Monday, August 22, 2016

Aphorisms 16

That which government prohibits it has no power to control.

Punishment gains avoidance rather than obedience.

The technology no one anticipates cannot be prevented.

What no one owns no one respects.

A thing never rises above itself.

Abstract humans get no love.

Ideology is the prostitute of power.

Aphorisms 15

Never let your envy get in the way of a paycheck.

Aphorisms 14

Women select the dominant male, therefore male dominance exists.

As a result, one part of the feminist program wars with the other. Sexual "choice" makes abolishing patriarchy impossible.

Aphorisms 12

Multiracial societies can never be fully socialist because the xenophobic impulse, being stimulated, suppresses the egalitarian one, destroying preoccupation with class consciousness.

Aphorisms 11

Never let your sense of morality get in the way of doing what is right. -- Isaac Asimov

Never let your dislike of a person get in the way of perceiving the truth.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Aphorisms 10

Because of co-ordination costs, it is easier for a small group to organize for the purposes of rent seeking than a large one.

Second: because of co-ordination costs, it is almost always profitable for a small group to organize than a large one, and almost never popular for a large group to co-ordinate to defend against this.

When it is profitable for a large group to co-ordinate, it is only for the purposes of creating massive entitlement programs.

Corollary: small groups are repressively redistributional.

Therefore legislation accumulates relentlessly, and so does redistribution.

All law designed for profit distorts the market, and all laws are made for profit.

Therefore, distortion accumulates.

As distortion accumulates, market failures accumulate.

All failures of the market are caused by government, and all failures of the government are caused by the market.

Market failures are generally blamed on the market, rather than their true source, the government.

Law, being profitable to special interests, creates market failure.

Thus, market failures caused by law drive public demand for new law, while the profitability of economic rents incentivizes law making.

The whole process accelerates exponentially towards collapse.

Thus, on the last day of a democracies existence more law may be created than in the first ten years of the nations history.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Aphorisms 9

Ignorance of reality is suffering and total ignorance is death.

Observation is survival.

Equality condemns observation as sin, and reality itself as a sin.

The cause of the decline of western civilization is equality.

Seen in this light. MLK was an executioner.

Aphorisms 8

Equality is the mass psychosis of our age.

Aphorisms 7

Truth supersedes morality, since the later depends on a knowledge of the former.

A man who lies to himself cannot even begin to know what the moral thing to do is; since morality, being an action and not a concept, depends on knowledge of reality and reality is truth. Those who place ideals above factual truth are perfectly immoral.


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 3







The Totalitarianism of Technology 
and the Low Fecundity Trap

As the phase 1 force of technology expands its concomitant phase 2 incentives come to dominate every aspect of our lives. Prior to this, the human animal existed in his natural state, with associated incentives derived exclusively from his own biology. His or her genetics was both the basis of his or her nature and the basis of his incentives for his or her action. As technology expands the extent of non-biological incentives does as well, and the artificial and alienating nature of those incentives increases. It may be said then, that we live in the era of totalitarian technology, an era when the artificial nature of our means of production achieves a means/ends reversal such that the human becomes the effect, rather than the cause, of his tools. Technology expands to achieve a total influence over our lives. The only possible means for countering this are either rejecting modern technology completely—as groups like the Amish and Mennonites have done, or engineering the appropriate artificial counter-force in social tech, or changing the human animal with genetic engineering.

The process of mending the rift between human nature and technology is convergence. But right now convergence can only ever be temporary. The nature of technology is to expand at a higher rate than genetic change. This results in an ever expanding rift, and thus the prospects for bridging the gap are Sisyphean—destined to fail after a few decades or centuries. One may push the boulder to the top of the hill for awhile, but the hill only grows bigger, and the top shifts upward relentlessly. All it takes to undo a century of social technology is one new conventional technological development. And so one must either completely reject the technology of the modern world, or build social technologies as fast as conventional ones are created. The problem of rift is ultimately caused by the patent and trademarks systems—markets for new conventional technologies act as a accelerator. It is not the existence of this market which is the problem, but the lack of a corresponding accelerator for social technology. To achieve continual convergence requires that the two accelerationists projects, (conventional technology on the one hand, and social technology or genetic enhancement on the other), be brought into alignment and co-evolve in iterative succession rapidly. Human tech must keep pace with human tools. To overcome the lag we need markets for developing social technology. Concurrently, we also need several thousand new religions and forms of government.

This problem become especially acute when we examine the effects of modern technology on our reproductive lives. Two sets of technologies were created. One the one hand, population increasing tech like modern industrial farming, antibiotics, vaccines, and interstate highways allowed for the transportation and production of a vast amounts of food, and the creation of many human beings. On the other, the population reducing technologies of birth control, abortion, and other reproductive tech causes population to shrink. There was a gap of several decades between the development of these two technology sets, and that difference has created a global population bubble set to reach nine billion human beings. As technology moves geographically in to new areas of the globe the population bubble moves outward like a wave. This wave of growth is then followed by a wave of shrinkage. We are just now, today, in the west, beginning to experience population shrinkage, and the process of shrinkage will eventually reach every corner of the the planet. Nine billion humans is probably the most dramatic example of the total influence of technology in our lives.

As a side note, it should be understood that the coming failure of antibiotics may create an immigration and travel free world. This may be a desirable side effect that limits some of the more destructive effects of Cathedral overreach.

Artificial incentives now dominate our reproductive lives. Women can have abortions now. This removes the incentive for chastity outside marriage. Because of the high cost of raising a child, women have an incentive to seek a supportive partner within a monogamous relationship. The male libido is constrained by her willingness. He wants her. She wants him to a lesser degree, but she also wants reliability and support. When her biological disincentive against promiscuity is lessened, the male libido prevails. When this happens, women are both free to prefer the attractive male over the reliable one, and discouraged from monogamy by the surfeit of unreliable men. Urbanization adds a second incentive against reproduction. On farms children are an asset—in the city a financial liability.

Let us remember that incentives do not exist in a vacuum. An incentive produces a change in one person. This persons behavior, having changed, produces another incentive for the next, and so on.

If everyone is being monogamous, then the reality of that situation imposes itself on you. Conversely, if everyone is being promiscuous, that reality too imposes itself on you. Whatever the majority does, the minority sees its options reduced. Libertarian arguments about the right to choose ignore the fact that all choices of the herd impose themselves as reduced options on the person who does not conform. Even worse, the majority may only go along with something because everyone else does, with everyone else simply following destructive incentives. Choice becomes an illusion when everyone is stuck in a low level equilibrium trap that can only be overcome by forcing people to adopt the higher standard. Whatever "everyone" is doing will limit the options of the individual and family as a negative externality. Ones only choice then is to either conform, fight against the current of society, or change the forces that control societal flow—to control the forces that control you.

Immoral choices of the majority are a negative externality borne by the moral individual. There is actually no such thing as "choice" divorced from societal consequence. Everything effects everyone else. Thus, both libertarian and liberal platitudes about free will and right to choose are really just ways of concealing the exercise of private power in typically immoral ways. No action exists in a vacuum, and thus, agreements about "live and let live" are fallacious. No action can ever actually avoid impacting unwilling participants.

If a woman cannot find a reliable men she will prefer the attractive unreliable ones over the less attractive unreliable one. If she is paid for divorce she will be more likely to prefer any attractive unreliable man over any unattractive reliable one. She will also adopt promiscuity as a substitute method for fulfilling her needs. If average looking men cannot find wives, they will practice "game" or give up on monogamy, both exacerbating the lack of reliable men. The two sexes will now form a new stable lower level equilibrium of misery which is suboptimal for both.

This is because the two incentive sets reinforce each other in a circular configuration. This is the problem that the entire red pill movement is built on dealing with, and unwittingly exacerbating with seduction techniques.

One simple solution is to form a 'moral dating society' where anyone who sleeps with anyone before marriage is evicted from the group by an unwavering dictator matchmaker. The trick is to make no exceptions for the rule against premarital sex, and routinely polygraph the members about their sex lives. Only if one can detect people defecting from the standard can the standard be enforced. Second, always have lots of members of the same age range and a 50/50 gender ratio. More than that, marriage reform is needed to make the institution traditional again and abolish mandatory alimony and child support. No one should be rewarded for getting divorced.

Ideally this would be coupled with religion whose members believe their future in heaven is linked to producing children, like Mormons. Hopefully they would even have a religious quota: "only people with at least four children go to heaven."

Premarital sex, being prohibited by polygraph, forces the members to either leave the group or conform to the higher equilibrium level and get married. Since no one can cheat the polygraph reliably it serves as is a bar to entry for unserious people. Minor cheating of the device is no issue, the mere threat acts as deterrence. This is exactly how Scientology enforces monogamy among its Sea Organization members with near complete and total reliability. Only they use an even cruder device called an E-meter. The result is that nearly all young teenage Sea Org members get married.

As we already know, the absence of sexual rewards for less attractive men reduces their willingness to contribute to society. A single man is less productive than a married one and earns less money.

The availability of abortion creates the expectation for its use. Its legality normalizes promiscuity. Promiscuity reinforces the incentive by increasing demand for abortion services. The presence of other women who give it up for free puts pressure on all women to do the same. In game theory this is called a 'defect, defect' situation. It is a prisoner's dilemma. Any woman who has sex outside of marriage betrays all women seeking marriageable husbands to support them, trapping all non-promiscuous women in disposable relationships.

Since all women are sleeping around with little chance of finding reliable partners, and ideology springs up to justify this psychological adaptive preference formation. Women become men psychologically. The left celebrates strong women. Naturally, if a women is to be disposable she prefers to be fucked by the hottest male she can find.

Because reliable and less attractive men are ignoring women, and women are ignoring less than perfectly attractive males, most of a women's sexual experiences will be with the small portion of men that treat her as disposable. She will then perceive all men as being this way, since that constitutes nearly all her experience with them. If twenty percent of the men get eighty percent of the women, and all those men are jerks, then eighty percent of women's experience will be with jerks.

This is psychologically damaging. She may respond by becoming abusive, feminist, and by turning into a "strong-willed" woman. More prostitution to incentives, and incentives making prostitutes. This damage lowers her sexual market value to the very men who could provide reliable marriage partners. She will incorrectly interpret all men as being unreliable cads since all her experiences are with them. Men in turn will see all women as manipulative and crazy, as this manipulation is the strategy used to 'keep' men—a strategy that ironically, drives away all the good ones.

A psychologically similar damage happens to men who are run down and drained by the experience one way or another, through either repeated failure at attracting a mate, or the vaguely soul destroying effects of being the player in multiple acts of usury.

They are all being ruined one way or another by the incentive set they live under.

And why would this be any other way? Evolution has designed humans to accommodate the material conditions in which they find themselves in order to survive and reproduce. Of course humans convert material conditions into ideology. It could be no other way. That is historically been the reproduction maximizing thing to do. Except this time the incentive is slow passive autogenocide through sub-replacement fertility levels. Pornography and birth control create the simulation of reproduction without its effect.

And ideologies will justify all of it. Rather than changing the incentives that trap them, people will adapt their whole civilization and thought process to suit their newly ruined lives. On the female end, concepts like third wave feminism, rape culture, pornography's relationship to power, patriarchy, male dominance, female empowerment and victimization, and a host of other ideas will inarticulate with endless words, what they cannot say, because they don't understand process, and wouldn't know what to say, or where to begin, or their asses from their elbows. Ideology is either a rage against incentives, or a deep mental prostitution to them, a human is a puppet dancing on the end of strings who does not know they are enslaved. Ideology is the incentive slave who does not know she is enslaved trying to argue, in favor of her master, without even knowing she has one. All modern ideology is prostitution to incentives since technologies effects are total.

On the male side concepts like MGTOW, Men's Rights, the Red Pill, Game, etc., will be the ideology that men attempt to use to make sense of the nasty incentives they face. Again, you are an incentive slave. All your ideology is master-justification. You love your master. Everything you do is your psyche being warped by perverse incentives to suit the conditions of your existence. Real manhood and power are found in commanding your environment, taking control of the incentives that enslave you and your woman, and conquering them. Freedom comes from controlling the incentives that control you and your enemies.*

Step one: map them. Step two: change them. Don't philosophize. Deeds, not words.

Obedience to material conditions causes survival—in the past. Ideology enables tribal coordination. Morality allows internalization. Rationalization, excuses, and self-deception allow living with the consequences. Nature is a reproduction maximizing algorithm. It does not care how you have to abase yourself to make yourself survive. It will program your genetics to incline you to do it anyway. This part is crucial. You are programmed to simply follow incentives. You are naturally disinclined to learn the lesson that the only true freedom comes from controlling the incentives that control you. You always want to pay attention to ideology. You always want to be reactive rather than seeing it all from the outside. Everything that you are naturally inclined to do is wrong. Control is achieved through controlling the big impersonal forces of society and not the individuals in in it. Control is achieved by understanding alien ways of thinking; like economics, physics, behavioral genetics, Darwinism, and the five-phase process. It is not achieved through debate and argument. It is not achieved through force and coercion, though those can help. After all, force is an incentive (phase 2). The higher the phase level of action the stronger the resulting impact will be.* Control is making the game rules—not playing chess against the enemy. We here at the Anti-Puritan are game designers—not chess players. Let them fight us according to our ever-shifting rules.

But I digress.

Monogamy is sexual socialism for the majority. If you are reading this, then the probability is eighty percent that you are a man in the bottom eighty percent of 'game' with women. That is, in a society where twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the sex, you have an eighty percent chance of not being a successful 'player.' So sexual socialism is for you, and also eighty percent of everyone else. It needs to be pointed out that most men lack 'game' simply because nine out of ten men are below being a 'perfect ten' in terms of looks. Put more bluntly, what is creepy for an ugly man to say to a woman might be downright endearing for a handsome one.

Most men don't lack game. They lack looks.

To female readers the same rule applies. You, female, are also likely in the bottom eighty percent of a eighty/twenty rule. You too are unlikely to get married before your eggs turn cold. The easy solution is a mass-shotgun wedding and the outlawing of premarital sex, but ideology (phase 4) gets in the way. This is of course the very ideology created by power, (phase 3), which in turn was created by incentives (phase 2), which in turn was caused by the particular material force of abortion (phase 1). Thus, phase 1 programs both the incentive for the thing and the ideological defense of the thing, and programs powers support for the ideology. So fighting it is swimming upstream against a river.

So the ideology created by power, created by incentives, created by abortion, defends the problem it created. This, is the same ideology that works to prevent outlawing abortion by celebrating it as a right. You want love and sex. He wants sex and love (or dinner). Shotgun wedding. Problem solved.

Ideally, your benevolent dictator would send you a summons in the mail forcing you to show up at the local high school gymnasium on the weekends. Don't worry, all workplaces will be closed that day so you will be able to make your appointment. If you don't show up we will come and get you. While there, you will be rated by a computer to determined how hot you are. Then you will be sent into a separate corner with the other "eights" (assuming you are an eight). Men will place marriage flowers at your feet with their name and picture cards attached. You must pick one. You have thirty minutes to decide. Chose fast or the man you want may be taken. Don't worry, if you refuse we will chose one for you.

If you are homosexual we will send you to a different ceremony. There you will chose from among your own sex. We're not monsters. We're fair. We respect diversity.

I say this all tongue in cheek. It is just a second way to break the low-level equilibrium trap.

As society undergoes this anti-reproductive trap the future of humanity becomes less certain. Today, the trap affects western civilization, but birth rates are also declining in all parts of the Islamic world that are not being bombed, as well in Japan and the far east, and are slowing in Latin America. Eventually the trap will consume all of humanity. Yes, even Africa will be effected. As already stated the effect is staggered globally, spreading outward from the societies that underwent the industrial revolution first.

This may be the resolution to the Fermi Paradox. This may be humanities Great Filter. Perhaps intelligent lifeforms that develop birth control go extinct from a lack of reproduction, while those that do not develop birth control go extinct from overpopulation. Those species that find a middle path have batshit insane religions like Islam and destroy themselves eventually anyway in a nuclear blaze of glory. After all, birth control selects most heavily against atheists. A society that only reproduces because of religiosity due to the filtering effect of birth control is being genetically selected for ever more intense levels of religiosity.

Democracy's strength is that it cannot use drastically coercive measures against a population. Because politicians can be voted out of office, measures like mass quantity shotgun weddings are impossible in all but one-party states. A new method accomplishing this or a new form of democracy is needed, one that allows for experimentation without loss of freedom.

Another solution is to create a wage matching subsidy that pays a stay-at-home parent a wage equal to their spouses, up to a certain limit. If they have children, they can stay home and take care of them. Charge a tax on all workers, (especially the single ones) to pay for it. It will vastly increase unemployment. That is the point. Half the workforce will leave to raise families. Wages will still go up as a result of decreased supply. The nuclear family will return. Because employees are forced to pay more for workers they will tend to higher more competent and productive employees, (who will tend to be White and Asian males) and discriminate against less competent and less productive employees (who will tend to be women and non-Asian minorities). That is also the point. Once again a man will be able to raise a family without a college degree. That means roughly half the jobs making twice the salary.

We now have a single breadwinner economy that heavily encourages marriage. Humans begin to reproduce again. The ideology of women liberation will mysteriously begin to change. Yes, it is true that the program is gender neutral, either marriage partner may stay at home and get the subsidy. But more women will prefer it than men. Feminism will initially resist and fight this program, but in time their ideology will adapt to conform to the incentive, as messages hostile to the incentive are ignored and their candidates voted out of office. People love free money. And feminism has already demonstrated that when two feminist factions fight with each other the faction that has incentives on its side prevails. This happened between anti-sex and pro-sex feminists. Pornography and prostitution is a multi-billion dollar industry. The pro-sex feminists won. Now feminists are saying that sex work is 'empowering.' You cannot make this stuff up. As usual, ideology follows from incentives.

Thus, the marriage destroying welfare state is converted into the family state. This is obviously a far preferable solution to population decline over forced mass marriage or mass immigration. And since it is gender neutral no one can legitimately accuse it of being bigoted, though they will anyway. Also, if this tax seems financially odious remember that workers compensation in the state of California already costs about one dollar for every dollar spent on wages, and a single breadwinner economy is equivalent to this in every way except not paying women directly. If the government is to be the new source of support, there is no reason it must work against, rather than for, the family. The welfare state can be replaced with the family state, where all benefits go to households rather than individuals.

Left-wing ideology will then change as a result, in the same way it has always changed to follow incentives. To the extent that the left destroys, it destroys because of a recursive process where the blind pursuit by power (phase 3), caused by one incentive (phase 2), gives birth to an ideology (phase 4), which then creates a political program (past political program phase 1b), which then gives birth to another incentive, and another pursuit by power, and another ideology, and so on. The recursive process does not know what it is doing or were it is going. We do. And we will control its flow. Trust me here. If you create an incentive for a family state you will get a pro family ideology—even in feminism.

Right now prostitution is "empowering" and marriage is "degrading." Flip the incentives and watch marriage become "empowering" and sex work become "degrading." It seems "empowering" means "whatever serves power." Of course it does. How could it be any other way?

Feminism supports family destroying policies because women, like all hu-mons, obey incentives, rather than possessing the creative thought necessary to think up new structures. Also like all pathetic hu-mons, they fight in favor of their slavery to those very incentives, resisting attempts to destroy their cultural morality by liberating them from those material conditions. In short, humans internalize the values that support their incentives, then fight against anyone who would change those values by changing their incentives. Even if it would make them happier and healthier. Pathetic.

Even worse, humans internalize the morality that incentives have given them, causing all solutions they think up to conform in the vector to the problems of the past. The previous paragraph may be misread as an affirmation of liberalism, but it is not, since liberalism conforms its morality on the same destructive vectors as the thing it seeks to transcend. Liberalism celebrates "change," but never really changes, since all its change is along the same path as all its past disastrous actions.

Thus, the ideology of the left serves as an adaptive preference formation that interferes with right-wing attempts to liberate society from degenerate moral conditions. The left fights for the status quo vector even as it thinks it fights against it. This is what is happening in the twin values of "progress" and "equality." As a moral value, worship of progress is just the worship of technologically-induced change. As for equality, "equality," as a moral value, is just the enabling ideology of the power structure of democracy. To worship change and equality is really just to worship technology and power.

A man arrives on a cannibal island. He proposes to get rid of cannibalism by introducing birth control pills. After all, the reason they practiced cannibalism originally was a scarcity of food due to chronic overpopulation. If this condition is alleviated then the material conditions motivating the act is eliminated. You can limit your numbers before, rather than after producing life! Yay!

They eat him for destroying their sacred ritual. They have made a religion out of their material conditions, and removing those conditions destroys their faith. So it is with the left.

A culture always resists the transvaluation of its values. This process we may call the effect-culture of a society, which we may define as follows:
effect-culture, definition: the process by which material conditions in combination with technology, past political conditions, and human nature are synthesized into incentives that determine power, ideology, belief, and ultimately morals through a five-phase process.
All or our deepest values are effect-culture. Every culture that has ever been was effect-culture. Your grandchildren will be of effect-culture. 
I do apologize if this is insulting. There is simply no way to wake a man up without disturbing his peaceful slumber. To understand exactly what it means for our deepest values to be derived from prostitution to material conditions and politics, the Hungarian writer Vaclav Havel can do a better job explaining it that me in his essay, The Power of the Powerless. He is referring to a post-totalitarian order, but could be referencing our society as well. He says,
'Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.'
Havel is writing about a totalitarian society. I am writing about the totalization of technology in our moral lives. George Orwell also touches on the same theme in 1984 with his definition of the word Doublethink.
'To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.'
In reality of course, no totalitarian society that edits the dictionary would ever allow such a word to exist, or to be so accurate. Effect-culture is NOT doublethink. The word doublethink implies that on some level you know you are deceiving yourself. Effect-culture means that you, and indeed everyone around you, is so totally inured, so completely submerged by the ideology of your society that you have incorporated it into your psyche—as your deepest moral values. You would fight to the death to defend the ideals of your civilization—and yet, those ideals are all the consequence of an automatic cultural prostitution to material conditions. Society has given you your morality, which it in turn derived from subservience to appetites.

Like every liberal, you even experience outrage when your morals are questioned. For example: effect-culture programs belief in equality. Yet to point out that incentives have programmed both the ideology of slave owning societies (racism), and the ideology of redistributional welfare states, (equality) is outrageous! How can you equate the two?

And how is this possible? Simple. A culture can be both a form of prostitution to material incentives and composed of completely sincere people. The values arrived at were the result of an iterative process of small changes occurring over many generations. As material conditions changed, so did their values. The people then subscribe to the resulting morals, and pass those morals to their children. Effect-culture is inherited and sincere. What is not sincere today will be sincere to the next generation. If a racist southern Democrat only mouths the words of equality, his children will believe in the fervently. The younger generation is never in on the joke.

The left is built on the denial of human nature and reality itself. In a previous paragraph I used the term 'our women,' knowing full well it would irritate left-wing feminist readers. There is no denying jealousy, no such thing as equality. There is no post-patriarchal condition of mankind.

Equality? Delusion. Open marriage without jealousy? Delusion. A society where men don't dominate? Impossible. Women won't reproduce under such conditions. All societies that educate women as equals are below replacement level birth rates. Women punish equality by keeping their legs shut. Women's own sexual preferences are for strong, tall, confident men. Every woman's individual choice for the dominant male becomes societies aggregate choice for male dominance. Woman creates patriarchy with her sexual choices—then abandons responsibility for it. Abolishing it is therefore incompatible with the exercise of her sexual rights. One part of the feminist program (choice), makes the other part, (equality) impossible.

For thousands of years patriarchy always has out-reproduced equal societies. Why else would it be everywhere?

Progress? Illusion created by technology. Right to choose? Effect-culture created by incentives. Democracy? Lie. Look up the 'iron law of oligarchy' and 'sovereignty is conserved.'  In reality the elite control things behind the scenes. Consent of the governed? Are you kidding? Freedom? How can you have freedom when you have never had an original thought in your life? Morals? What morals? All I see is the incentive slave rationalizing his choices. The only true freedom is to insert yourself into the recursive process—a self-directed evolution. One must control the forces that control him. As for morality, true morality requires an understanding of tradition. As for freedom, one is not truly free who is not moral, for he is not in control of himself. But one cannot be truly moral whose morality comes from obedience to incentives and power. Look to tradition and faith for true morality.

Let me show you a chart and refute your cultural vanity.

Incentive                                                      Justifying ideology                                                          
fixed island resources                                  religious ritual cannibalism
semi-fixed resources                                    cults of child/human sacrifice
expandable territory                                     Roman/Mongol conquest ethic/religion
protection of land                                         monarchy, doctrine of natural nobility
profits from slavery                                      racial dehumanization
the American frontier                                   rugged American/doctrine of self-sufficiency
profits from mass-redistribution                  lie of equality
abortion on demand                                     feminism/right to control ones own body
birth control                                                 cultural promiscuity/women's rights
birth control/population shrinkage              doctrine of immigration and autogenocide


This really is how the world works. Yours is just one culture with its peculiar morality unique to its place in history. Yours is not the greatest society, not the end of history, nor the final say on what is true, beautiful and pure. You are not, as leftist say, living in the final culmination of moral progress towards a perfectly equal society. Equality is just an ideology caused by the power structure of democracy. Meliorism is a lie. Have some humility. "But it's 2016!" You say. Yes, it's the current year. Next year it will also be the current year, and the year after.

And this is not to say that "all cultures are equal," or some other degenerate anti-logic. One culture practices farming. It needs to guard land to preserve its food supply. People, being tied to the land, cannot flee stationary bandits. Monarchy develops. A culture of honor follows to justify it.

Another culture has a frontier. Government services are absent. One must work hard or die. A culture of rugged independence and liberty develops. They glorify the self-made man, and women have something to look up to.

Yet another culture practices redistribution on a massive scale. It pays to be a victim in a redistributional democracy. A culture of professional victimhood develops. People debase themselves for attention and power, and to a lesser degree money. They praise the low and seek to destroy the high. Their's is a pure slave morality.

One of these things is not like the other. All cultures are effect-cultures, but not all effect-cultures are uplifting, noble, or self-esteem giving. Some are downright degrading. Put another way, all whore-cultures are effect-cultures, but not all effect-cultures are whore-cultures. What separates this from that, is that the incentives that encourage effect-morality are of a higher nature. The frontier culture of rugged self-sufficiency is obviously superior. John Wayne is a product of effect-culture, but John Wayne is not a whore.

None of this is denying the existence of a meme complex know as the Cathedral. But what force of nature do you think it answers to? It simply coevolves with the material forces that direct its evolution, enabling them and resisting reform against those forces. And it obeys the blind idiot god of Moloch, evolving recursively as power feeds back on itself through ideology. Left-wing ring of power politics; that is, Cthulhu, obeys the blind idiot god of market forces and recursive feedback, Moloch.

One could say that the only true values are those that transcend. Modern human morality has little worth to this author. To quote Nietzsche in his book The Anti-Christ:
'I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough, I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell from the first day of Christianity!  Why not rather from its last?  From today?  The transvaluation of all values!'
Nietzsche is talking about Christianity—the enabling culture of his era. He is objecting to the fact that the church has made a virtue out of humility and pity, which he sees as destructive to the spirit of man. Like his Overman, he worships all things hard and cold, and like him, we wish to transcend the brothel of our cultures anti-morality.

He is just ranting against the progressives of his era. What interests us here is this transvaluation of values. In his other writings he states that the Übermensch can rise above the values of the herd. He is contrasting master-morality with slave morality. Funny thing is, he believes that this transvaluation is actually possible. But is it? Without a working theory of how slave morality comes into existence, how? How do you transcend a thing when you are still operating on it vector? One will rebel, but rather than rebelling out of the thing one opposes, one will rebel into it. A revolutionary without a knowledge of the forces that control him is just rebelling into the status quo. The left even has prescribed forms of rebellion. "You must rebel! But only in the prescribed way!"

The value of our five-phase hypothesis is that it makes this question irrelevant while understanding that it was never the correct question to begin with. Moralities, (in the sense of codes of conduct), are the outcome of internalized ideology or internalized religious values that flow from power systems. That Christianity can prescribe a moral value system in opposition to the Cathedral is simply the fact that Christianity is a form of legacy. The monarchy that it served has ceased to exist, and with it, the power structure that commanded it, and supported it are gone. It is now a corporation subject to market forces. It must compete in a race to the bottom with other churches. This institution of the state may persist long after it has been discarded by power. Remember that all ancient religions originally started out unified with the states that supported them. Cultural inertia and the social services that churches produce keep them around. Religions are social technologies. But they decay in the absence of the power systems that created them. The sacred alter is replaced with the rock concert. As Mark Citadel notes, 'the monarchy is the male guardian of the Church. Her rape begins when his reign ends.'

Empathy and moral reasoning are themselves innate, but formed into codes by ideology. Morality, in the proper sense of the word: that well developed adult faculty of discernment judgement towards the just and true, can only ever be formed by religion, tradition, or both. There are only three possible sources of moral reasoning, and they are;
(a), material forces through the five phase process,
(b), religious and divine command,
(c), ancient traditions. 
Only (b) and (c) can be considered legitimate. To some atheists only (c).

Ideology is formed by power. Power obeys incentives, and incentives are created by the forces listed in phase 1. But when we say this we are referring only to the creation of so-called "morality" under the five-phase process of (a). The other two are not the effect of material forces in the present era. Any material forces that shaped them are mostly long since extinct in the world.

So why are these ancient moralities the true morality? Why this and not that? Because this is not mental prostitution.

Thus, one does not trasvalue values. There is no such thing, really. Transcendence of values is really just the re-engineering of all the levels above 5 to form the morals of level 5. Transcendence is also really just an escape into past moral forms. This is utterly deterministic. One does not choose his values. There is no auto-generation of new morality. One only chooses either to accept past moral values through tradition and/or faith, or one chooses to be a whore. Escape from the five-phase process is an illusion. The individual is not smart enough to pull it off. Even when they do invent "new morality," further inspection revels it to be in service to higher level forces. Attempts to break free become illusions that follow the same vector that was created by previous forces. One winds up rebelling into, rather than, out of it.

A woman burns her bra—then finds out that is exactly what patriarchy wanted her to do. A college student attends a struggle session—then discovers that global capitalism wants struggle sessions so that white people are too busy feeling guilty to protect their borders and interfere with obscene profits. A women claims sex work is empowering. A feminist destroys marriage only to discover that her action served the profit motive of capitalism. A feminist promotes a genderless world, only to discover, yet again, that capitalism needs gender to die so it can treat all humans as fungible units of profit. Cultural Marxism has been co-opted by capitalism through wealthy groups like the Ford foundation. The rebellion against, is actually a rebellion for, the thing fought. Sovereignty is conserved yet again.

Once we understand how we are being shaped by forces beyond our control we can begin to design ways of controlling them. Once we know how our morals are the result of ideological prostitution we can begin to develop a higher culture. We can control the forces that control us, and generate our cultures, and thus our, morality. Nothing is transcended, nothing is overcome, because nothing can be transcended. But we may direct the forces of our own evolution.

Nietzsche could only rebel. We may construct knowing the probable effects.

We can proceed on this project in the reverse order in which ideological construction occurs in nature. Like an architect who designs a skyscraper from the top down because the weight calculations of the above floors must be supported by each one beneath it, we proceed in the reverse order from the order in which nature operates, where level (1) (the material forces + human nature + technology + past political conditions) programs incentives, incentives program politics, and politics then program the ideological culture and its morals. This takes the form of a series of very specific questions, all in reverse order of the five-phase process. Because we are going in reverse, we list our questions in reverse. They are;

(5) Now that we know all our morals are the outcome of incentives, if we could construct any moral code, what should it be? What would be a higher morality? And how can the past guide us? Do not fall into the trap of saying "more equality." You must break out of the morality you have been indoctrinated to believe. You will always habitually be inclined to return to the construct society has given you. You will have an unconscious tendency to do this. Be objective. Be practical. What morality is most uplifting to the human spirit? Look to the ancient past for guidance and wisdom. Human nature evolved on a linear scale while technology evolves on an exponential one. Thus, ancient wisdom is relevant since the genetics of humans does not differ significantly from the past. Our nature is always closer to the ancients than to our own modern technology.

(4) Morality is what happens when ideologies are internalized. What ideology, when internalized, will produce this simultaneously new and old morality? Construct an ideology, religion, or religious interpretation based on this understanding. Ruthlessly remove, without sentimental attachment to your present ideological biases all extraneous notions that detract from this understanding. The tendency is always to recuse back into the vector of society, so that your rebellion is a rebellion into, rather than out of, moral decay. You need to map your own preconceptions and ask; how do these contribute to decay? How are my own implicit biases, programmed by society, interfering with the project of improvement? You must construct without ideology reverting into any form of liberalism.

(3) Ideologies are the excuses of political systems. What political system would need to produce the ideology you have developed as its exact ideological justification? In other words, what kind of power system needs this ideology to survive? You want a power system whose survival depends on the ideology you have just constructed. This part is hard. Give it some time.

(2) Politics is the outcome of incentives. What incentives would create this politics? In other words; what incentives would produce this power structure?

(1) Incentives are the product of material conditions + technology + human nature + past political programs. Can any technology or new material condition produce this incentive? Can any political program produce this incentive?

When we rise above the whoring values of this era, let us understand that this is not a liberal project—we are not here to invent new values from scratch. There is no such thing. The world is too old and humans too stupid to be trusted or even capable of the auto-generation of values. Every value we adopt will be based on past analysis of what worked and produced the highest moral forms. Though this author is an atheist, we will not hesitate to adopt religious commandments if they are found to be the most effective at producing higher morality. Our project is to mix traditional ideas from a variety or sources according to practical reason. Wife burning? Out. Arranged marriage? Maybe. Patriarchy? In. Stoning? Out, etc. The only practical way to rise above values is to return to them. Rising above is itself a left-wing lie. Nothing truly rises above itself. The blank slate lie is constantly propagated. When it is backed into a corner it says, "we can rise above." Meaning, "we can rise above ourselves."  This is a moronic self-contradiction on the face of it. The disastrous results speak for themselves.

When we use this term we should understand that we mean to rise above this decadent culture—not ourselves. That is impossible. Our rise is a return.

Also, why bother to develop from scratch? The world is littered with the moral systems of past civilizations. World religions have given us entire templates of workable moral codes. We cook from a recipe book they have already given us. The results are far more predictable that way. Novelty in moral engineering is always an excuse for decadence.

One Last Note

Equality demands the low become high, and the high become low. The first rarely works, the second is evil. The net effect is downward. The first is equality-up, the second equality-down. Equality is unequally applied. Only equality-down is demanded. In a democracy with redistribution, no person is ever required to improve themselves to be worthy. Thus, the project is always a downward trap.

Equality constrains moral relativism. If you want to live in a gated community that only high IQ people may inhabit, equality files a lawsuit. If you want to evict the people who pee in the hallways of an affordable housing development, equality sues again. But equality will allow you to build the housing project to begin with. It just won't let it succeed. Equality continuously undermines even itself. Everything in this universe that works relies on some form of discrimination. At the most elementary level incarceration is a form of rule enforcement that discriminates against people with low impulse control. Success of any kind requires exclusion of someone. Wealthy countries are rich because they don't let everyone in. Nice parts of town are decent because of harassment of panhandlers, thugs and gangsters by the police. Drug addicts are driven out of neighborhoods. The insane are confined to institutions. The success of a civilization is proportionate to its level of discrimination, creating a higher life for people at the bottom to aspire to, and motivating them to work hard and contribute in order to achieve it.

It is a widespread accepted fact in urban planning and landscape architecture that the more layers of defensible space a neighborhood has, the more prosperous it will be. Jane Jacobs wrote a whole book on this. Even the ability to control urban space and exclude hoodlums is necessary for safe neighborhoods. Perfect equality is a worldwide ghetto.

A group of women go to a festival, only to have their get together interrupted and dominated by trans-"women." So they cancel their festival. Equality undermines even itself.

Because what we call equality is only ever equality-down. Meaning, it is only of the downward vector. It would never, say, allow you to genetically enhance the poor. Despite the fact that this would would actually work. After all, it would produce a higher equilibrium level, a kind of equality-up. Making people better genetically might actually work, and thus, threaten to make the careers of government workers obsolete.

Government can never solve anything under divided sovereignty, because the mandate of competing power centers is to grow, and anything that solves a social problem makes the bureaucracy tasked with fixing it obsolete. The bureaucracy, to perpetuate itself, must undermine its own solutions. And thus, as Robert Conquest has said;
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. — Law 3.
And it must be, since only by undermining agency goals can it ensure its own existence

As a project, civilization depends on inequality for stability. Or, more specifically, it depends on having what we might call a "ladder of privileges."

This is a series of privileges that are earned by obeying the rules, working hard, contributing, fighting in a war, etc. Ideally, the ladder has as many "rungs" as possible. A rung is "do this, get that." for example;

First rung: obey the law, stay out of jail.
Second rung: work, and avoid being homeless.
Third rung: work hard, live a middle class lifestyle, and get a wife.
Fourth rung: start a business, get rich, and women will love you a lot.
Alternate fourth rung: serve in the Army, and women will also love you a lot.

More rungs is better. Rungs that are easier to achieve are better. Rungs that are more closely spaced: meaning, that it is easier to roll the achievements and capital of a previous rung into another, higher one on the ladder, are better. These "rungs" are really small barriers to entry that give a payoff for pro-social effort. Having many, small barriers to entry with many rewards keeps men moving forward on the promise that they will achieve more status, become more attractive to women, achieve more respect, etc. So hierarchy is the basis of stability.


Our Plan

In the next chapter we will begin to construct an alternate system. Some neoreactionaries have said that "systems" are what we are trying to escape. They have countered with the implicit assertion, as expressed by Moldbug himself, that monarchy is not a system in the proper understanding of the word. That is, that systems are what we are trying to avoid.

My contention is that there is no such thing. All governments are systems and even kings are pushed around by the five-phase process. Indeed, in the past, kingdoms themselves were the product of the five-phase process causing the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The feudal model was the explicit result of a failed adherence to capitalist economic governance. We may get to this later. The point is that systems are inescapable. Even cryptographic chain of command is really a type of system. It simply moves the system from a human-managed point to a software encoded form of law.

Of course, in a way, I am just nitpicking. What Moldbug really means to say with his rejection of systems is that we must get away from fractured power structures, and I totally agree. Divided power is evil.

We are going to design that "system" of consolidated patchworks under another structure. It won't quite resemble Moldbugs vision. It should be better. He was long on critique and short on details for how to construct his alternate form of governance.

Where we are going is The System of systems. We will also call it the Platform of Systems, or the Governance Marketplace. These words will be used interchangeable, though each have slightly different definitions. This is all closely related to anarcho-capitalistic ideas, but aren't anarchistic.

It will have three levels of governance. At the base, will be the federal state; a Fnargl-like creation that cares only about stability and rules the Federal government. It is the referee. On top of that is the governance marketplace; a systems of systems, that turns political ideology into a game of winning markets, (territories) and keeping them. On top of that is the free market, which runs on the domestic laws of the governance marketplace.

I will not bother creating a moral justification for what I am about to propose. That is a trap that deontological libertarians constantly fall into. With any successful system, the people who become dependent on it will auto-generate the excuses—excuses that solidify into ideological justifications with time. Since all ideologies are the effect-cultures of power structures, I will build, and others will justify my work.

I will simply describe the system. Then I will describe in rapid succession the problems or the current order and and how my system solves them. Its appeal will become self-evident. Its values will be described as the effect of itself. Also, what I am designing is both a possible political system in its own right, and a transitory phase to Patchwork. It is not Patchwork, but it is close, and designed to get us there if people in the future want to. It is the recursive political program that changes values of the phases underneath it. Once adopted, it become a "past political program" of phase one, and enables transition into Patchwork. In fact, when the System of systems implodes, when it destroys itself, when it is "corrupted," it becomes Patchwork.

There is value in a thing that destroys itself, if, when it destroy itself, it becomes what we desire. This is a transitory program, a scaffold and a bridge, that will get us from representative democracy under Cathedral control to privatized Patchwork.


Go back to Chapter 2.
Go to Contents.


Aphorisms 6

Crime = lack of sophistication.

Aphorisms 5

"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack."
--Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 109

A principled conservative is like a principled slave; worth the cost of the slave.


Aphorisms 4

Proportion is the beginning of mathematics. Anything which is quantifiable in terms of another thing is potentially an equation.

Aphorisms 3

Morality is the shadow cast by ideology. Ideology is created by power. Power is the sun shining its light across the object of its own ideology, casting the shadow of morality.

Specifically, power needs justification. Justification induces internalization. Internalization of the power structure is morality. Thus, stepping outside of the power structure always looks like an immoral act.

All philosophy is prostitution to power.

Aphorisms 2

A principle, once understood, is soon forgotten, but an emotional urge never escapes the mind. So understanding is hard, but mental decay is easy.

Aphorisms 1

The notion that society corrupts man is like saying wetness corrupts water. The one, being the effect of the other, cannot corrupt what created it.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 2






Chapter 2
How Incentives Drive Ideology

A group of seafaring nomads arrive on an uninhabited island thousands of years ago and long before the invention of birth control. They are fleeing clan violence on a previously inhabited island and are over joyed at the discovery of a new land where they can have peace. They fled in a hurry. Some of their members have died. They crossed hundreds of miles of open water and thankfully, due to the skill of their navigator, and the favorable winds this time of year, have arrived in a new paradise.

Gradually their population starts to expand. It takes about thirty to fifty years for the island to fill up with people. Eventually starvation sets in. Someone forms a new clan with a conspiracy in mind to raid the inhabitants who live on the other side of the island. They raid and kill them. The victors do not acquire nearly as much resources as they thought they would. It turns out that the these people were starving also. In an act of desperate hunger they cannibalize their bodies.

But the horror does not end. Within a couple of years new children are born. They are back where they started. Hunger is here again. They contemplate killing some of the children but the parents become hysterical at the suggestion. A new conspiracy arises to kill and eat some of the others.

The others get wind of the conspiracy. During the ensuing battle they flee into their ships and out on to the open ocean. The remaining inhabitants are overjoyed, because with less people, they will be able to avoid hunger for a few years. The exiles sail into open water. Maybe they will find a new island, maybe not. Most than likely they die at sea.

The cycle repeats. Eventually all of Polynesia is colonized by humans.

They live like this constantly. Every few years they run out of food and raid a neighboring clan. Sometimes they get raided and some of their members are killed. Eventually, because of the guilt of cannibalism, someone begins to tell lies about how killing people grants them mystical powers. This person spins an entire religious ideology into existence. Because of their desperation and need to justify their crimes, they take to this belief readily. In time, the person who created this ideology dies, or is eaten, and forgotten. But the myth of mystical powers continues.

The entire culture is the product of material conditions—even its faith. They live in a society with high birth rates and absolutely fixed resources. Their society is going to have a starvation and cannibalism as a natural law. It is going to alternate between periods of peace when the population gradually increases, followed by periods of starvation, followed by inter-clan warfare and back again. Without birth control it will do this constantly—and diverse forms of faith will enable it.

The general pattern of ideology flowing from material conditions could refer to any number of cultures.

A different culture lives on a peninsula sounded by water on three sides with a warm, gentle climate perfectly suited for growing crops. They are also seafaring but inhabit a much larger extent of territory. They too have high birth rates and fixed resources. But unlike the previous culture they are surrounded by other kingdoms with extensive lands. Eventually, when their desperation to feed their ever growing population gets acute, they hatch a plan to conquer and enslave the neighboring kingdoms. Their plan is to lay siege to the enemy and to kill all of the fighting men and young children. They will take the women as concubines and the civilian population as slaves. They will appropriate their lands and put the slaves to work tilling the soil.

Eventually they develop a marshal culture that glorifies violence and conquest. Their ideology adapts itself to serve the incentives of conquest. Having slaves, they of course study the Greeks and believe, like Aristotle, that some groups are naturally inferior. Like the previous culture, their beliefs flow from their material cultures. In fact every ancient continentally based society probably had a marshal culture that celebrated conquest, a belief in its own superiority, and a justification for subordinating others. We may look to quotes from times before birth control for evidence:
'For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 'The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.' - Deuteronomy 7:6-8
'Rome in her greatness! Stranger, look your fill!' ― Propertius
'I love the name of honor more than I fear death.' ― Gaius Iulius Caesar 
'So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.' Quran ― (9:5) 
'Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.' Quran ― (2:216)
'Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me. ― Napoleon Bonaparte 
'I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.' ― Genghis Khan

Yet another group of societies, this time located in India, deal with Malthusian limits by practicing vegetarianism. More humans can be sustained per acre on plants than meat. Of course, it does not help. The additional food simply results in more humans surviving during periods of starvation. The increase in population totally nullifies the gains from a switch to vegetarianism. They wind up with an utterly massive population, and are now trapped in a lifestyle that deprives them of meat and the energy that it gives.

Another culture deals with Malthusian limits by practicing ritual human sacrifice atop pyramids. This also serves as a means of intimidation and control. Yet another practices abortion on a massive scale. Can you guess what the name of the society with human sacrifice is called? Can you imagine what their religion was like? Can you guess what the name of the society with mass-abortion is called? Can you name the state-sponsored ideology that justifies women killing their babies?

We have here five types of civilizations, five types of ways of dealing with Malthusian limits, and five types of ideologies to justify them; fixed resource societies and ritual cannibalism, expandable resource societies and the conquest ethic, religious India and religious vegetarianism, semi-fixed resource societies and human sacrifice, abortion societies and feminism.

Now obviously this is all a vast oversimplification. But we do not need the details, because what concerns us is the overarching pattern of humanity, a pattern that we intend to reverse engineer later on. It is the pattern that matters. Not the examples.

Examples in Our Culture

Our ancestors have given the vote to all land-owners. They practice slavery against a particular race. They desire to control women and slaves. These things create an incentive structure. Let us examine the first of them.

Giving all land owning Englishman the vote creates an incentive to treat all land-owning Englishmen as equals. The incentive is justified with the ideology of equality. Also, remember that the colonists regarded themselves originally as English subjects, hence they are called here, Englishmen, since that is what they were at the time, and considered themselves to be.

Now the second of these two incentives. They practice slavery. This creates an incentive to dehumanize the enslaved groups. Thus, the ideology of racial dehumanization, which was what the word racism originally meant before being misused.

Thirdly, they have an incentive to control women because of many physical factors; they live in an era with high birth rates and scarce resources. No man wishes to pay for another mans children with the sweat of his brow in an era when you could die at forty of a heart attack while pushing the plow to support a large family. So of course, women did not have the vote.

The act of giving white land-owning Englishmen the vote divides the sovereign power. Once divided, factions form. One of the factions will always have an incentive to expand the franchise in order to disrupt the equilibrium that will tend to form. This is, has been, and always will be the more redistributive of the two political parties.

The incentive to disrupt the ruling coalition and its equilibrium brings in all other white-males. For awhile nativism remains as a result of psychological historical inertia.

The Irish were regarded as subhuman in England because of the incentive to exploit them for resources. Like all ideologies, dehumanization of the Irish flows from power and incentives. The incentive to exploit creates the ideology of regarding them as inferior.

Once given the vote the category of white becomes important and the ideology of racial unity replaces that of the ethic. Because the incentive of slavery has continued the ideology of dehumanization of blacks continues.

The new coalition creates a new equilibrium. The cotton gin has been invented. The price of the agriculture crops that support slavery are falling as a consequence of mechanization and increased farm efficiency. Slavery expands and becomes more brutal. The need for justifications increases. Racial dehumanization worsens.

This sets off a reaction against slavery within the white race itself. It is often the case that when an incentive is taken to the extreme it creates an opposite incentive for resistance. Blacks, being disenfranchised before the civil war, have no outlet for the expression of their rights. It takes the development of chattel slavery on a massive scale to bring about the dissolution of it.

The civil war happens and black men are given the right to vote. Later, the process of sovereign power division and decay continues with the introduction of female suffrage in america in 1920. Throughout each of these iterations of change in incentives, a corresponding change in ideology occurs. The change in ideology comes after the change in power or material forces―not before.

As the right to vote expands the concept of who is equal does also. A politician has an incentive to treat a voter equally, and so does. Society has an incentive to play the game the same way, and so does. The media must appeal to peoples popular conception of self to sell copy and ads and so adopts the same conception as the new voters now have of themselves. This is the process by which an elite notion held by liberal Bahamians spreads through society. First it changes the incentive structure, they all others fall into line.

We see that the process has noting to do with the truth. No idea, no matter how true, will ever gain traction if incentives are against it. If truth mattered the world would have become atheist long ago when Epicurus made his famous argument. The fact that millions believe in God, that millions used to believe in the divine right of kings, and other examples, proves that truth is of no consequence to the people, and never will be.

In a democracy without a welfare state, and with privately managed redistribution (slavery), there is an incentive to propagate the notion that all white men, and only white males, are equal. While there is simultaneously an incentive to propagate the notion that all blacks are inferior to all whites.

In a democracy with publicly managed redistribution (public slavery), there is an incentive to propagate the lie that all humans are equal. Everyone can vote, and so everyone's self-conception must be flattered. Everyone can vote, and so everyone can vote themselves redistribution from your purse. In the war of all against all, everyone, being a threat to everyone else, must be humored as equals.

So one power system propagates one lie and another propagates another lie.

The redistribution creates a second incentive to claim more and more resources, and to exploit novel ways of getting a larger share than others. The ideology of victimhood is born and called intersectionality. In a democracy with redistribution there is always an incentive to become a victim. Mendacious, daft, and unscrupulous people demand attention. See herehere, and here. This is entrenched with special protections as one incentive creates another. The incentive of special protections creates an ideology of dehumanizing white-males, since it is these people who are the primary victims of publicly managed slavery (redistribution).

The Democratic party needs people who perceive themselves as victims. It engenders low agency with its cultivated minority populations because psychological dependence is power. Feminism's real purpose is to disempower the people they claim to empower. They empower, but only in the prescribed way—the way that can channel energy into Marxist projects, the way that maintains psychological anguish in the host so that their hatred of the world, their cultivated and indoctrinated frustration, can be harnessed for the power of elites. "Feel anguish so we can control you," is the message of all liberalism and its ancestor Christianity. It is the original tool of elite psychological control perfected by monarchy and co-opted by communism. The lie lies is the notion of liberation. There is no liberation from oppression, no such thing as equality, and no freedom from power. Freedom from power is itself a method of gaining power.

Which is more oppressive; inequality, a "problem" that can never be solved, or being taught to hate something that can never be solved? The relationship between the party and the cultivated minority is the institutional form of a relationship between a narcissist and a codependent. Power is conserved. The sovereignty of elites is conserved. But when divided it must operate through puppets.

White males are hated because they are difficult to control. Their history gives them self-esteem. Calling them "oppressors" for this history is a tacit way of acknowledging this fact. People don't hate anyone because of the crimes of their ancestors. That is illogical. They hate what they cannot control, who they cannot manipulate. They hate intelligent people, geeks and the wealthy because all these groups have an edge over them. They hate popular kids in school and beautiful people. They hate billionaires. They tacitly acknowledge this too with terms like "privilege." They believe in equality not only because the power structure rewards it, but because it denies their own (true) sense of inferiority. No one who is superior needs equality. They want status.

All ideology is marketing for power. All philosophers are ideological prostitutes for power structures, and generally ethics philosophers some of the most mendacious people.

Ideologies may persist as legacy long after they have ceased to serve a power structure. Gods were originally invented by god kings to legitimize their rule in an era when rebellion by force of arms could topple a dynasty.

Of course, if white males find a way to take a larger share of the proceeds of redistribution the ideology may shift back.

As professional victims are created a new class of emotional laborers comes into existence who prefer cry-bullying and self-pity as their occupation to other more respectable jobs like customer service. This new royalty form a kakistocracy, which literally translates from Latin as 'rule by shit' because of the derivation 'caca.'

The very presence of the kakistocracy and its relentless ideology of dehumanizing white men creates a counter-incentive for white identity politics. Since, the ideology will not end until the redistributive incentives that created it do, white identity politics is sure to rise, and has with the candidacy of Donald Trump. It is an equal and opposite reaction, and since whites are still enfranchised it will not require a civil war either for whites to regain power if they are determined enough. When you redefine the word 'racism' to mean power plus privilege you create a licence for racism against whites. "Hate begets hate," as they say.

Immigration and Willful Displacement

These incentives coincide with the incentives of other groups. Because of the holocaust and anti-antisemitism in general, Jews have an incentive to favor immigration. There is safety in numbers, and the more ethnic diversity in western civilization, the less likely the Jews themselves are to be persecuted. If the majority ethnicity is busy fighting other ethnic groups it won't be battling them. They also have an incentive to create and maintain their own external state (Israel), in case the first of these two strategies collapses. The left wing is set to the task of the former, the right the latter.

Latinos outside the US have an incentive to support immigration in order to seek a better life and escape from countries where their lives may be threatened.

Latinos, once in the United States, have an incentive to support immigration, since part of their families may still be in the home country and they are more likely to move between borders. However, some wealthier, generally lighter skinned Latinos have a counter-incentive to attempt to prevent the flow of gangs into their neighborhoods.

Corporations in certain key sectors have an incentive to import cheep labor in order to lower the salaries of western workers to slave levels. Also, illegal immigrants, being illegal, have fewer rights are less costly, and easily deported if they attempt to exercise rights. The same incentive drives the H1B Visa program, where a worker who loses their job is threatened with deportation, giving the employer unusually strong bargaining power for abuse.

The same need for slavery and money drives the rise in community service programs and excessive fines for minor traffic violations. This is why your ticket costs so much, and why the judge will generously allow you to work it off for some left-wing charity. How kind of him.

Democrats have an incentive to replace whites with imported voters, since whites tend to be conservative, and imported voters not, reflected in their voting patterns. Or as Bertolt Brecht would say:
'After the uprising of the 17th of June the Secretary of the Writers' Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?'

All of the actors who profit from immigration and exploitable labor contribute campaign contributions to politicians, who then use the funds to get elected, and have an incentive to worsen the status quo with more immigration in order to gain more election financing.

Ideology flows from incentives, i.e. 'America is a nation of immigrants,' and 'opposition to immigration is racist.' Notice that opposing exploitation is what is considered racist, not the exploitation itself. Or is it both? Whatever the case, the logic facilitates in the first, and not the second case. The logic favors the power, and not the powerless.

It is always amazing how whatever is righteous, true, and tolerant, is always somehow what is also profitable and exploitative for the lefts benefit.

Remember, a thing is what it does, not what it says it does.

America has an incentive to wage wars in the middle-east for the profit of oil companies, who create an incentive for war for politicians through massive campaign contributions. Presidents have an incentive whenever war boosts ratings, which is most of the time. Refugees have an incentive to immigrate to Europe in order to seek a better life, in a culture they could never create, seek to destroy, all while raping women who won't consent. ISIS has an incentive to send fighters masquerading as refugees in order to terrorize those same Europeans, in order to provoke America. The various left-wing governments have an incentive to selectively terrorize their own populations with the importation of hostile refugees, especially into the more right-wing working class 'volk' neighboorhoods.

Elites lack an incentive to oppose this because their neighboorhoods are priced out of the average refugees budget, and the police respond promptly. Elites have a multitude of incentives to betray their own ethnic populations because it is a form of virtue signaling to other elites and gains them status, (they're so tolerant!), because of cheep labor, because it keeps the opposition working class submissive and afraid, AND, because they are more globally interconnected than regionally. Anyone who disagrees is a racist. Essentially, they are waging war on their own populations for the power it brings them, using the excuse of tolerance. As usual, incentives determine ideology.

Same old same old. Enslave people—quote a Bible passage.

The old royalty of Europe only cared about their people because globalization had not yet happened. They were more regionally than globally connected. Incentives differed. They were rent-seeking land owners tied to a particular locale. Bringing back monarchy won't bring back a love of the people among the elites. And remember that the mass importation of slaves to the US, an act that still effects us negatively, began for the financial gain of imperial monarchy.

Private redistribution is slavery. Public redistribution is the welfare state. Ideology in the first instance is racism, in the second equality, and in the victim-based kakistocracy—dehumanization of white males. No doubt some self-hating white cuck thinks this is completely appropriate.

Incentives Now Program Autogenocide

Material conditions cause the incentive of population shrinkage. as people move to the city their birth rates fall. On a farm, children are a financial asset—in the city, a financial liability. Men, especially white men, are turned into financial slaves for their wives in the divorce, discouraging marriage and reproduction. Profit is everything, and middle-class western workers are more expensive that foreign ones.

In turn, population shrinkage can be anticipated to become the ideology of racial autogenocide. Then the ideology fights against national and racial survival. Indeed, this has already come to pass. White liberals are making a religion out of their own self-destruction. When the project of liberalism succeeds it fails by abolishing the population that created it. Immigration also makes socialism impossible, since only ethnically homogeneous populations have sufficient class envy to accomplish it, and only uniform peoples have enough solidarity to balance its budgets. Multi-racial populations vote along racial lines, since the xenophobic impulse is stimulated to the point of suppressing the equality/envy impulse. Elites know all of this intuitively as indicated by expressions like the classic phrase, "divide and conquer." Multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies become illiberal democracies or authoritarian states that favor the dominance of the rich as horizontal class solidarity among the ninety-nine percent is replaced by vertical racial solidarity working across class lines in the classic fascist pattern of the one-percent and its clients. Ethnically homogeneous socialism embraces equality to excess, brings in foreigners, stimulates the xenophobic impulse to frenzy, and abolishes itself.

Because there is no greater counter incentive, nothing opposes this. In a previous era celebrating the open destruction of your nation and race would get you shot. It doesn't today because the same incentive that create the reality of shrinkage, and the ideology to support it, also creates the outrage against doing anything to prevent it, and the accusations of racism against anyone who would fight it.

This is extremely important to point out. Humans are incentive slaves with a slave morality and an effect-culture. In other words; the incentive / material conditions dictate their ideology and morals, programs their cultural values, and programs a moral resistance to changing and reversing cultural decline. The thing creates both the obedience to the incentive, the resistance to changing it, and the ideology that prevents thinking outside of it.

For example. We live in an era of rapid change. Thus, change itself is glorified. Technology, the engine of change, is worshiped. Progressives ignore technologies effects, appropriating credit for so-called progress. They gain prestige by claiming to be on the right side of history. They tell you it is the current year. Problems associated with technological change are ignored or confined to a different mental category than progress. No one thinks to connect change, "social progress," technology, environmental pollution, and moral decay together as different aspects of the same force.

Nor does anyone challenge the liberal act of steeling credit that belongs to technology for "progress." Nor does anyone question what these technologies are doing to us, how social media, telephones, and mass transportation are destroying our intimate relationships with friends and loved ones, or how it is causing social atomization. Text messaging and Facebook are destroying your friendships by converting them into text on a screen rather than face-to-face conversations.

Airplanes have sent your families away from you. Money converts the pride of craft into the robotic motions of production. Transportation technologies are creating globalization. Globalization is creating low trust neighborhoods. Plastic is ruining the oceans. TV is rotting your brain, ruining your attention span, and taking you away from real conversations with living people. Sugar in everything you eat is making you fat. Contraceptives have destroyed healthy relationships and created mass-promiscuity. So has abortion. Air conditioning atomizes people by taking them off their front porches and out of conversations with their neighbors. Chemicals are causing genetic damage and possibly leading to an explosion in autism rates.

The liberal progressive shops at the health food store and yet still glorifies change? Can he not see that everything is linked? How can he glorify this and not that? How does he separate the one and the other? Does he not realize it is all part of the same process?

Yet that is exactly what happens. Material conditions program ideology. Ideology determines morals. Morals oppose solving problems because they are based in the forces that caused those same problems. Morality is the psychological internalization of ideology. Oh, of course people have a native moral sense. But the way that sense is shaped is determined by ideological considerations. Ideology is determined by power. Power obeys incentives. Incentives are created by technology. Thus, technology programs the morals that celebrate technology and its destructive effects.

Want to stop immigration? That is racist. Want to ban Facebook? Fascist. Outlaw putting sugar in food? Also fascist. Get rid of contraceptives? Fascist and sexist. Have a national holiday where Netflix is off? Authoritarian. Make people live near their families? Authoritarian. Force you to call your mother? Evil.

Material conditions / technology / incentives, program everyone's morals to such a degree that any actual break from incentive slavery and effect-culture is always considered outrageous. A human is a slave who defends her slavery. We don't just obey. We love our master, and defend him with devotion.

Now one may point to the Japanese and say, 'see, they don't hate themselves like The West does.' Perhaps. Our culture runs its autodestruction through a Christian amplifier of pathological guilt. But the Japanese are still imploding. I notice no material difference in their long-term survival potential as a people, even if they are not inviting in hostile refugees and going insane with virtue signaling against racism. There reproductive rates are imploding just like ours.

Birth control programs the incentive that leads to sexual revolution. Revolution shapes power. Power forms ideology. Ideology is internalized as the morality of women's rights. Restricting access to birth control is then opposed. The technology programmed the power, ideology, and moral decay that resists improvement.

Since humans cannot even think about defying their incentives, control over those incentives is the only way to solve problems. The Germans once believed that a Führer could rise above economic considerations through sheer will. Defiance of economics was part of their doctrine as well as Julius Evola's. There is a belief in rising above the economic. In Men Among the Ruins he says,
'All this is proof of the true pathology of our civilization. The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man. And, as often occurs in hypnosis, what the mind focuses on eventually becomes real. Modern man is making possible what every normal and complete civilization has always regarded as an aberration or as a bad joke—namely, that the economy and the social problem in terms of the economy are his destiny.'

'Thus, in order to posit a new principle, what is needed is not to oppose one economic formula with another, but instead to radically change attitudes, to reject without compromise the materialistic premises from which the economic factor has been perceived as absolute.' 
Reject? Only the Amish reject. Unless you are planning to join them you have no case. The economic factor is the technological factor.

And how did rejecting work out for Germany? Both NAZI's and Communists tried to fight economics. Both lost utterly. It is absurd to fight a force when you can control it. Furthermore, since all humans are incentive slaves, controlling this force is the most efficient way to maximize control over the world. This is done by generating new incentives to smash old ones, throwing the new incentives into battle to solve your enemies for you. The virtue of incentive engineering is that everyone is obsessed with dogma, and thus, the incentive based attack is always unanticipated and from a sideways direction. An incentive attack will ultimately change an enemies dogma from within, changing them before they realize what is happening.

This belief was common back in the day, this idea of rejecting economic dominance in favor of aristocratic nobility. Perhaps it even worked before modern industrial capitalism. It doesn't now. I am not going the Führer route. All of our solutions will work within economics rather than trying to defy it. We will control the course of the river, not oppose its flow like communists, or try to smash it with war like fascists. We will control the forces that control us. This is the only option left.

An Equal and Opposite Reaction

The incentives for immigration generate an ideology of white self-abasement. The culture
appropriates it's existing Christian guilt in order to enable it's own conquest by outsiders. There is a confluence of incentives driving this ideology. There is the need to justify the welfare states redistribution with the ideology of equality. There is the need to justify the expropriation of the white male through taxation that pays for said welfare state at his expense. This generates an ideology of systematic dehumanization towards whites, and white men in particular. There is the need by globalists to practice various forms of de facto slavery against immigrants and the third world, and to exploit native workers more thoroughly by suppressing wages, and using immigration as a form of corporate welfare to bolster profits. This requires that the ideology of anti-racism be co-opted for exploitative purposes. All of these come together to synthesize a toxic brew of ideology which is nation destroying and profoundly anti-white. This in turn creates a new incentive in reaction against it: the incentive for white identity politics.

The harder transnational elites and others push for mass immigration, and the harder the universities support this through indoctrination, the stronger the resultant counter-incentive is to view these people as hostile forces, and the greater demand will be for the elites destruction. In essence, mass immigration drives demand for mass rebellion. Driven far enough, it may drive demand for mass murder. This is an extreme problem. Elites are driving society beyond human natures capacity for adaption.

Natural Principles

Let us now outline some basic principles for our five-phase hypothesis. Remember that we are still working within that framework. We have concentrated on phases (2) through (4), that is, from the incentive phase (2), through political/social actions (3), to ideological construction in response to those incentive structures, or (4). We have not completed a complete discussion of morality, (5), though obviously that is affected. We have only touched on Level (1), that is, (material forces + human nature + past political programs + technology). Abortion is a technology, as well as other methods of contraception. Globalization and it's related immigration effects are based in the technologies of transportation, communication, and computers. Mass migration is also based on these.

Identity politics is a little different. Victim culture is based only in the politics of redistribution: it is the financial/power incentive that causes the ideology victimhood. Meaning: that phase (1) is in this case, actually the product of a past iteration of politics and not of material conditions, technology, or human nature itself. This is a good thing. Material condition cannot be changed without inventing technology. Human nature can only be 'changed' at the margins through education. It is almost entirely unmodifiable. Technology is also not driving it. This is good news because it means that the problem is entirely political in origin, having come from a past incentive structure of politics. That means it can be easily modified.

The solution lies in abolishing protected classes their handouts. The way to do that is to invent a new incentive that makes being a protected group unprofitable. Of course the Cathedral will get in the way. We will come at them sideways. If one cannot challenge an ideology directly then one creates a new incentive structure, one that no stops to think about, and you work through iteration. That is, you create a series of successive new incentives that gradually turn the wheel of the proverbial car. Each incentive generates a new ideology. The new ideology makes possible new actions that you could not get away with before. You use that new ideology to create a second round of new incentives. This is repeated iteratively until you have reversed direction from its current vector, or taken wherever direction you intend to take it.

Ultimately our solution, and a lot of others, will come at the problem from a sideways angle, creating solutions that our enemies won't realize are designed to fuck up and destroy them.

We will get to this a lot later.

For now it is necessary that we draw up a list of principles that can be divined from our study. We want to consolidate what we know with brevity about the basic rules that incentives follow. These are positive and not normative, they are laws of nature and not man. Here they are. Note that the coercion market is the term that I use for the government. This is based on the maximum of mine that, 'a thing is what it does, and not what it says it does.' Since all governments rely on a coalition of power for support, since all of the coalition actors expect to be compensated with rent-seeking, and since democracy acts as a multi-party brokerage system for selling other peoples money, I will refer to the government as a coercion market. This is a completely fair description. As just two examples: the Canadian drug importation ban, and the welfare state itself.

Also, these principles relate to design of solutions too. First we have to get through a lot of concepts. This author is essentially teaching you an entirely new subject, inventing it from a synthesis of past economic concepts rooted in the Austrian school.

Principles:

  • (1) A thing is what it does, not what it says it does.
  • (2) A democracy is a competitive coercion market while a monarchy is a monopolistic one.
  • (3) Ideology flows from incentives.
  • (4) Humanity follows a Five-Phase Process where human nature, material conditions, technology, and past political actions synthesize into social and economic material incentives. 
  • (5) Politics is the outcome of material incentives.
  • (6) Culture (ideology + morals), are downstream from politics.
  • (7) Whenever there are two conflicting incentives the stronger of the two will prevail.
  • (8) Since the elite have more purchasing power in the coercion market than general interest groups, the elite will usually prevail.
  • (9) Since morals are the outcome of incentives acting through ideology, all solutions to social problems will appear immoral, since the mind of the designer will be contaminated with the morals that support the incentive structure he fights.
  • (10) The sycophants of society (currently the left), will always find your solutions morally objectionable. This is because the incentives that programmed the problem that you are trying to solve will have also programmed the morals of your critics and the people that oppose you.
  • (11) Thus, humans tend to design new incentive structures along the vector of the old ones, since their moral sense, being dictated by the old structures morals, will inform their choice of future solutions.
  • (12) Good design is amoral, but not immoral, it creates new and better moral ideologies with its incentives.
  • (13) If you build the a sufficiently powerful incentive, others with rationalize it ideologically for you.
  • (14) If it is sufficiently powerful and affects the elite, it will become law.
  • (15) Since systems are too complex to be perfectly designed at a single pass, and since resistance may be high, the process of iteration is the best method. This process is lifted straight from architecture.
  • (16) Iteration is as follows: one develops a design and then critiques it. Each iteration is followed by a critique, then another iteration and another critique. The process of designing a solution teaches the artist the best method. The process is itself a crucial discovery phase. The first iteration is nearly always a disaster for society. It is your third or fourth political solution which is usually best.
In Chapter 3 we will discuss anti-reproduction incentives further, the five-phase model more extensively, and do a compare and contrast on how phase 1 forces program cultures.


Go back to Chapter 1.
Go to the Contents.
Go to Chapter 3.