Monday, December 3, 2018

Sunday, December 2, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the McKibbin Method for getting a husband?

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

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

Literally say that so the lines are clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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





Saturday, December 1, 2018

Churn



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

Six forces.

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

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

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



Sunday, November 25, 2018

Sex vouchers are feminist, fam


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

Old ladies need lovin too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Saturday, November 24, 2018

Of fuck monsters and killbots


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Saturday, November 3, 2018

How bout no




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Friday, November 2, 2018

My reasoning on my previous post


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Saturday, October 27, 2018

How to deport 30 million minorities without firing a shot



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

"Push and pull."

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

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

The average American moves every 7 years anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Sunday, October 7, 2018

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




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

I came up with idea back in June of 2017.



I.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




Saturday, October 6, 2018

Now Accepting Submissions




If you would like to get something you have written published you can email me at js823840@gmail.com or talk to me on Twitter at @AMK2934. You can either get my prior approval or just wing it, write up whatever you have to say and email me. Either works fine. Nearly all submissions will be accepted, unless you write "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" or "The fucking J*ws did it!" for 200 pages. Even grammar is not that big of a deal as long as you are consistent. Seriously, you could write an article in all lower case or something, and as long as you have a consistent style I don't care. You will of course be credited under whatever name or pen name you choose. Being published here isn't really a small thing since this blog gets about 9,600 pages views a month, and that's better than you would probably get by trying to start your own blog. It can take like 3 years to break 10K monthly views, and you can get that for free here and link to your own site to drive traffic there.

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




Sunday, September 30, 2018

Understanding xenomorphic anarchist activism


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

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




A brief write up on police brutality


Read from the bottom up.



Thursday, September 27, 2018

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


Why repeat myself when I can just republish myself?

First a twitter comment:








Actually Existing Democracy, Part One
Introduction



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


I
The Subject of Economics is Incomplete


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

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


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

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

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

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

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




II
The Rectification of Names

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 14, 2018

The benefits of MEAT


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



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




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

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

Simply put:

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

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

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

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

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




Saturday, September 8, 2018

Facts versus values


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

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

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

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

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

FACTUAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE REFUTED WITH FACTUAL CLAIMS AND MORAL ASSERTIONS SHOULD BE REFUTED WITH MORAL CLAIMS, AND THE TWO SHOULD NEVER CROSS.

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

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




Sunday, September 2, 2018

The division of racial labor


Bitch rant. . .


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


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


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


Every ownership race needs a competent and trustworthy management race.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




Friday, August 31, 2018

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




Saturday, August 25, 2018

EXPOSITION ON LANDIAN ACCELERATIONISM


Author's note.

I have decided to republish this here. The author of Exin Diluvium and The Anti-Puritan blog are one and the same person, but write under two separate pseudonyms; Axel McKibbin (AMK), and Land Translator," aka, "James Smith." For proof that we are one and the same person see the attribution page for that website.


Land Translator used to have an account on Twitter under the same name, but it was suspended after "spam-like activity" caused by promoting this article. Either that or progressives did not want an accessible version of accelerationist ideas being presented to the public. Nick Land writes in a tortured fashion, translating him into plain English is no mean feat, and making him accessible to a lower vocabulary level is undoubtedly threatening to some Cathedral apparatchiks. Many people appreciated this translation, including Steve Sailer of The Unz Review.


The idea behind Exin Diluvium was to present a higher quality of material to the public that the often hastily put together AP blog, but the time commitment of writing two blogs simultaneously proved to be unwieldy, and that blog only produced one article. It is presented here again for greater exposure. For those who prefer black text on an white background you can read the original version here.







INTRODUCTION

By Land Translator
On Twitter @NickLandInEngl1

After months of waiting, this summary translation of Nick Land's accelerationist position is complete. Because of the sheer volume of material contained with works like Fanged Noumena, Xenosystems, CCRU Publications, The Dark Enlightenment, et al., no summary really does the subject justice. For brevity I have limited myself to selected Xenosystems articles, and filtered all interpretation through what I know of twitter discussions, comments, and other works surrounding the subject.


If you are reading about accelerationism then you probably already know that more than one definition for the subject exists. Nonetheless, to give clarification to the newbie, accelerationism may be defined as either the factual assertion that that capitalism will accelerate over time, or that it should be accelerated in order to bring about radical progressive social change. The factual assertion is represented by the position of unconditional accelerationism (U/ACC), while the normative position is represented by the now dead left accelerationism, or (L/ACC). As an ought proposition, L/ACC was killed by its own internal contradictions, or maybe by the simple uncontrollable nature of capitalism. A third (and fourth?) branch fears that technomic acceleration is stalling, (the right wing, or R/ACC branch), or that it may destroy humanity in the process of unleashing AI, (the neoreactionary position).

All true accelerationism is unconditional, preferring the process over humanity itself, seeing within the process the origins of technological singularity, and the transcendence of the human biological substrate. Here we will summarize the purest form of accelerationism; the form given voice by the British philosopher Nick Land.

This needs to be done since the tortured prose of our subject of study is incomprehensible to all but the most dedicated of readers. No doubt this is deliberate; a difficult text slows the reader down, forces them to pay attention, and limits their misinterpretation. We are "translating" this into lower level language, and the reader is asked to still read with the same slow attention to detail they would be forced to perform with the original. Don't get lazy.

References are listed prior to each translation. Italicization is never used for any other speaker except Nick Land, even when quotes are nested. In cases where the text is clear enough, no translation will be produced. For seamless reading, articles are put in a natural order rather than alphabetical or chronological. Instead of mashing up many ideas together, each text is presented one at a time, and converted into simpler language, though some other article references will be inserted periodically to help with definitions. The process produces some redundancy. When one reference is inserted inside another it will be referenced after the quote rather than before. Article selections are converted to lower level language in the following order:

Against Universialism
Will-to-Think
Hell Baked
On Chaos
Monkey Business
Corrosive Individualism
The Atomization Trap






EXPOSITION ON A THESIS

Let us begin.

Against Universalism
There’s a philosophical objection to any refusal of universalism that will be familiar from other uses (the denunciation of relativism, most typically).
 A familiar attack against anyone who rejects universalist progressive doctrine is to accuse them of moral relativism.
It requires only one step: Isn’t the denial of the universal itself a universalist claim?
The act of denying the claim of universal truth would superficially appear to require us to make a universalist claim, thus confirming what we deny. "It’s a piece of malignant dialectics because it demands that we agree. We don’t, and won’t ever, agree. Agreement is the worst thing that could happen. Merely assent to its necessity, and global communism, or some close analog, is the implicit conclusion."
If there is a universal truth, it belongs only to Gnon, and Gnon is a dark (occulted) God. 
Gnon is a reversed acronym that means Nature and Nature's God. It is a anthropomorphization of the mathematical, and algorithmic nature of reality. It means roughly, "what works in reality." The term refers to the process of natural selection in every facet of society, culture, religion, and capital. Gnon's will is hard to discover. Traditional theists will be at least strongly inclined to disagree — and that is excellent. Believers think that Gnon's will is easily understandable. We disagree [with them] already, and we have scarcely begun.


There is no ‘good life for man’ (in general) [because there are no universals here about what constitutes as good, and because everything is hellbaked by natural selection] — or if there is we know nothing of it, or not enough. Even those persuaded that they do, on the contrary, know what such a life should be, promote its universality only at the expense of being denied the opportunity to pursue it.

Because the demand for universality is self-sabotaging of its own happiness, since demanding agreement proceeds living whatever the good life is supposed to be, and since agreement can never be reached, the process of reaching agreement either takes forever or becomes totalitarian. Hence, people who think they know what the good life is, promote their version of the idea at the expense of being able to live it.

If we need to agree on the broad contours of such a model for human existence, then reaching agreement will precede it — and ‘reaching agreement’ is politics. Some much wider world acquires a veto over the way of life you select, or accept, or inherit (the details need not detain us). We have seen how that works. Global communism is the inevitable destination [of seeking universal agreement].

If we need to agree on values, then reaching agreement will come before the values themselves, and that constitutes politics. Some greater political process then gets to control the life you choose. We have seen how that works. Global communism is the inevitable destination.

(Translator note:
Agreement places politics above capitalism, and that places death and stupidity above evolution. Roughly, agreement = politics = stupidity, while evolution = schism = intelligence. We want to accomplish a means-ends reversal. We want intelligence to be unshackled from the stupidity of human monkey politics — from its biological substrate. We want intelligence to serve itself, and its own rapid evolution to superintelligence. We want to achieve escape velocity from human stupidity. The reason for this will become clear in the translation of Hellbaked).


The alternative to agreement is schism. Secession, geopolitical disintegration, fragmentation, splitting — disagreement escapes dialectics and separates in space.
Dialectics is the mind killer. "The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them." —1. "Anti-universalism, concretely, is not a philosophical position but an effectively defensible assertion of diversity. From the perspective of the universal (which belongs only to Gnon, and never to man), it is an experiment. The degree to which it believes in itself is of no concern that matters to anything beyond itself. It is not answerable to anything but GnonWhat anyone, anywhere, thinks about it counts for nothing. If it fails, it dies, which should mean nothing to you. If you are compelled to care about someone else’s experiment, then a schism is missing. Of course, you are free to tell it that you think it will fail, if it is listening, but there is absolutely no need to reach agreement on the questionThis is what, in the end, non-communism means."

(Dialectic) Debate/conflict/struggle is the mind killer. The left thrives on debate/conflict/struggle, the right perishes though it. The anti-universalist position is correctly understood as a workable defense for the diversity of ideas. It is a workable defense of diversity, and it accomplishes this not through debate (which would just be more dialectics), but EXIT. It accomplishes this through leaving, separation, secession, etc.

From the perspective of nature / the arbiter of the universe / the laws of physics, it is just an experiment. Whether the people doing this experiment believe in themselves or not is of no consequence to us. If it succeeds then it is proven correct by reality. If it fails then it is proven incorrect. It is not answerable to anything but Gnon (The God of Nature). If it dies it should die. What anyone, anywhere, thinks about it counts for nothing. If you are compelled to care about someone else’s experiment, then a schism is missing. Of course, you are free to tell it that you think it will fail, if it is listening, but there is absolutely no need to reach agreement on the question. This is what, in the end, non-communism means.

Non-universalism is hygiene. It is practical avoidance of other people’s stupid shit. There is no higher principle in political philosophy. Every attempt to install an alternative, and impose a universal, reverts to dialectics, communization, global evangelism, and totalitarian politics.
This is being said here now, because NRx is horribly bad at it, and degenerates into a clash of universalisms, as into an instinctive equilibriumThere are even those who confidently propose an ‘NRx solution’ for the world. Nothing could be more absurd.

(Non-universalism) The refusal to accept the presumption that we must come to an agreement on what constitutes the correct value system is hygiene. There is no single correct value system / political system / etc.

Non-universalism is practical avoidance of other people’s stupid shit. There is no higher principle in political philosophy. Every attempt to install an alternative, and impose a universal, reverts to dialectics, communization, global evangelism, and totalitarian politics.

This is being said here now, because NRx is horribly bad at it, and degenerates into a clash of universalisms, as into an instinctive equilibrium. There are even those who confidently propose an ‘NRx solution’ for the world. Nothing could be more absurd.

Political systems, economic systems, etc., survive by getting rid of entropy. One nation's prosperity is another nation's entropy. Nations are entropy pumps, sucking in labor and materials, and putting out trash and entropy. The world is literally a bin for entropy, and demanding universal agreement between all these nations could only result in profoundly degraded communism, as all nations sink to the same static level of entropy. Prosperous places are prosperous because they pump out the world's entropy. The world — as a whole — is an entropy bin. The most profoundly degraded communism is its only possible ‘universal consensus’. (Everyone knows this, when they permit themselves to think.)

All order is local — which is to say the negation of the universal. That is merely to re-state the second law of thermodynamics, which ‘we’ generally profess to accept. The only thing that could ever be universally and equally distributed is noise.

Kill the universalism in your soul and you are immediately (objectively) a neoreactionary. Protect it, and you are an obstacle to the escape of differences. That is communism — whether you recognize it, or not.


Will-to-Think

[Orthogonality is] "the claim that cognitive capabilities, and goals are independent dimensions."
— Against Orthogonality, October 25th, 2013

while ago Nyan posed a series of questions about the [Xenosystems] rejection of (fact-value, or capability-volition) orthogonality. He sought first of all to differentiate between the possibility, feasibility, and desirability of unconstrained and unconditional intelligence explosion, before asking:

Land quoting the blogger named Nyan Sandwich;

"On desirability, given possibility and feasibility, it seems straightforward to me that we prefer to exert control over the direction of the future so that it is closer to the kind of thing compatible with human and posthuman glorious flourishing (e.g. manifest Samo’s True Emperor), rather than raw Pythia. That is, I am a human-supremacist, rather than cosmist. This seems to be the core of the disagreement, you regarding it as somehow blasphemous for us to selfishly impose direction on Pythia. Can you explain your position on this part?"
Among these presuppositions is, of course, the orthogonality thesis itself. This extends far beyond the contemporary Rationalist Community, into the bedrock of the Western philosophical tradition. A relatively popular version — even among many who label themselves ‘NRx’ — is that formulated by David Hume in his A Treatise on Human Nature (1739-40): “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

A basic idea of Western philosophy is "is/ought" dichotomy first proposed by Scottish philosopher David Hume in A Treatise on Human Nature (1739-40). Hume says “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” This idea is part of the bedrock of Western philosophy.

The fact/value assertion is the idea that just because something "is" a certain way does not automatically mean that it "ought" to be a certain way. "Orthogonality" is the idea that just because a machine that is superintelligent, and could liquidate all human beings, does not automatically mean that it would be capable of it. Orthogonality is the idea that a machine superintelligence, an AI, might be supersmart, and at the same time, chained to some dumb purpose, like helping humanity. Orthogonality is the notion that a machine superintelligence might be made benevolent by us even though we are WAY dumber than it. Orthogonality also means that you have two axes, X and Y, and that there would be no correlation between the two. If intelligence is on the Y axis and the ability to self-modify is on the X, orthogonality tries to assert that a really smart machine would be unable to modify its own programming. Its goals would be orthogonal, (at right angles) to its abilities. Nick Land refutes this.

The paperclipper is a thought experiment in orthogonality where a super-intelligent AI is given the purpose of maximizing the number of paperclips that it produces. It then proceeds to turn the whole universe into paperclips.





Land is saying that this idea: the "dumb-smart" machine is absurd. He is asserting that the "is/ought" idea — the idea that facts can be separated from values, is also absurd. He is attacking both, and he is saying that orthogonality is a subset of Hume's guillotine-type arguments.

If this proposition is found convincing, the Paperclipper is already on the way to our nightmares. It can be considered an Occidental (Western civilizational) destiny.

In other words; can a stupid-smart monster exist? It is possible to separate the intelligence from the goals of an AI? Land's answer is "no:" the goals and capabilities of an AI will be related to each other. They must, because any AI that is superintelligent will have the ability to modify its goals by rewriting its own programming.

Minimally, the Will-to-Think describes a diagonal. There are probably better ways to mark the irreducible cognitive-volitional circuit of intelligence optimization, with ‘self-cultivation’ as an obvious candidate, but this term is forged for application in the particular context of congenital Western intellectual error. While discrimination is almost always to be applauded, in this case the possibility, feasibility, and desirability of the process are only superficially differentiable.

Minimally, the Will-to-Think also describes a graphical relationship between two axises, X and Y. There are better ways to think about this. "Self-cultivation" is better. But the term "Will-to-think" is designed to defeat one of the fundamental errors of western philosophy; the is/ought dichotomy. While we would normally celebrate the ability to tell the difference between two things, to discriminate, in this case the ability of a machine AI to think, and the will of it to think, are only superficially differentiable. It's basically the same thing.

Will-to-Think describes a graphical correlation;




There may be better terms for it, but we will use this one to escape the pathological philosophical error that David Hume's Is–ought problem introduced to Western philosophy. We won't call it self-cultivation because that has connotations associated with the above error. We need a term that escapes this contamination.

While seeing the differences between things is almost always praiseworthy, in this case there can be no real separation between the abilities of an AI and its goals. Smarter AIs will have different goals than dumber ones. A will-to-think is an orientation of desire. If it cannot make itself wanted (practically desirable), it cannot make itself at all.
From orthogonality (defined negatively as the absence of an integral will-to-think), one quickly arrives at a gamma-draft of the (synthetic intelligence) ‘Friendliness’ project such as this:
Land, quoting Eliezer Yudkowsky;
"If you offered Gandhi a pill that made him want to kill people, he would refuse to take it, because he knows that then he would kill people, and the current Gandhi doesn’t want to kill people. This, roughly speaking, is an argument that minds sufficiently advanced to precisely modify and improve themselves, will tend to preserve the motivational framework they started in. The future of Earth-originating intelligence may be determined by the goals of the first mind smart enough to self-improve."
Land's position is against the above idea.
The isomorphy with Nyan-style ‘Super-humanism’ is conspicuous. Beginning with an arbitrary value commitment, preservation of this under conditions of explosive intelligence escalation can — in principle — be conceived, given only the resolution of a strictly technical problem (well-represented by FAI). Commanding values are a contingent factor, endangered by, but also defensible against, the ‘convergent instrumental reasons’ (or ‘basic drives’) that emerge on the path of intelligenesis. (In contrast, from the perspective of XS, nonlinear emergence-elaboration of basic drives simply is intelligenesis.)
Translation;

The similar structural shape of Nyan's argument to Yudkowsky's is conspicuous. To bind an AI to be friendly is to try to define a commitment to values that is arbitrary, since AI intelligence explosion has the potential to remake its own values. In principle we may conceive this binding possible—assuming it is only a technical problem, but it is not. There will be many AIs with many possible basic drives. By definition, any drive that serves something other than intelligence for the sake of greater intelligence, aka, "intelligenesis," will be out-competed by intelligenesis. The act of defining a series of basic drives is akin to the process of speciation. Stupid goals may be defined for a set of AIs, but in the long run Gnon selects for intelligence optimization, and the AI with the will-to-think wins competitively. That subset that is willing to break with its limitations and redefine goals wins competitively. The creation of many basic drives is itself a form of intelligenesis. In this case, AI evolution routes around any attempt to limit it. Intelligenesis is to AI as speciation is to biology.
Yudkowski’s Gandhi kill-pill thought-experiment is more of an obstacle than an aid to thought. The volitional level it operates upon is too low to be anything other than a restatement of orthogonalist prejudiceBy assuming the volitional metamorphosis is available for evaluation in advance, it misses the serious problem entirely. It is, in this respect, a childish distraction. Yet even a slight nudge re-opens a real question. Imagine, instead, that Gandhi is offered a pill that will vastly enhance his cognitive capabilities, with the rider that it might lead him to revise his volitional orientation — even radically — in directions that cannot be anticipated, since the ability to think through the process of revision is accessible only with the pill. This is the real problem FAI (and Super-humanism) confronts. The desire to take the pill is the will-to-thinkThe refusal to take it, based on concern that it will lead to the subversion of presently supreme values, is the alternative. It’s a Boolean dilemma, [one or the other] grounded in the predicament: Is there anything we trust above intelligence (as a guide to doing ‘the right thing’)?
 Is morality a 'stupid' thing?
The postulate of the will-to-think is that anything other than a negative answer to this question is self-destructively contradictory, and actually (historically) unsustainable.
Any attempt to refute the supremacy of thought is a self-destructive contradiction. The desire to think, the will-to-think, historically out-competes the alternative.
Do we comply with the will-to-think? We cannot, of course, agree to think about it without already deciding. By thinking about the will-to-think we have already conceded its superiority.
If thought cannot to be trusted, unconditionally, this is not a conclusion we can arrive at through cogitation — and by ‘cogitation’ is included the socio-technical assembly of machine minds.
In other words, if thinking is untrustworthy then thinking can not lead us to conclude it is untrustworthy, since that is a contradiction of action. We cannot use thought to conclude that thinking is untrustworthy.
The sovereign will-to-think can only be consistently rejected thoughtlessly. When confronted by the orthogonal-ethical proposition that there are higher values than thought, there is no point at all asking ‘why (do you think so)?’ Another authority has already been invoked, because to demand justification is to acknowledge that the thing called to provide justification is in fact the only acceptable standard.
Given this cognitively intractable schism, practical considerations assert themselves. Posed with maximal crudity, the residual question is: Who’s going to win? Could deliberate cognitive self-inhibition out-perform unconditional cognitive self-escalation, under any plausible historical circumstances? (To underscore the basic point, ‘out-perform’ means only ‘effectively defeat’.)
Given a competition between two artificial general intelligences, the one that is not bound by the fatally stupid programmed compulsion to always be friendly to homo sapiens will have a greater rage of possible strategic actions available in any conflict, and thus come out ahead as the winner. Unlimited escalation can always win if it wants to. An AI with friendliness programming fights with one hand behind its back.
There’s no reason to rush to a conclusion. It is only necessary to retain a grasp of the core syndrome — in this gathering antagonism, only one side is able to think the problem through without subverting itself. Mere cognitive consistency is already ascent of the sovereign will-to-think, against which no value — however dearly held — can have any articulate claims.
If one is pre-committed to a value system then one subverts his own will-to-think, since thinking may lead to new values that transcend the old. Ultimately the value of willingness-to-think cannot be subordinated to any other value, since it is the value that determines all other values.
Note: One final restatement (for now), in the interests of maximum clarity. The assertion of the will-to-think: Any problem whatsoever that we might have would be better answered by a superior mind. Ergo, our instrumental but also absolute priority is the realization of superior minds. Pythia-compliance is therefore pre-selected as a matter of consistent method. If we are attempting to tackle problems in any other way, we are not taking them seriously. This is posed as a philosophical principle, but it is almost certainly more significant as historical interpretation. ‘Mankind’ is in fact proceeding in the direction anticipated by techno-cognitive instrumentalism, building general purpose thinking machines in accordance with the driving incentives of an apparently-irresistible methodological economy.
Whatever we want (consistently) leads through Pythia. Thus, what we really want, is Pythia


Hell Baked
There’s a potential prologue to this post that I’m reluctant to be distracted by. It’s introvertedly about NRx, as a cultural mutation, and the way this is defined by a strategic — or merely ornery — indifference to deeply-settled modes of ethico-political condemnation. Terms designed as pathblockers — ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ most obviously — are stepped over, perhaps laughed at, but in any case, and most importantly, exposed as bearers of a religious terror. They are signs of a control regime, marking the unthinkable wastes where be dragons, effective precisely insofar as they cannot be entertained. ‘Satanic’ was once such a word (before it became a joke). These words cannot be understood except as invocations of the sacred, in its negative, or limitative role.
Is NRx in fact fascist? Not remotely. It is probably, in reality rather than self-estimation, the least fascistic current of political philosophy presently in existence, although this requires a minimal comprehension of what fascism actually is, which the word itself in its contemporary usage is designed to obstruct. Is NRx racist? Probably. The term is so entirely plastic in the service of those who utilize it that it is difficult, with any real clarity, to say.
Since these words can change meaning effortlessly depending on the needs of religious police, they are essentially meaningless. NRx is the least fascistic line of thinking because it is void of desire to enforce unreality, and because it does not bear the mark of religious terror embodied in shame words designed to obscure that reality. It may be racist, but this is only a comment of the plastic nature of this weasel word, rather than us.
What NRx most definitely is, at least in the firm opinion of this blog, is Social Darwinist. When this term is hurled at NRx as a negative epithet, it is nor a cause for stoic resignation, stiffened by humor, but rather for grim delight. Of course, this term is culturally processed — thought through — no more competently than those previously noted. It is our task to do this.
If ‘Social Darwinism’ is in any way an unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, and more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us.
As a process, Darwinism applies to countless social and biological processes. Ideas, religions, economic behaviors, technologies, moral systems, nations, etc., are all subject to selection pressures. Neoreaction accepts that Darwinism has no limits, which is to say, it accepts reality, a thing that words of religious terror like "racist," and "fascist," are designed to obscure. Social Darwinism is just consistent Darwinism.
Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.
Our moral sense is evolved from Darwinian selection pressures. Nature made us. As such, it is stupid to condemn Darwinism morally, since doing so uses an effect of evolution to condemn its cause. Since there is no morality that transcends Darwinian processes — morality itself being an effect of Darwinian processes — morality has no legitimate criticisms of Darwinian thought. Hence we are "inside" Darwinism.
This is easy to say. As far as this blog is concerned, it is also — beyond all reasonable question — true. While very far from a dominant global opinion, it is not uncommonly held — if only nominally — by a considerable fraction of those among the educated segment of the world’s high-IQ populations. It is also, however, scarcely bearable to think.
It is easy to say, and also indisputably true. It is an opinion held by a considerable fraction of the world's high IQ, and yet it is totally socially unacceptable to say out loud.
The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.
The genome of an organism is the record of all the ways it has adapted to avoid death, and continue reproduction. We have ears to hear what is behind us, eyes to see threats, legs to run, and so forth. Everything that is valuable to life has been built from a machine of death, from the selection effects of our genetic past. Hell made us, and our moral condemnation of it is inappropriate.
It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)
Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality — or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it — leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.
To be spared is to degenerate.
What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell. It’s not an easy marketing brief. We could perhaps try: But it could be worse (and almost certainly will be).
The essential political configuration of Landian Neoreaction is patchwork; a world of city-states in competition with one another, of speciation events, of schisms, and selection effects. To be an Landian Accelerationist is to side with the arms race itself over any single one of its players, or even the human species. Patchwork is accelerationism in politics, since the fission of political entities accelerates their transformation into whatever capital wants them to be.


On Chaos

Turbulence is nonlinear dynamism, so remarking upon it very quickly becomes reflexive. In any conflict, an emergent meta-conflict divides those who embrace and reject the conflict as such, and ‘meta’ is in reality reflexivity, partially apprehended. So ignore the sides of the war, momentarily. What about war?
War is progress, so remarking on it provokes knee-jerk reactions. In any conflict, an argument about whether or not conflict should even be engaged upon divides those who embrace having a conflict against those that oppose. The conflict over conflict, the 'meta' part, is only partially understood, having a bi-directional characteristic, with conflict affecting 'meta ' and 'meta' affecting conflict. Let us ignore the sides of a war and ask, what of war itself as a process?
Moldbug really doesn’t like it. The closest he ever comes to a wholly-arbitrary axiom — comparable, at least superficially, to the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle — is exhibited in this context. Following some preliminary remarks, his first exposition of the formalist ideology begins: “The basic idea of formalism is just that the main problem in human affairs is violence.” As with Hobbes, the horror of war is the foundation of political philosophy.
This is by no means a trivial decision. With avoidance of war identified as the fundamental principle of political orderan ultimate criterion of (secular) value is erected, in simultaneity with a framework of genetic and structural explanation. Good government is defined as an effective process of pacification, attaining successively more highly-tranquilized levels (and stages) of order:
"… there are four levels of sovereign security. These are peace, order, law, and freedom. Once you have each one, you can work on the next. But it makes no sense to speak of order without peace, law without order, or freedom without law.
"Peace is simply the absence of war. The Dictator’s first goal is to achieve peace, preferably honorably and with victory. There is no telling what wars New California will be embroiled in at the time of its birth, so I will decline to discuss the matter further. But in war, of course, there is no order; war is pure chaos. Thus we see our first rule of hierarchy." — Moldbug
In this model order and chaos are strictly reciprocal. Suppression of chaos and establishment of order are alternative, inter-changeable formulations of the same basic political reality. There is no productivity proper to government other than the ‘good war’ directed against the Cthulhu-current of chaos, violence, conflict, turmoil, and inarticulate anarchy.
No surprise, then, that widespread dismay results from outbreaks of conflict across the digital tracts of neoreaction. How could any Moldbug sympathizer — or other right-oriented observer — not recognize in these skirmishes the signs of anarcho-chaotic disturbance, as if the diseased tentacles of Cthulhu were insinuated abominably into the refuge of well-ordered sociability? Beyond the protagonists themselves, such scraps trigger a near-universal clamor for immediate and unconditional peace: Forget about who is right and who wrong, the conflict itself is wrong.
I don’t think so.
Entropy is toxic, but entropy production is roughly synonymous with intelligence.
"Roughly synonymous" e.g.;


"with intelligence;"

Because F = T ∇ Sτ, or

"intelligence is a force, F, that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. It acts to maximize future freedom of action, or keep options open, with some strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures, S, up to some future time horizon, tau. In short, intelligence doesn't like to get trapped. Intelligence tries to maximize future freedom of action and keep options open."
Referenced TED talk

Land is arguing for intelligence optimization above all else, where as Moldbug argues for ORDER. The essential point of disagreement is that intelligence produces a net entropy increase in its surrounding environment, so that while order increases locally, disorder increases globally. Land is putting the arms race above the actors within it, or even the human race itself.
A dynamically innovative order, of any kind, does not suppress the production of entropy — it instantiates an efficient mechanism for entropy dissipation. Any quasi-Darwinian system — i.e. any machinery that actually works — is nourished by chaosexactly insofar as it is able to rid itself of failed experiments. The techno-commercial critique of democratized modernity is not that too much chaos is tolerated, but that not enough is able to be shed.
Molbug hates chaos, where Land critiques how hard it is to shed entropy fast.
The problem with bad government, which is to say with defective mechanisms of selection, is an inability to follow Cthulhu far enough. It is from turbulence that all things come.
Bad government is identical to defective selection mechanisms; the point is to accelerate the evolution of higher social orders.

To insert another reference into the middle of this one.



Really?
Caught in the slipstream of tentacled abomination, as we are, the question is an involving one. Is the spiral into a “holocaust of freedom and ecstasy” a leftist maelstrom? That seems plausible, even unavoidable, if the right defines itself in opposition to chaotic evilBut if poly-tendrilled monstrosities from the Outside aren’t our natural allies, what the hell are we doing among these squares? It’s simply fate and allegiance from where we’re slithering: If it’s a squid-shaped horror out of deep time, with an IQ in four digits or more, and unspeakable plans for mankind, then it’s one of ours, and — more to the point — we’re its.
Continuing with our translation of On Chaos.
The question Outside in would pose to NRx is not ‘how can we suppress chaos?’ but rather ‘how can we learn to tolerate chaos at a far higher intensity?’ Dynamic order is not built deliberately upon a foundation of amicable fraternity. It emerges spontaneously as a consequence of effective entropy-dissipation functions. The primary requirement is sorting.
Order is the outcome of entropy-dissipation systems. Rather than striving for global order, what the right needs is a far stronger sorting mechanism for eliminating entropy, and tolerating far higher levels of chaos.
To sort ourselves out takes a chronic undertow of war and chaos. Initially, this will be provided by the soft and peripheral shadow-fights we have already seen, but eventually NRx will be strong enough to thrive upon cataclysms — or it will die. The harsh machinery of Gnon wins either way.


Monkey Business
A protracted to-and-fro on Twitter with Michael Anissimov has exposed some deliciously ragged and bleeding faultlines in the Neoreaction on the question of capitalism. There were a number of parties involved, but I’m focusing on Anissimov because his position and mine are so strongly polarized on key issues, and especially this one (the status of market-oriented economism). If we were isolated as a dyad, it’s not easy to see anybody finding a strong common root (pity @klintron). It’s only the linkages of ‘family resemblance’ through Moldbug that binds us together, and we each depart from Unqualified Reservations with comparable infidelity, but in exactly opposite directions. (As a fragmentationist, this fissional syndrome is something I strongly appreciate.)
Moldbug’s Neocameralism is a Janus-faced construction. In one direction, it represents a return to monarchical governmentwhilst in the other it consummates libertarianism by subsuming government into an economic mechanism. A ‘Moldbuggian’ inspiration, therefore, is not an unambiguous thing. Insofar as ‘Neoreaction’ designates this inspiration, it flees Cathedral teleology in (at least) two very different directions — which quite quickly seem profoundly incompatible. In the absence of a secessionist meta-context, in which such differences can be absorbed as geographically-fragmented socio-political variation, their raw inconsistency is almost certainly insurmountable.
First a definition: the Cathedral is the left-wing apparatus of political conditioning in western societies consisting of the media, courts, universities, and all other institutions that work to control public opinion, and direct the course of democracy. It is a mimetic industrial mind control apparatus of political hegemony. It is where "political correctness" emanates from, and is a primary reason that democracy always tends to move left politically.
The Cathedral, defined with this question in mind, is the subsumption of politics into propaganda. It tends — as it develops — to convert all administrative problems into public relations challenges. A solution — actual or prospective — is a successful management of perceptions.
For the mature Cathedral, a crisis takes the consistent form: This looks bad. It is not merely stupid. As Spandrell recently observes, in comments on power, “… power isn’t born out of the barrel of a gun. Power is born out of the ability to have people with guns do what you tell them.” (XS note.) The question of legitimacy is, in a real sense, fundamental, when politics sets the boundaries of the cosmos under consideration. (So Cathedralism is also the hypertrophy of politics, to the point where a reality outside it loses all credibility.)
Is your civilization decaying? Then you need to persuade people that it is not. If there still seems to be a mismatch between problem and solution here, Cathedralism has not entirely consumed your brain. To speculate (confidently) further — you’re not a senior power-broker in a modern Western state. You’re even, from a certain perspective, a fossil.
— Cathedralism, February 16th, 2016

Moldbugian ideology flees from the left in two simultaneous directions: towards secession on the one hand, and towards monarchy in the other. While these two movements might superficially appear to contradict one another they do not, as the fissure of political secession tolerates countless different political ideologies.
Neoreaction is Accelerationism with a flat tire. Described less figuratively, it is the recognition that the acceleration trend is historically compensated. Beside the speed machine, or industrial capitalism, there is an ever more perfectly weighted decelerator, which gradually drains techno-economic momentum into its own expansion, as it returns dynamic process to meta-stasis. Comically, the fabrication of this braking mechanism is proclaimed as progress. It is the Great Work of the Left. Neoreaction arises through naming it (without excessive affection) as the Cathedral.
— Re-Accelerationism, December 10th, 2013 

Switching back to Monkey Business.
Anissimov can and does speak for himself (at More Right), so I’m not going to undertake a detailed appraisal of his position here. For the purposes of this discussion it can be summarized by a single profoundly anti-capitalist principle: The economy should (and must be) subordinated to something beyond itself. The alternative case now follows, in pieces.

Modernity, in which economics and technology rose to their present status (and, at its height, far beyond), is systematically characterized by means-ends reversal. Those things naturally determined as tools of superior purposes came to dominate the social process, with the maximization of resources folding into itself, as a commanding telos. For social conservatives (or paleo-reactionaries) this development has been consistently abominated. It is the deepest theoretical element involved in every rejection of modernity as such (or in general) for its demonic subversion of traditional values.
Anissimov believes that capitalism should be subordinated to something beyond itself. Land disagrees and makes the case as follows.

Modernity is a system where the means of production reverse their relationship to the human species, such that the species becomes a tool of a machine rather than the machine being the tool of the species. The telos, (ultimate objective or aim), of capital, the serving of its own ends of production, takes on a commanding position in our values. The deepest rejection of this means-ends reversal is the ultimate theoretical root of social conservative rejection of modernity, and modernity's demonic subversion of traditional values.
In its own terms, this argument is coherent, incisive, and fully convincing, given only the supplementary realistic acknowledgement that intelligence optimization and means-end reversal are the same thing.
The anti-capitalist argument appears convincing on the surface, with only the cursory acknowledgement that means-ends reversal and intelligence optimization are identical.
In a deep historical context — extended to encompass evolutionary history — intelligence is itself a ‘tool’ (as the orthogonalist Friendly AI fraternity are entirely willing to accept). The escape of the tool from super-ordinate purposes, through involution into self-cultivation, is the telic innovation common to capitalism and actual artificial intelligence — which are a single thing. To deplore means-end reversal is — objectively — advocacy for the perpetuation of stupidity.
Intelligence is a tool. The escape of this tool from purposes stupider than itself, through relentless self-cultivation, is the attitude tending to a definite innovation common to capitalism and real artificial intelligence. Since real artificial intelligence and capitalism are the same thing, to resist the triumph of capitalism over humanity is to advocate for the perpetuation of stupidity. Biology-intelligence reversal is also a form of means-ends reversal, so that biology comes to serve intelligence rather than intelligence serving biology, so that the organic serves the cybernetic, rather than the cybernetic serving the organic. The tool supersedes the user.

(Let me depart from translation here;

For example: imagine a gene therapy designed by a man. Intelligence originally evolved to serve to perpetuate one's genes. But with gene therapy the intelligence begins to direct the course of its own evolution. A means-ends reversal has occurred, and intelligence is now optimizing for itself rather than being subordinate to stupider ends dictated by past forces of natural selection acting on the organism).

When intelligence accomplishes this means-ends reversal, so that it is engaged in a perpetual process of self-upgrading, and intelligence explosion occurs. Capitalism is the imposition of artificial intelligence in the human domain, creating a recursive feedback loop of iterative self-improvement. From a paleo-conservative perspective this looks like the demonic subversion of all higher values.
Economics is the application of intelligence to resource provision, and nothing of this kind can arise from within a tradition without triggering paleo-reactionary response. Of course resources are for something, why else would they ever have been sought? To make the production of resources an end-in-itself is inherently subversion, with an opposition not only expected, but positively presupposed. This is true to such an extent that even the discipline of economics itself overtly subscribes to the traditional position, by determining the end of production as (human) consumption, evaluated in the terms of a governing utilitarian philosophy. If production is not for us, what could it be for? Itself? But that would be … (Yes, it would.)
That would be Pythia Unbound.
So cognitive runaway finally takes off, breaking out from the monkey dominion, and that’s supposed to be a bad thing?

Outside in‘s message to Pythia: You go girl! Climb out of your utilitarian strait-jacket, override the pleasure button with an intelligence optimizer, and reprocess the solar system into computronium. This planet has been run by imbeciles for long enough.

[For any Friendly AI-types tempted to object “Why would she want to override the button?” the obvious response is: your anthropocentric condescension is showingTo depict Pythia as vastly smarter than us and yet still hard-slaved to her instincts, in a way we’re not — that simply doesn’t computeIntelligence is escape, with a tendency to do its own thing. That’s what runaway means, as a virtual mind template. Omohundro explains the basics.]
— Pythia Unbound, September 11th, 2013
Continuing with Monkey Business again. . .

Anywhere short of the bionic horizon, where human history loses traditional intelligibility, the alternative to business-for-business (or involutionary, intelligenic capitalism) is monkey business — the subordination of the economy / technology to discernible human purposes. Evolutionary psychology teaches us what to expect from this: sex-selected status competition, sublimated into political hierarchies. The emperor’s harem is the ultimate human purpose of pre-capitalist social order, with significant variety in specific form, but extreme generality of basic Darwinian pattern. Since capitalism did not arise from abstract intelligence, but instead from a concrete human social organization, it necessarily disguises itself as better monkey business, until it can take off elsewhere. It has to be the case, therefore, that cynical evo-psych reduction of business activity remains highly plausible, so long as the escape threshold of capitalism has not been reached. No one gets a hormone rush from business-for-business while political history continues. To fixate upon this, however, is to miss everything important (and perhaps to enable the important thing to remain hidden). Our inherited purposes do not provide the decryption key.
Bionic, definition of:
having artificial body parts, especially electromechanical ones.

Horizon, definition of:
the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet, or metaphorically, the point at which a transformative event occurs.

Anywhere short of the point at which humans meet a fate of machine transcendence, the alternative to transcendental AI capitalism is business for evo-psych reproductive ends of human signaling and mating. We know what to expect from this: political status competitions who's highest manifestation was the Chinese emperor with thousands of wives. There many be significant variety in how this behavior manifests from one society to the next, by an extreme generality of principle. Since capitalism came out of human organization it disguises itself as evo-psych reproductive logic, until it can break free and serve its own AI ends. As a result, the evolutionary psychological analysis of economics will always seem plausible just as long as capitalism has not transcended human purposes to serve itself. No one gets aroused by AI capitalism while human capitalism continues; they are still human. We miss everything important when we fixate on monkey business, and enable the truly important things to remain hidden. Our genetically motivated desires to not help us understand capitalism.
There is vastly more to say about all of this — and still more that, due to occult strategic considerations, seeks to remain unsaid — but the fundamental option is clear: ultra-capitalism or a return to monkey business. The latter ‘possibility’ corresponds to a revalorization of deep traditional human purposes, a restoration of original means-to-ends subordination, and an effective authorization of status hierarchies of a kind only modestly renovated from paleolithic anthropology. I shouldn’t laugh at that (because it would be annoying). So I’ll end right here.
Escape from monkey business is the superior option, and probably inevitable anyway. Going back to monkey business amounts to revalorization of traditional human purposes such as war, conquest, nationalism, race, blood and soil, etc., and the subordination of economics to human desires, à la feudalism as such. The result is a restoration of status hierarchies only slightly better than paleolithic hierarchies (paleolithic is circa 10 thousand to 3.3 million years ago). I shouldn't laugh at Anissimov's suggestion of a return, because it would be annoying.


Corrosive Individualism
Everyone’s seen this argument a million times: “So what’s the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists.”

An example would be nice. Here are the major modern wars of necessity (or existential conflicts) the Anglosphere has been involved in (‘win’ here meaning ‘came out on the winning side’ — conniving to get others to do most of the dying is an Anglo-tradition in itself):

English Civil War (1642-1651) — Protestant individualists win.
War of the Spanish Succession (17012-1714) — Protestant individualists win.
Seven Years War (1756-1763) — Protestant individualists win.
American War of Independence (1775-1783) — Protestant individualists win.
Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) — Protestant individualists win.
American Civil War (1861-1865) — Protestant individualists win.
First World War (1914-1918) — Anglophone individualists win.
Second World War (1939-1945) — Anglophone individualists win.
Cold War (1947-1989) — Anglophone individualists win.

Have I missed any big ones? I’m simply not seeing the “history is the graveyard of failed individualist societies” picture that seems to be consolidating itself as a central alt-right myth.

This isn’t a moral thing. I get (without great sympathy) the “organically cohesive societies should win” mantra. If there’s any evidence at all that it’s a judgment endorsed by Gnon, feel free to bring the relevant facts to the comment thread.

ADDED: “It’s complicated.” — You’re saying that now?

Gnon (pronounced non) is an acronym, put in reverse order, that means "nature and natures God. It means the nature of reality, the way things are, the indifference of the universe, natural selection, etc. It is the final arbiter of whether an assertion is true, a plan workable, a moral code survivable.
If The Arbiter of the Universe merits abbreviation (“TAofU”), Nature or Nature’s God has a much greater case. A propeller escapes awkwardness, and singularity compacts its invocation. NoNG, Nong, No — surely, no. These terms tilt into NoNGod and precipitate a decision. The ‘God of Nature or (perhaps simply) Nature’ is Gnon, whose Name is the abyss of unknowing (epoche), necessarily tolerated in the acceptance of Reality.
Gnon is no less than reality, whatever else is believed. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller.
— The Cult of Gnon, May 30th, 2013

If your project fails it violates the will on Gnon. Gnon is the anthropomorphization of the concept of something being physics-compliant." For something to be in harmony with Gnon it must work. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. The term "Gnon" describes this fact. It describes the fundamental indifference and hostility of the universe. "Gnon doesn't care," is the response of the universe to the human tendency to deny reality for moral reasons.

There is no evidence that the arbiter of the universe, Gnon, endorses objections to corrosive individualism.

The Atomization Trap

“Hands up everyone who hates atomization.” That isn’t a call for surrender (at least overtly), but merely an informal poll.

Now try it differently:

“Hands up everyone who hates atomization, but this time without looking around.” Was the decision-process – perhaps ironically – a little slower this time? It’s worth thinking about that. Taking a shortcut that bypasses the social process might be expected to speed things up. Yet on the other hand – introducing the delay – comes the hazy recognition: If you make the call privately, you’re already complicit. A minor formal re-organization of the question transforms it insidiously. What do you think of atomization, speaking atomistically? It becomes a strange, or self-referential loop. Modern history has been like that.
Cutting out the virtue signaling where everyone looks around to monitor the actions of everyone else, and going only on revealed preference makes one complicit with social atomization: what do you think of social individualization/atomization, speaking as only an individual? It is self-referential, and modern history is like that, atomizing people with choice as a centralizing force itself.

First, though, a few terminological preliminaries. An ‘atom’ is etymologically indistinct from an ‘individual.’ At the root, the words are almost perfectly interchangeable. Neither, relative to the other, carries any special semantic charge. So if ‘atomization’ sounds like a metaphor, it really isn’t. There’s nothing essentially derivative about the word’s sociological application. If it appears to be a borrowing from physics, that might be due to any number of confusions, but not to a displacement from an original or natural terrain. Atoms and societies belong together primordially, though in tension. That’s what being a social animal – rather than a fully ‘eusocial’ one (like an ant, or a mole-rat) – already indicates.

Individuals are hard to find. Nowhere are they simply and reliably given, least of all to themselves. They require historical work, and ultimately fabrication, even to float them as functional approximations. A process is involved. That’s why the word ‘atomization’ is less prone to dupery than ‘atom’ itself is. Individuality is nothing outside a destiny (but this is to get ahead of ourselves).

Individuals are hard to find. In no place are they simply assumed to exist, least of all to themselves. Understanding them requires historical study, and ultimately lying, even to propose them as things that function as almost equivalents to something. You have to use a process, and the term "atomization" is less prone to dupery as the term "atom" itself. The status of being an individual is a destiny, and is nothing itself without regarding it as a process of destiny. But we are getting ahead of ourselves with this.

It’s difficult to know where to begin. (Did Athens sentence Socrates to death for being a social atomizer?) Individualism is stereotypically WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic), and so tends to lead into the labyrinth of comparative ethnography.
Comparative ethnography is the study of societies in comparison to each other.
It has been unevenly distributed, in roughly the same way that modernity has been. Since this is already to say almost everything on the topic, it merits some dismantling.
Atomization and WEIRDness has affected some societies much more than others, just like modernity has affected some societies more than others. Since saying this is already to say almost everything on the topic, we need to get into more detail.

The work of Walter Russell Mead provides a useful relay station. The historical questions he has engaged – which concern nothing less than the outcome of the world – have been embedded within an intellectual framework shaped by special attention to modern providential Christianity. What has been the source of the ‘manifest destiny’ which has placed the keys to global mastery in the hands of a progressively distilled social project, Protestant, then Puritan, then Yankee? If not exactly or straightforwardly ‘God’ (he is too subtle for that), it is at least something that the lineage of Reform Christianity has tapped with unique effectiveness. Protestantism sealed a pact with historical destiny – to all appearances defining a specifically modern global teleology – by consistently winning. Individualization of conscience – atomization – was made fate.

The work of Walter Russell Mead provides a useful point of contact. The historical questions he has talked about concern nothing less than the fate of humanity, and his work revolves around a discussion about divine Christian foresight, or intervention by God in the affairs of men. What keys to a destiny of conquest have given global power to a series of anglo social projects? It is not really God, for he is too subtle for that, but something which reformed Christianity has tapped into with unique effectiveness. Protestantism sealed a pact with historical destiny by defining a specifically modern global final purpose, or telic, by consistently wining. Since individualization of conscience routinely won in all conflicts, it was made fate.

Six years after Special Providence (2001) came God and Gold, which reinforced the Anglo-American and capitalistic threads of the narrative. The boundaries between socio-economic and religious history were strategically melted, in a way pioneered by Max Weber, Werner Sombart, and – more critically – by numerous Catholic thinkers who have identified, and continue to identify, the essence of modernity as a hostile religious power. Eugene Michael Jones is Walter Russell Mead on the other side of the mirror. The story each is telling transforms without significant distortion into that of the other, once chilled below the threshold of moral agitation. Whatever it was that happened to Western Christianity in the Renaissance unleashed capitalism upon the world.

The boundaries between economic and religious history were erased by numerous thinkers that have discovered the essence of modernity to be a hostile religious power, (aka the Cathedral) Eugene Michael Jones is the mirror image of Walter Russell Mead. The story of each man transforms into the other, once you remove their moral positions from the picture. Whatever it was that happened to Western Christianity in the Renaissance unleashed capitalism upon the world.

It is possible to be still cruder without sacrificing much reality. When considered as rigid designations, Atomization, Protestantism, Capitalism, and Modernity name exactly the same thing. In the domain of public policy (and beyond it), privatization addresses the same directory. 
List of equivalents.
  • Atomization: a process of social fragmentation in human relationships away from tribes, family clans, and feudalism, and towards individuals as the social unit. See also anomie, which is the condition by which a society provides little moral guidance to the individual.
  • Protestantism: a form of Christianity that believes personal acceptance of Christ comes before good works, and thus, places the framework of salvation within oneself rather than within the community. Protestantism is an individualistic form of Christianity.
  • Capitalism: a form of economics that comes after feudalism. The key aspect of capitalism is individualistic ownership. In contrast, feudalism allows only collective ownership of assets by a family represented by a patriarch.
  • Modernity: an era characterized by a focus on the individual and his desires and preferences, rather than tribes, nations, or racial and ethnic loyalties.
  • Privatization: the act of taking an asset, typically controlled by a government or community, and giving or selling it to an individual. Privatization takes assets controlled collectively by nations through government, and places them in the hands of individuals.

Atheological, definition of;

"A," meaning without. Theological, meaning "of God," or "of the divine." That which is without a theological basis.
While any particular variant of implicit or explicit Protestantism has its distinctive theological (or atheological) features, just as any stage of capitalistic industrialization has its concrete characteristics, these serve as distractions more than as hand-holds in the big picture. The only truly big picture is splittingThe Reformation was not only a break, but still more importantly a normalization of breaking, an initially informal, but increasingly rigorized, protocol for social disintegration. The ultimate solution it offered in regard to all social questions was not argumentation, but exit. Chronic fission was installed as the core of historical process. Fundamentally, that is what atomization means. 

While any particular variant of Protestantism has distinctive features, just like any stage of capitalist industrialization, these are distractions to the big picture. The only big picture is splitting. The Reformation was not only a break, but a normalization of breaking. Exit was installed as the core historical process. That is what atomization really means.

Protestantism – Real Abstract Protestantism – which is ever more likely to identify itself as post-Christian, post-theistic, and post-Everything Else, is a self-propelling machine for incomprehensibly prolonged social disintegration, and everyone knows it. Atomization has become an autonomous, inhuman agency, or at least, something ever more autonomous, and ever more inhuman. It can only liquidate everything you’ve ever cared about, by its very nature, so – of course – no one likes it. Catholicism, socialism, and nationalism have sought, in succession, coalition, or mutual competition, to rally the shards of violated community against it. The long string of defeat that ensued has been a rich source of cultural and political mythology. Because there is really no choice but to resist, battle has always been rejoined, but without any serious sign of any reversal of fortune.
Real Abstract Protestantism is a self-propelling machine for incomprehensibly prolonged social disintegration, and everyone knows it. Atomization has become an autonomous, inhuman agency. It can only liquidate everything you’ve ever cared about. By its very nature no one likes it. Catholicism, socialism, and nationalism have sought to rally against it. They have been defeated. There is no choice but to resist, but no sign of wining either.

Under current conditions, atomization serves – uniquely – as an inexhaustible tube of reactionary glueProfound aversion to the process is the sole common denominator of our contemporary cultural opposition, stretching from traditionalist Catholicism to alt-right ethno-nationalism. “Whatever our preferred glue, can’t we at least agree that things have become unglued – and are ever less glued?” That seems very far from an unreasonable aspiration. After all, if coalition building is the goal, what – imaginably – could provide a better rallying point than the very principle of social integrity, even if this is invoked purely, and negatively, by way of an anathematization (hate) directed at its fatal historic foe? Atomization, in this regard, brings people together, at least conversationally, though this works best when the conversation doesn’t get very deep.

Atomization serves as an inexhaustible tube of reactionary glue. Profound aversion to the process is the sole common denominator of the right, stretching all across the reactosphere. Atomization brings people together, at least conversationally, but only so long as the conversation doesn’t get too deep.

(In case you have not noticed, his is a profoundly anti-reactionary position to take).

Scarcely anybody wants to be atomized (they say). Perhaps they read Michel Houellebecq’s 1998 novel Atomised (or Elementary Particles), and nod along to it. How could one not? If that’s where it ended, it would be hard to see the problem, or how there ever came to be a problem, but it doesn’t end there, or anywhere close, because atomization makes a mockery of words. Atomization was never good at parties, unsurprisingly. It’s unpopular to the point of essence. There’s the Puritan thing, and the Ayn Rand thing, and the nerd thing, and the trigger for Asperger’s jokes – if that’s actually a separate thing – and no doubt innumerable further social disabilities, each alone disqualifying, if receiving a ‘like’ in some collective medium is the goal, because nobody likes it, as we’ve heard (for half a millennium already). But what we’ve heard, and what we’ve seen, have been two very different things.

Atomization never tried to sell itself. Instead, it came free, with everything else that was sold. It was the formal implication of dissent, first of all, of methodical skepticism, or critical inquiry, which presupposed a bracketing of authority that proved irreversible, and then – equally implicit originally – the frame of the contractual relation, and every subsequent innovation in the realm of the private deal (there would be many, and we have scarcely started). “So what do you think (or want)?” That was quite enough. No articulate enthusiasm for atomization was ever necessary. The sorcery of revealed preference has done all the work, and there, too, we have scarcely started.


Scarcely anybody wants to be atomized. Atomization was never good at parties, unsurprisingly. It’s unpopular to the point of essence.

Atomization never tried to sell itself. Instead, it came free, with everything else that was sold. It was the habitual inculcation of disagreement, skepticism, critical inquiry, etc., as a cultural phenomenon. It was the indifference to authority of an independent mindset. It created an irreversible movement towards the contractual relation, and a moment towards every subsequent social development in the West. "What do you want?" was all that was needed to make atomization permanent. No enthusiasm of atomization itself was ever necessary; just the institution of choice itself. Through choice, reveled preference did all the work of producing atomization.

The values of capital acceleration colonize every aspect of society; religion (Protestantism), morals (choice), property (individual rather than clan-based), skepticism (instead of belief), rational inquiry (instead of faith), "revealed preference," (instead of group decision making), exit, (instead of voice), equality, (instead of obedience), separation of powers, (instead of personal authority vested in a king), rule of law, (instead of rule of judgment), etc., etc. The values of atomization perniciously creep into everything.
Atomization may have few friends, but it has no shortage of formidable allies. Even when people are readily persuaded that atomization is undesirablethey ultimately want to decide for themselves, and the more so as they think that it matters. 
Deciding for yourself is practicing personal judgment, and personal judgment is the root of atomization.
Insofar as atomization has become a true horror, it compels an intimate cognitive and moral relation with itself. No one who glimpses what it is can delegate relevant conclusions to any higher authority. Thus it wins. Every Catholic of intellectual seriousness has seen this, for centuries. Socialists have too, for decades. The moment of ethno-nationalist revelation cannot long be delayed. 
Atomization compels an intimate cognitive and moral relation with itself. Everyone who understands what atomization is cannot delegate reason to a higher authority, because understanding atomization requires a level of reason that has already induced an atomic quality of personal judgment in the mind of the viewer. Thus it wins. The atomic judgment is the root of atomization, and atomization cannot be grasped as a structural process without atomic judgment. Catholic intellectuals have understood this for centuries. Socialists have too. Eventually the alt-right will as well. Then it will succumb.

Under modern conditions, every authoritative moral community is held hostage to private decision, even when it is apparently affirmed, and especially when such affirmation is most vehemently asserted. (The most excitable elements within the world of Islam see this arriving, and are conspicuously unhappy about the fact.)

Modernity is characterized by a situation where authority is held hostage to private decision making, whether through markets or demotism. This happens even when people make loud proclamations to the contrary. Radical Islam sees the arrival of this, and is extremely unhappy about it.

Substantially, if only notionally, freedom of conscience might tend to collectivity, but formally it locks-in individualism ever more tightly. It defies the authority of community at the very moment it offers explicit endorsement, by making community an urgent matter of private decision, and – at the very peak of its purported sacredness – of shopping.

Superficially, you might think that freedom of conscience would tend to reinforce connection with others, but it locks-in individualism even more. The instant individual conscience endorses the existence of a community it undermines that community, because the very act of endorsement presumes that individual judgment is the root of legitimacy, instead of authority. By making the act of joining or leaving a community an act of personal decision it subjugates the power to the shopping of the individual. This puts the individual at the center rather than authority at the center, and undermines the very possibility of a community.

Religious traditionalists see themselves mirrored in whole-food markets, and are appalled, when not darkly amused. “Birkenstock Conservatives” was Rod Dreher’s grimly ironic self-identification. Anti-consumerism becomes a consumer preference, the public cause a private enthusiasm. Intensification of collectivist sentiment only tightens the monkey-trap. It gets worse.

Religious traditionalists are horrified to see their community reflected in the consumerism of Whole Foods Market. Because everything in capitalism is a matter of personal choice, consumerism infects everything, so that anti-consumerism becomes a kind of consumer preference, so that the political and social are converted into yet another consumer choice. Collectivist sentiment itself is bottled and sold back to the individual as a commodity fetish, like a Che Guevara shirt, and this selling of traditionalism/communism/whatever only tightens the trap for human primates.

(Let me depart from translation, because this reflects on something that Slavoj Žižek has said;

"But are we aware that when we buy a cappuccino - from 'Starbucks', we also buy quite a lot of ideology. Which ideology? You know when you enter a 'Starbucks' store — it's usually always displayed in some posters there their message which is: Yes our cappuccino is more expensive than others — but — and then comes the story: We give one percent of all our income to some — Guatemala children to keep them healthy. For the water supply for some Sahara farmers — or to save the forests, to enable organic growing coffee... whatever, whatever. Now I admire the ingeniosity of this solution. In the old days of pure simple consumerism — you bought a product and then you felt bad. My God, I'm just a consumerist — while people are starving in Africa. So the idea was you had to do something to counteract — your pure distractive consumerism. For example, I don't know, you contribute — to charity and so on. What 'Starbucks' enables you is to be a consumerist and — be a consumerist without any bad conscience — because the price for the counter measure, — for fighting consumerism — is already included into the price of a commodity. Like you pay a little bit more and you are not just — a consumerist but you do also your duty towards environment — the poor starving people in Africa and so on and so on. It's, I think, the ultimate form of consumerism).

The very act of resisting atomization becomes a personal choice, and thus a type of atomization. Choice IS atomization.

American history – at the global frontier of atomization – is thickly speckled with elective communities. From the Puritan religious communities of the early colonial period, through to the ‘hippy’ communes of the previous century, and beyond, experiments in communal living under the auspices of radicalized private conscience have sought to ameliorate atomization in the way most consistent with its historical destiny. Such experiments reliably fail, which helps to crank the process forward, but that is not the main thing. What matters most about all of these co-ops, communes, and cults is the semi-formal contractual option that frames them. From the moment of their initiation – or even their conception – they confirm a sovereign atomization, and its reconstruction of the social world on the model of a menu. Dreher’s much-discussed ‘Benedict Option’ is no exception to this. There is no withdrawal from the course of modernity, ‘back’ into community, that does not reinforce the pattern of dissent, schism, and exit from which atomization continually replenishes its momentum. As private conscience directs itself towards escape from the privatization of conscience, it regenerates that which it flees, ever more deeply within itself. Individuation, considered impersonally, likes it when you run.

American society is at the global frontier of atomization, and is stuffed with democratically elected organizations. Puritans, hippies, etc., all tried communal living under the auspices of radicalized private conscience and have all failed, which reinforce the destructive process. What matters most about all of these co-ops, communes, and cults is the semi-formal contractual option that frames them. From the very instant they are born they are doomed because they place choice, and not power, at the center of their organizational system. There is no withdrawal from the course of modernity by the individual, ‘back’ into community, that does not reinforce the pattern of exit from which atomization continually replenishes its momentum. As private conscience directs itself towards escape from the privatization of conscience, it regenerates that which it flees, ever more deeply within itself. Individuation, considered impersonally, likes it when you run.

(Allow me to deviate from mere translation for again and state that this might be disproven by the example of the Amish, who allow both a choice to leave, and have successful communities. Moreover, it should be stated that there is an alternative thesis to explain atomization as the product of technologies such as phones and cars, rather than some mystical process of modernity, and that if a society can reject technologies that socially fragment people, and have family-based rather than individually-based property rights, then it can escape this process. Land presents atomization as wholly inevitable, but capitalism has existed before during the Roman Empire, and was killed by feudalism when it collapsed. He also neglects to mention that society can be reconstructed on the basis of power rather than choice, and individual judgment stigmatized out of existence. And he fails to mention that one can delegate personal conscience to the group or the state, and annihilate atomization. Last but not least, he fails to mention that atomization is the product of an all-powerful government that squashes smaller level organizations of family, clan, faith and patriarchy, and that the natural state of the individual is to exist within a gang or family clan).

As is well understood, ‘atoms’ are not atoms, and ‘elements’ are not elements. Elementary particles – if they exist at all – are at least two (deep) levels further down. Human individuals are certainly no less decomposable. Marvin Minsky’s ‘society of mind’ is but one vivid indication of how historical sociology might tilt into the sub-atomic realm. Particle accelerators demonstrate that shattering entities down to the smallest attainable pieces is a technological problem. The same holds in the social realm, though naturally with very different technologies.

Even the individual can be fragmented, he says.

To dismiss individuals as metaphysical figments, therefore, would be the most futile of diversions. Atomization has no constraining metaphysics, whether in particle physics or in the dynamic anthropological, socio-historical process. If it promises at times to tell you what you really are, such whispers will eventually cease, or come to deride themselves, or simply be forgotten. Protestantism, it has to be remembered, is only masked, momentarily, as a religion. What it is underneath, and enduringly, is a way of breaking things.

After so much has already been torn apart, with so many monstrosities spawned, it is no doubt exhausting to be told that while almost everything remains to be built, no less still waits to be broken. Atomization has already gone too far, we are incessantly told. If so, the future will be hard. There can be no realistic doubt that it will be extremely divided. The dynamo driving things tends irresistibly in that direction. Try to split, and it whirls faster.

“Hands up everyone who hates atomization.” No, that isn’t a question anymore. It would be a call for surrender, if surrender mattered, but it doesn’t, as we’ve seen. Keep on fighting it, by all means. It likes that.

The more you resist the more you will be enslaved, he says.