the enslavement of the enemies of Israel. Not only does it advocate killing people who challenge the faith and engage in sodomy, but it advocates stoning: a form of punishment that makes the entire community guilty of murder by giving everyone the motivated cognition necessary to believe the murder was just. If The People constitute the executioners then The People will justify execution on principle.

The New Testament is a book written by jews, for gentiles. It advocates love, peace, harmony, socialism, and adultery. It tells you to leave your family and follow a jewish teacher. Socialism has destroyed every society that has tried it. Adultery has destroyed every marriage that has tried it.

The white race is the "Outer Party" to the "Inner Party" of the jewish race. There are two books because there are two parties represented by two races. There are three layers; the "high" (jews), the "middle" (whites), and the "low" (minorities). As the book says, the proles (minorities) are animals, and there is a constant war of the high against the middle in alliance with the low.

Every ownership race needs a competent and trustworthy management race.

The last time the Outer Party tried to become the Inner Party was Nazi Germany. It's failure makes it evil, otherwise we would all think it good, since history is written by the winners.

The moon landing was not an american achievement. It was the remnants of the old Confederacy riding rockets engineered by the remnants of Nazi Germany, which was later culturally appropriated as american success. (See this). But america is a communist country, and communists are too stupid to build rockets. Now we appropriate the technological achievements of a White South African to give us reusable rockets. He is a remnant of apartheid. When he is done there will be no more remnants.

The origin of equality is the institutional need of the catholic church (Outer Party Ministry) to grow beyond the confines of the white race. If all humans are equal then they are equally capable of salvation, equally capable of paying tithe, etc., and The church is equally capable of growing fat off their donations. Equality enables the profit margin.

This standardization of the parishioner precedes the standardized consumer, and follows the standardization of god(s) through monotheism. The jews standardized god, which destroyed the Roman Empire, the Empire that made the mistake of conquering them. A jewish man, saul of tarsus, exported the cult of death and mysticism to Rome during the occupation of israel by Emperor Tiberius. Gnosticism is the form of christianity without unprincipled exceptions.

First the gods are standardized through monotheism. Then the believer is standardized through equality.  Then his genetics are standardized through gene editing. Capitalism worships the standard object, the standard employee, the standard international law, the monoculture, the "international style" of glass skyscraper. Capitalism is the standardization of everything that follows the standardization of religion in the feudal era.

Religion passes through different hands; first various tribes and their various individual gods, the the state and its one god, then the corporation and is godless worship of objects. First the christian was too holy for the many pagan gods of Rome, then the puritan was too holy for the pope. The atheist is too holy for God, and the social justice warrior is too holy for reality.

The uniqueness of the white race is it's division of racial labor. All other races are more or less a single thing, but the division of western society is not just a division of labor between races, (jews, whites, and prole/minority), but a division within the white race itself. There is some hand wringing about where asians fit into this.

Whites are divisible into vaishyas, brahmins, and jews (if you include jews as part of the white race). These roughly translate as warriors/lower management, upper management, and owners.

Warriors/vaishyas come from Scots-Irish ancestry. They were shit on by the British for a thousand years and genetically adapted to serving masters who hate them. They are your modern cuckservatives. Their loyalty is worse than a dogs, and they don't even yelp when beaten. The purpose of the vaishyas is to kill the enemies of the jews and fight israel's wars for her. The warriors are sent in to exterminate the native americans, or butcher the aztecs, or enslave the africans. Afterward they will bear the cultural shame so that upper management can wash its hands of things.

Then come the liberals/brahmins. Their purpose is to thrive in the spaces cleared by conservative genocide. while virtue signaling against the conservatives/vaishyas who protect them from minorities/proles.

Equality and war a are both gene maximizing strategies. War maximizes gene flow by clearing the field of genetic competition through genocide. Equality transfers wealth to the poorer members of your society so they can have more children. Equality enables you to fill up the environment with children once you have cleared it.

The conservatives clear the territory. The liberals occupy and fill it up. The jews bankroll the whole operation. The minorities serve as manual labor slaves, (hispanics) or paid thugs, (blacks) to keep the conservatives in line. The whole operation is an elaborate caste system and profit machine disguised as a battle for equality.

The low have superstition. The middle have FAITH. The upper management has "atheism." The owners have "reform judaism."

Friday, August 31, 2018

The invasion of the social by capital: non-aggression insurance

One of the most interesting ideas put forward by libertarian theorists is the concept of an assassination market. Timothy C. May was the first to elucidate the concept in The Cyphernomicon where the idea is articulated that a cryptographic market would place bets on the date that a person will die, so that an assassin can get paid for his work by betting on the day that he will kill someone, since he knows that day in advance. The pot of money is divided by all participants who bet on that exact day, and with cryptography the identity of the market participants is kept anonymous.

A sufficiently advanced assassination market could form the basis of a government without leaders, since government is that force of violence of last resort, and if a law can be made enforceable by market dictate then a force equivalent to a congress (or legislator of last resort) exists. If a tax and voucher scheme was also implemented such that the vast majority of assassination market bets were placed by ordinary people, then such a system might even avoid consolidation by the wealthy and remain "democratic" in the sense of enabling competition in all other areas. But as usual, the existing system forms a barrier to any new one, so that such market anarcho capitalist schemes can only be arrived at through gradualism, where less intrusive options are explored first to dissolve the existing hegemony.

It is my intention to articulate a less-than-lethal version of the assassination market in the hopes that such a stepping stone might lead to the more biting option later. Assassination markets do not currently work because they are not sufficiently advanced for full anonymity, because they are suppressed, because they are insufficiently capable of rerouting around their suppression — at this time. May we construct a more tolerable option? One that the Cathedral is required to respect? Imagine then non-aggression insurance.

Free-loaders are parasites. One of the most interesting aspects of libertarianism is the unwillingness to oppose parasitism with any kind of mandatory anything. All property is based on violence, whether it is the private security guard, solider, bounty hunter, privateer, mercenary, or cop defending it. Our purpose is not to quibble over who does the violence — we take it as a given that power is not going away, but to articulate a plan for how a Principal might secure his property without said property being captured by an Agent, that is, without the Agent(s) becoming a monopoly (of government) through collusion. How is competition maintained in violence (of last resort) without violent competition? This is not dissimilar to the issue of labor, which though socialist in its concern also makes itself relevant. "Get a degree and we will pay you more later," and "do X for us and make more money LATER," are the labor versions of "supplies are limited!," "everything is on sale 50%!" and so forth. They are scams where the employer tries to get the laborer to upgrade his skill set at his own expense. The only labor non-scam is, "mandatory union dues."

It is weird how libertarians oppose unions, since unions are just as capitalist as firms. The union is the entrepreneurial capitalism of the socialist, and like the capitalist his property (in collective ownership of a business) is based on real or implied violence. At AP we see no difference between one man owning property which he defends with violence, and a collective that does the same, though the collective might be less efficient and more prone to parasitism if badly organized — which all have historically been. But private constitutions (programmable charters or smart contracts) can easily route around parasitism by specifying rewards for the productive and penalties for the non-productive, and thus, modern collective ownership is possible so long as it involves a sufficiently advanced self-excusing smart contract constitution. We see no difference between the king who earns by right of conquest and the socialist who earns by right of collective conquest, so long as the socialist breaks with the historical norm of irresponsible parasitism and becomes a truly responsible owner. And thus mandatory non-aggression insurance seams like a pretty good idea here, since responsible collective ownership may be possible by the Principal.

So what is non-aggression insurance? It is the beginning of smart contract government. Imagine that there is a firm that represents the interests of business owners in government, but unlike large lobbyists it is only allowed to block legislation and serves only predominantly small, (rather than large) business owners). Now this mandate to only block is incorporated into its corporate charter. Vouchers are issued to all business owners in a state. These vouchers pay out only when a proposed law is either successfully defeated, or an exemption for enforcement is crafted for that particular state or province. The vouchers are paid for by a tax which is progressive in the sense of forcing wealthy business owners to pay more than small business owners, but the issuance of vouchers is consistent across all levels of business owners and they all receive the same purchasing power. Vouchers pay to block legislation only, and never to make it, and this rule in also state law. When a proposed law is successfully blocked from reaching the Presidents desk the broker working to block receives a cut. Brokers are licenced by the market automatically on a first-come, first serve-basis and the total number of brokers is algorithmically limited to a fixed number per market size, to insure that competition is not so fierce that no money can be made, nor so lacking that collusion is possible. The algorithm automatically adjusts the number of licences up or down based on a formula designed to maintain the income of brokers at a steady state of around 100 K per year adjusted annually for inflation.

This differs from regular lobbyists who serve large Fortune 500 companies. The brokers are servants of predominantly small businesses, since they pay the bills, and unlike large companies they only block law, and do not try to make it. Their purpose is to stifle the entire law making function, such that rent seeking by large corporations is impossible and the legislative process of democracy is shut down completely.

Business owners place bids on blocking the laws they consider most harmful to their industries, and thus, the law is either defeated or an exemption is carved out for the state with mandatory non-ag insurance. With a smaller legislative burden than other states business flocks to that particular state, the economy grows, and other states are incentivized to follow the model, until the entire set of all 50 states has some form of non-ag insurance, (or a fewer number of states since progressive states will destroy themselves). Exit pressure becomes a very real force in politics, and non-ag insurance may begun to be implemented internationally.

Given enough time this should lead to the total paralyzation of the government apparatus, as the government becomes an incompetent actor incapable of responding to crisis. Into this vacuum the anacho capitalist offers private enforcement as an alternative, and without a government capable of responding competently assassination market may thrive and replace it as law maker/violence of last resort. The corporate charters of non-aggression firms specify an exception where only laws enabling private enforcement may pass. Afterward the conventional democracy becomes incapable of acting, and the assassination market can eliminate its politicians to take its place, since desperate people will flock to the only source of competent enforcement they can find. The private sector gradually comes to replace the public sector, and the invasion of the social by capital is complete. The new regime has two levels; a systems of private enforcement checked by a system of assassination markets. This ensures that when the CEOs of private enforcement companies exceed their natural authority, abuse their power, or gain too much concentration of power, they are eliminated. The old democracy is kept only a means to redistribute purchasing power via vouchers for the new system. Socialism survives as vouchers that put all humans on a footing of equal rights by giving them equal purchasing power in the new market: a market for social services. A social currency becomes normal and the redistribution to pay for it becomes all that is left of democracy. Rather than eliminating democracy it becomes part of a three-branch system to mutually check power of the other branches, which are; private enforcement, assassination markets, and democratic redistribution of purchasing power for security services.