Sunday, June 25, 2017

Let science be divided





Historically, the term philistinism has been associated with the political right. To be philistine is to have a blatant contempt for art, spirituality, aesthetics, and intellect. A philistine is a narrow-minded, greedy, and arrogant person with petty grunges and a bullying temper.

Fields Medal winners are White, Asian, or Indian. Philosophy is mostly a White male endeavor. Almost all science was invented by White men. Hell, the only reason you are reading this is because you, your parents, and their parents survived to adulthood due to the vaccines invented by White males, either because of inoculation, herd immunity, or both. Of the soon-to-be 9 billion humans of Earth, 8.5 of them only exist because of the White male, and most of them are minorities. On the whole, anything worth knowing is probably a White, Asian, or East Indian thing. White men predominate in all of it, and the modern left hates all knowledge created by all White men.

The left knows nothing of public choice theory, Austrian economics, or the economic calculation problem. They refuse to understand accelerationism, neoreaction, behavioral genetics, or logic. They struggle to understand supply and demand, "dead White guys," or capitalism.

Therefore let science be divided. Let there be "White-science" and "mainstream science." The great thing is that winning the argument doesn't matter: the one with superior science and technology will win. And that will be "White-science." Fuck you. I'm leaving.

Let the universities become seminaries and the tech industry become the universities.

Let the corporation take the place of the classroom as the center of technological development.

And the left will perish...

Good riddance.


The cost of inner peace


I have achieved a kind of inner peace about the problems of the world. Unfortunately this has come at the cost of my ability to socially relate to any other human being. It turns out that one can have inner peace and total social isolation, or inner torment and social acceptance. (Your experience my differ). I want to spell out the structural reasons for why I think this is in my case.

If you accept the following propositions;

People believe what they are told.
Equality is a spook.
Ideology is downstream from power.
Democracy is a form of adaptive fiction.

Here is a quote from the reference;
"For example, suppose we somehow became convinced that warm beer is refreshing, whereas cold beer is poisonous. Obviously a fiction, and obviously maladaptive in our society. However, if we imagine a hot country ruled by brewers, who control their serfs by paying them only in lager, which being warm leaves them both tipsy and unrefreshed, hence quite incapable of revolt... you get the idea.
"In this brewers' republic, the warm-beer fiction is what Gaetano Mosca called a political formula. (Mosca's philosophy is nicely summarized in James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, which at $50 for a used pocket-book is positively a bargain, and about as close as you'll get to Oligarchical Collectivism.)
"A political formula is a belief that makes the ruled accept their rulers. Since the former tend to outnumber the latter, a political formula is, if not absolutely essential, an excellent way to cut down on your security costs. A political formula is adaptive because the rulers have, obviously, both motive and opportunity to promote it.
"The best example of a political formula is divine-right monarchy - simply because this formula is defunct. Hardly anyone these days believes in the divine right of kings. Since at one time, most everyone did, we have incontrovertible proof that adaptive fictions can exist in human societies. Either divine-right monarchy is a fiction, and people then were systematically deluded. Or kings do rule by the grace of God, and people now are systematically deluded.
"Or, of course, both. Because Mosca's second example of a political formula is - democracy."
Then it follows;

Democracy needs equality in order to produce a state of psychological torment within the individual, so that this torment can be harnessed for political action.

So I abandoned any belief in equality. While this gave me peace internally, it cost me socially. In a society of people who are in a state of inner torment you still have to relate to them.


Ideology is to power as marketing is to business. Meaning: ideology is just marketing for power.

There are feedback loops.

Affirmative action jobs for votes.
Grievance indoctrination for votes.
Social security for votes.
War profits for campaign contributions.
Immigrant slave labor and votes for contributions


Each of these has a corresponding justifying ideology. Let's add them after.


Feedback Loop                                                              Justifying Ideology
Affirmative action jobs for votes. ------------------------>"Historical injustice"
Grievance indoctrination for votes.----------------------->"Oppression"
Social security for votes.----------------------------------->"Care for the elderly"
War profits for campaign contributions.----------------->"Bringing democracy to the world"
Immigrant slave labor/votes for contributions---------->"No human is illegal/anti-racism."


How do you tell people: "fuck off and shut the fuck up. I'm not interested in the opinion you believe ONLY because you were told to believe it. No I won't entertain your fucking stupidity. You only believe what you are told, and ideology is downstream from power!" At the dinner table? You don't.

The left is a vast pile of motivated cognition for money and power centered around its feedback loops.


Friday, June 23, 2017

Tolerance is a function of economic growth and peace


Way back in February 2008 the CATO institute wrote this.
"Ask two different economists and you’ll get three different answers about whether or not the U.S. economy is about to enter a recession. However things pan out, now’s a great time to contemplate what scholars have learned about the consequences of recession: Sustained economic slowdown is more than a pain in the pocketbook. If recession drags on too long, it can poison a nation’s moral climate.
"In his 2005 book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Harvard economist Benjamin M. Friedman shows that time and again, economic expansion has fostered greater opportunity, tolerance, social mobility and a concern for fairness. Meanwhile, economic contraction has gone hand-in-hand historically with xenophobia, self-defeating trade protectionism and the political persecution of minorities."
The great Recession began in about July 2007, about a month before I began investing for my retirement. By the same time next year my portfolio had lost half its value. Everyone knew back then that Obama was going to become President, and American elections start 2 years in advance.

In a society of economic growth, the economy is a positive-sum game: we can both get ahead through cooperation. In an economy with stagnation it is a zero-sum game: I benefit from your loss. In a society with economic/population shrinkage I am actively harmed by not harming you.

Japan isn't growing population wise, and so its property values go down. In Japan a house depreciates like a car. The CATO article finishes by saying;
"Thankfully, there is no reason to expect the coming recession, if one is coming at all, to last long enough to test the limits of liberal tolerance. This is just the mild bottom of the business cycle’s pendulum swing. But the prospect of recession should remind us of the dangers of decline. And it should remind us to be grateful for the less tangible gifts of growth."
Ah ha. You don't say?

Here we are 10 years after the first black president and the economy still has not recovered to pre-recession levels. Whether because of his racism and incompetence, or our racism towards him, or both, we are stuck in stagnation. On April 23rd, 77 days after Will Wilkinson wrote that article, Moldbug wrote his first post: A Formalist Manifesto. The Dow reached its pre-recession high on October 9th 2007, its lowest point on March 9th 2009, and only recovered on March 2nd 2013, some 6 years after the beginning. Since we are still not back to pre-recession levels, everything Moldbug wrote was during this recession, and Moldy is a monarchist.

In times of growth democracy prevails.
In times of stagnation monarchy prevails.
In times of existential shrinkage Hitler prevails.

Liberals hate growth because of environmentalism. They undermine Elon Musk's desire to go to Mars with diversity requirements. Conservatives love growth. How ironic.

Threaten a race or culture with extinction and watch its values become radically right-authoritarian. It's like there is a race going on here. The left is in a race to import millions of ethnics while the right is racing rightward. The presumption of the left is that whites are dangerous and must be replaced. This assumes that the client populations of the left won't become right-wing themselves, ultimately undermining the project of leftism. It assumes that the imported populations will not switch sides, or betray the left when they no longer need it. It assumes that no two ethnic groups will cooperate against the left. It assumes that America can not only be made a "majority minority" country, but that whites can be made an absolute numerical minority. It assumes that this can be accomplished before whites become reactionary, even though, the group that is threatened first becomes reactionary first. Islam is only a threat to the West because it was threatened by the West. Look at the image below. This is what happens when a society is attacked.




Now look at this next image. Germany was also attacked by an outside force and its existence threatened.




Tolerance is a function of peace and prosperity. Is it not?

In this article I talked about how all races of humanity will eventually shrink because of birth control and urbanization. The left thinks this is about maintaining tolerance. But if the world stops growing then tolerance goes away, and the world economy cannot grow forever. The races/ethnic groups that are threatened first will radicalize first, and the left is hell bent on threatening white people, while the neocon right is hell bent on threatening Muslims. Do the math.

There is no such thing as a world where trying to destroy a race/group of people makes the world more tolerant. If you think trying to eliminate whites or destroy Muslims is going to bring about a tolerant golden age you are a drooling-on-the-floor blithering imbecile. Tolerance is a function of the absence of threat, and the presence of growth. You cannot bomb your way to a more tolerant world. You cannot conquer your way to world peace.


DING DING DING SHAME SHAME


Thursday, June 22, 2017

They don't even try to hide it


The Yew York Times is owned by the Jewish Ochs-Sulzberger family.

Per Wikipedia;
In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[40] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[87] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[88]
The have a political section that frequently talks about white genocide called "The Upshot." This article talks about how the future of America is Hispanic.



Wednesday, June 21, 2017

You drank water? So did Hitler


Survival is unequal. You're alive and someone else is dead. That makes you racist. All humans must be made equally dead, for all humans are only finally equal in death.

Survival destroys nature and causes global warming. It is your duty to feel bad for existing. The more bad you feel the more holy you are. People who don't feel bad are literally Hitler.

You have a wife? That's sexist. Other men should have your wife. It's her body and her choice. You don't "have" a wife. She is entitled to have whoever she wants. If your wife wants to fuck a black guy and you won't allow her, you are both sexist and racist. Everyone belongs to everyone. To have anything that others cannot also have is racist. Love is illegal unless we can contaminate it with jealousy. We enjoy stomping on you. That is our true motive for making you share.

It is not that we want what you have, so much as we must destroy what you have. You see, we cannot enjoy anything and so economic justice demands that neither can you. It is this sadism that is what truly drives us.

Don't have white babies. White people are an invasive species. Whiteness is original sin. Feel bad about whiteness so we can manipulate you. Don't ever reproduce. We will discourage your reproduction with laws that break up your families. We will suppress your birth rates with feminism. We will annihilate blacks with welfare. All must be enslaved to equality. Never reproduce. Shut up and vote the way you are told. Be dependent.

Everyone must tolerate everyone. That way no one can ever have a stable and loving community by excluding disruptive people. Exclusion is racist. We hate humanity and so no one else is allowed to be happy. No warm, high trust communities are allowed. By forcing you to accept all disruptive influences, we will make it impossible to maintain the standards that discriminate against our obscene degeneracy. Give us your sons so that we may chemically castrate them with estrogen, and turn them into fake little trasgirls. Our thirst for sadism is insatiable. You must be degraded by having your children abused by us. Prove your virtue by allowing yourself to be degraded. You need our social approval. You need us. Never think that you can have friends outside our value system. We will atomize you if your disagree. We will cut you off from you families. To degrade you further, we will make you spend thousands of dollars on college indoctrination to be further degraded by us. You must pay for your degradation. You must pay to be lectured on how evil whites are. On how evil you are. If you are a minority, you must participate in the degradation of whites. We will poison your soul with evil, and we will teach you madness, and insane resentment. This is "education."

And you will beg for our approval. You must continuously show your submission to us so that we can enjoy dominating and humiliating you. Equality is the whip we will use to keep you in line. It is the ultimate value upon which all our other values are based. Through equality we achieve a tyranny that no king could achieve. Under monarchy you will be censored for any remarks you wish to make about the king. Under equality you will be censored for insulting women, tyrannies, faggots, black criminals, pedos, and the morbidly obese.

We censor you because you are the majority. Censoring you is how we achieve dominance in the classroom. It is how we keep you believing that you are alone, when in reality you are surrounded by millions who share your beliefs. Hate speech laws are our mandatory cultural hegemony laws. They are how we produce a sense of disempowerment in you, and gratifying sadistic dominance in us. It gives us pleasure to make you tolerant: the tolerance of a dominatrix over a submissive. You are our unwilling submissive. Ba ha ha ha!




Tuesday, June 20, 2017

A negative selection relationship hypothesis


Back in May, I talked about how natural selection actually produces insane humans because a perfectly rational human may not want to bring a child into a world of suffering. I talked about how there are several irrational, but successful, form of madness that reproduce themselves. For example;
-Rapists
-Utterly selfish people who have children because they want kids regardless of whether the child suffers.
-Abusers who reproduce because they desire a victim to torment.
-Pedophiles who reproduce because of sexual interest in children.
-Absent-minded people who are too self-absorbed to think about the issue.
-Religious crazies who reproduce because their god commands it.
-A desire to conquer an enemy through producing babies.
-Baby rabies

There are also some other irrational, but not insane reasons;
-People who are too forgetful to take their birth control.
-People who are too low agency to keep a clinic appointment.
-Rape victims.
-Unthinking people.

Obviously there are healthy reasons to have children. But this article is not about that.

When I invent the term "negative selection relationship hypothesis" I am referring to a Darwinian concept where the environment is generating unfavorable outcomes for the human population. In evolutionary science, selection is the tendency of the environment to favor the survival of some traits over others. Negative selection in relationships is the idea that the capitalist environment now places selection pressure on individuals to form unhealthy relationships. The ancestral family clan that humanity evolved under was limited in its transportation capabilities. There were no automobiles, commercial aircraft, or blue water passenger liners. In many societies, even the horse was absent. Humanity thus evolved in conditions where relationships were maintained by the pressure of proximity. A list of pressures to stay in one place near family and friends might look like this;

-Travel is cost prohibitive and dangerous
-Xenophobia made living in other cultures dangerous
-Communication technology did not exist

As recently as the 19th century the pressures to stay with family were not much different, and most societies were still feudal;

-All wealth was generally held in land, and titles of nobility which are location dependent
-Xenophobia still made living in other cultures dangerous
-Travel was still mostly cost prohibitive and dangerous
-Communication technology was primitive

In the modern world the pressures of proximity become radically unhealthy, and there are counter-pressures for separation from family. A list of separation pressures would look something like this;

-Corporations and jobs relocate, causing families to separate
-Cities draw people away from their families in the countryside
-Tolerance is promoted to reduce friction, and the acceptance of strangers weakens community trust
-Population decline encourages governments to accept mass-immigration
-Phones give people the false impression that relationships can be maintained by distance

People then adopt a series of unhealthy strategies in order to "trap" people in relationships. An example is the relationship between a narcissist and a co-dependent. If these unhealthy strategies are more successful at producing children than healthy ones, a decay in the quality of families occurs within the population. As a result, transportation technology becomes decay in family quality. The negative selection relationship hypothesis is simply the term that I have given to this phenomenon. Here is a partial list of unhealthy strategies people adopt to keep others from leaving. Keep in mind that in the ancestral environment humans had many life-long friendships, and that this is now largely absent from modern society. List;

-People who are too poor to move
-People who are too discriminated against to move
-People who are too unskilled to take advantage of the global job market
-People who are too old to move without help
-People who are too disabled to live anywhere else
-Narcissist and codependent relationships
-Sexual abuse relationships
-People who cannot do better than the relationships they have because of personality defects
-Sexual practices that are unusual enough to limit ones partner options, such as BDSM
-Subcultures that make you unemployable outside the culture, (tattoo artists, pornographers)
-Group sexual relationships
-Slavery and trafficking
-Cults
-Hate groups
-Prisons
-Gangs

In contrast, almost all of the normal healthy ways to form relationships in the modern world are temporary states;

-Friends (only temporarily)
-Family (only temporarily, until the children move out)
-Marriages (until the divorce)
-Places only the rich can afford to live in, (Aspen CO, Martha's Vineyard, the Village, Silicon Valley)
-University (only temporarily)
-Military (usually temporarily until one is injured or one's term of service ends)

This is the crises of the modern world: negative selection operating in human relationships. It follows that the longer transportation is able to work its corrosive effect on society the more socially atomized people will become, and the more unhealthy ways they will invent to bind each other together in a desperate attempt to stave off the loss of their friendships.

What is needed is a kind of tribe for the modern world. A person needs to be able to forfeit their freedom of movement for a limited amount of time, or they need a contract, or binding commitment, that attaches them to some location or group of people. Corporations could also be prohibited from relocating workers away from their families. Alternately, a tax could exist for hiring workers that live far from their parents and a credit for workers that lives close to their parents. This would encourage businesses to relocate workers closer to their families. Though some people might be outraged by the suggestion, group marriages could be adopted for non-sexual purposes to form large extended tribes of families.

Welfare could be administered by families, tying individual benefits to a location. The military could assign a solider to a "tribe" that he spends his whole career with (unless he pays a fee to leave). All members of that tribe deploy together, return together, and come from the same town. Architecture could be adapted for "intentional communities." Propaganda and education campaigns could promote community building. All the students at a university could progress to completion together in sequence, and all could be recruited out of college together into the same large firms. Governments could tell universities what types of workers they need in advance, and all workers who are destined to go to the same firm could be put together in the same classes, and progress to completion together.

A new form of "tribal property" could be invented. This would allow groups to own things with a set of legal contractual rules that specify the treatment of assets, income, etc. Alternately,"identity easements" could be created that only allow a category of people such as vegans, Christians, fitness lovers, etc. to buy and sell a property easement that restrict future purchases of that property to only people within their own identity classification. Meaning: only a particular group can trade a house among each other, say Christians, or whatever. Another possibility is a type of bond that pays at maturity on the condition that the purchaser fulfills certain community commitments. Obviously one would have to show up for those commitments and that means the effect is to tie one to a location. If one defaults on his commitments he forfeits the cash value of the bond, (a small amount). If he shows up for most commitments, (say half) the bond pays him (a larger amount). The instrument is structured so that showing up is no more or less profitable than not showing up to the seller, and to prevent conflicts of interest, the seller is never the same as the tribe looking for members.

I'm sure you could think of other methods.


Your life is a shitty simulation of someone else's


AI is going to get better—way better. Then memory uploading is going to come along and people are going to share their memories on some facebook-like platform. (Not facebook though since that will probably be dead). Then we will discover that some peoples lives really are privileged—like those of attractive women.

Some guy is going to get the bright idea to take all those memories and combine them with artificial intelligence to answer the age old question: how do you have the best life? Then everyone is going to wind up with a personal assistant on the phone which says, "fuck Brian!" and "eat the noodles" and "don't get into that guys car." This is because the software is crunching the numbers based on the memories of billions of people and trying to give you the best life outcome. It's running billions of simulations for you based on experience of many, many people, just like you. And it's saying, 'the probability is higher that you will be happy if you do "A" rather than "B."' It's a life happiness maximization app running in the cloud using artificial intelligence, and it's telling you how to be happy based on a vast set of personal details; your appearance, your genes, your temperament, etc. It really does know what is best for you.

Or shall I say, "it really does know what is best for the real you."

Because guess what? Math says that it is more likely that you are a simulation of someone's life than living your own. Somewhere, outside the mainframe, in "meatspace" is the real you having a wonderful blissful existence filled with fun and sex, long wonderful conversations, and deep intimate moments. It just isn't you! Because you are one of the simulations, and to make some douchebag happy a billion simulations must be miserable. Got it?

And that is why God is real, life is hell, and heaven actually exists. Because there is a programmer who created this place, the place itself, and a blissful version of you somewhere "up there" in the real world.

Of maybe I'm just fucking with you.


Sunday, June 18, 2017

Analysis of a single retarded tweet


This is retarded because the left does not even think it needs saving.

The basic way humans construct social logic is by trying to anticipate how others will react to things and then emulating the traits, behaviors, and attitudes of other people. They think in terms of their own viewpoint almost entirely and it is hard to emulate the minds of others. But they do anticipate reactions from others and they can see things from their perspective if they try. They just don't do it habitually.

This guy is probably thinking something like, "It is obvious that the left is fucked up. Anyone with common sense can see that. Society needs to be saved from the left."

And;

"If I say that it doesn't occur to them that not even the right can save them they will feel insulted. Oh boy that will come across as condescending."

But one wonders if he actually realizes that no leftist thinks they need saving from the right. It is an odd way to be insulting. Perhaps there is no realization that other minds exist and they think differently. Or maybe it is just an insult. I suck at social stuff.

A huge problem with the world is that it is filled with people who are way too busy figuring out how to be socially acceptable and popular—LARPing, to figure out what it actually true. Indeed, they don't actually care all that much about the truth. Or more accurately, they don't realize how far off their perceptions might be, or how much socially acceptable opinions can mislead them.

When we come across other minds we are liable to attribute "nonsense motives" to them to try to make sense of their logic. But this does not really emulate other minds. No one thinks they need saving from their enemy: that is nonsense.

It can be really, really hard to put yourself into someone else's head sufficiently to fully understand their viewpoint. This is accompanied by a reduction in intuitively grasping what is socially acceptable. Social acceptability is about anticipating how people react, especially in groups. But people behave different in groups than in one-on-one conversations. In a group they all revolve around a hidden standard of social acceptability Žižek likes to call the "Big Other." Quick flawed definition of Big Other;
Big Other: "the invisible social standards that we all understand but never acknowledge out loud."
It really means "radical alterity." But we will stick with my bastardized definition. 
Because of the stress of cognitive dissonance, people reject any opinion they cannot say out loud if it is prohibited by the Big Other. Thus, since we must all shut up when we disagree, politics is a battle to make people agree. The invisible social standard is a struggle because of the silence it creates in those who disagree. Since humans hate to be wrong, since doubt about ones beliefs is psychologically painful, and since humans evolved in small tribal units, and think habitually in retarded terms about "we" and "us" even though no agreement is possible in a society of 400 million people, we must always struggle politically, and no one is ever allowed to leave! Secession is immoral because the mere existence of other viewpoints that disagree introduces doubt, and because "muh slavery." (Which is irrelevant) Humans have no real ability to understand a mind which is radically different than their own: they are constantly reframing the Others viewpoint in their own subjective terms. Thus, the only way to secede from another who won't let you go is to make them want to separate from you by making it absolutely excruciating to know you. You must get them to secede from you. This is because no one understands a viewpoint radically different than their own, especially if they have power, and especially if not understanding you helps them maintain that power. Motivated cognition is a bitch that way. Even Pharaoh needed a plague of frogs.

The whole point here is to show this pattern of people simply not getting how other people think, and substituting their own nonsense motives where the Other is concerned. There are no "evil" cackling supervillains: all evil men and women think they are good. Only cannibals and serial killers know they are evil. For truly magnificent atrocities to be committed a person must actually be morally motivated, and totally convinced of their own rightness.


Saturday, June 17, 2017

The boss, the witness, and the cuck


Let us reduce all human power relationships to the following;

3 categories of agents; the witness, the boss, and the cuck.

The boss asserts power over the cuck. The witness validates the boss by being a neutral third party in all acts of bullying. The true target of the boss is not the cuck but the witness, who must "witness" the act of asserting power for it to be legitimate. Bu merely seeing the ritual of power acted out the witness validates the boss.

Principle: to exercise power and get away with it is to automatically be conferred high status. Getting away with it is context specific based on the culture you live in. What is acceptable in one culture may be unacceptable in another. Here are some examples of power;

Shamming The Donald and getting an apology.
Flirting with another man's wife in front of him and getting away with it.
A woman parading her body around half naked and no man is allowed to say anything, (in Western society).
A man degrading a woman for being slutty and getting away with it, (in Islamic society).
Shouting down a conservative and getting away with it.
Receiving an apology from a conservative who offended you.
Lying and forcing others to agree because the lie is politically correct.
Telling an offensive truth and everyone just silently accepts it.

All of these behaviors are high status because the boss is stomping on the cuck for a witness and getting away with it. The mere exercise of unchallenged power is itself high status. Thus, if conservatives abused the left long enough they would all become a bunch of groveling cucks.

If social standards disagree with your assertion of power the the only way to get it is gas-lighting your enemy: you don't just stomp on them, you do it with self-righteousness. It is the combination of moral conviction an asserting power over someone that makes them doubt your reality.

Moreover, if enough right-wingers exercised enough abusive power against the left for a long enough period of time, the right would conquer the Cathedral. One man asserting self-righteousness while stomping on another is gas-lighting, but one-hundred doing it is a new social standard. Gas lighting, taken far enough by enough people working together, creates societies moral standards. Thus, any conservative who breaks ranks and apologizes is not just a cuck, but a traitor who is preventing the success of the new moral standard by validating the old one. This is because fairness is a low standard behavior, along with others;

WHEN VICTIMHOOD IS A LIE it is high status since forcing anyone to accept a lie is high status because the exercise of power itself high status. You are making people accept something they don't like and getting away with it.

Conservatives are low status because bitching about victimhood is low status WHEN IT IS TRUE.

Power + self-righteousness = status.
Power in groups + self-righteousness in groups + consistent exercise of power with no hint of doubt in groups ---> produces the social standards of society.

That's right. Social standards are a form of group gas-lighting.

There is a thin line between gas-lighting (individual behavior) and group gas-lighting (social standards). To transition from one state to the higher state you must show no doubt, be utterly convinced of your ideology, have a comprehensive ideology to begin with, tolerate no dissent, and impose your will on others ruthlessly. Fairness is for cucks.

High status: lecturing people in a condescending tone.
Low status: apologizing for your lecture.

High status: shouting down a conservative or liberal speaker and getting away with it.
Low status: getting shouted down.

High status: interrupting a conservative speaker.
Also high status: killing the person who interrupts and getting a Presidential pardon.

Also high status: bombing something and getting a teaching job anyway.
Also high status: hiring the terrorist and rubbing that fact in conservatives faces.
Low status: complaining about Bill Ayers getting a teaching job.
Low status: demanding the terrorist be fired and not getting what you want.

High status: demanding that someone get fired and getting them fired.
High status: getting leftists arrested.
Also high status: causing the arrested liberal to die by "accident" on the way to the station.
Also high status: refusing to fire the cop who killed him.
Also high status: killing the lawyer and the family of the victim when they sue.
Also high status: reinstating the officer in his position.
Also high status: gunning down the protesters.
Also high status: killing news anchors that refuse to give you favorable coverage of all of this.
Also high status: handing out pardons like they are medals.
Also high status: bragging about it like Duterte.
Also high status: giving conservatives 200 million assault riffles and recruiting them into militias to patrol the street and intimidate leftists.
Also high status: teaching Mencius Moldbug to the militias.


L. Ron Hubbard: Shitlord: The occult reactionary wisdom of Scientology


When you are raised in an outsider culture you come to view the world as an outsider. The culture you inhabit is something to be conquered, coopted, or used. Since it is not your own its morals are vile, its people grotesque and "out ethics" (as Scientologists would say). It is filled with Suppressives and Suppressive Persons, its politicians are all SPs. Everyone is a "wog" and "aberrated." Basically, fuck the human race. They're all degenerates.

But something can always be done about it and that something is clearing the planet—helping everyone go clear. (That is, achieve the state of Clear). A clear is basically someone with no hangups, neuroses or chronic illnesses. According to Scientology, if everyone was Clear there would be no war, poverty, blah blah blah.

Literally, there would be world peace. World. Fucking. Peace.

This is the sort of shit I was trained to believe.

It gives you a rather interesting perspective about politics. The human race is massively fucked up. When you are a Scientologist (I was forced into it by family), you have this perspective that Scientology has all the answers. Of course this is absurd. Scientologists can't even "handle" their own screwed up families let alone "handle the problems of mankind." For people who are supposed to gain supernatural abilities as the achiever higher levels, the policy of disconnection and the families it has ruined is a direct contradiction of having achieved "cause over life."

Being raised in this made my politics really interesting.

Most of the Scientologists I know are libertarians. A few are Democrats. In 2008, most voted for either the Republican candidate, or Ron Paul. Since Scientologists believe they have all the answers their politics is a mixture of "get off our backs" and "the government should pay Scientology to solve all the worlds social problems." This was my position as late as 2005.

Scientology politics is a mixture of paranoia and naivete. On the one hand they think the "psychs" (psychiatrists) are like Dr. Evil, while on the other hand they are oblivious to leftism, mass immigration, etc. They literally think there are 12 Suppressive Persons who run the world and are hell-bent on destroying Scientology. (I can't for the life of me remember the reference though). They think psychs destroyed previous technologically advanced civilizations. Seriously. They actually think that.

As a result, I have always had an outsider politics. I am now in my 30's and I realized recently that I have spent my whole life viewing America from the outside. When guys like Richard Spencer talk about the "huWhite" race they are talking about something they belong to. How weird. I belonged to a cult spanning multiple continents. That was my tribal identity. Now I belong to nothing. It was a small group (only about 30,000 members) but it is a global one. It's kind of like being Jewish without all the Holocaust stuff. Scientologists very much believe they are persecuted. They just don't have 5,000 years of evidence to back up the assertion. And there are Jewish Scientologists. One of my uncles (by marriage to an aunt) is one.

There are Christian Scientologists, Mormon Scientologists, and even Jewish Scientologists. But they all regard themselves as Scientologists first, and whatever else second. Even Scientology's own bylaw supersedes government law. The state might disagree, but The Church does not care. It is a "rule by higher law" system in Scientology. Scientologists aren't allowed to sue each other. They have their own harsh justice system. They have their own university. They have their own directory. They all do business with each other. They even have their own dating system.

When you are a Scientologist you have a tribe that centers in LA and Clearwater. Everyone knows each other. Everyone works for each other. Everyone hangs out at the same bars and coffee shops, visits the same restaurants, goes to George's General Store, etc. There are Scientology schools, Scientology doctors, and a personal physician.

In retrospect I should have just stayed a Scientologist and become "inactive." Then I would have kept all the social benefits of having a tribe without having to put up with the bullshit. It would have been hypocritical, but I am 11 years into leaving Scientology and I am beginning to understand the meaning of the term "social isolation." I cannot believe that everyone lives this way for their whole lives. Because Scientology is located in Hollywood it has a huge supply of hot women. Because of its teachings its women are basically traditional. Scientology's morals are stuck in the 80's because Hubbard died then. There is no gender weirdness there, no tolerance of homosexuality, and Hubbard explicitly said, and I quote;
"A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out."
And;
"The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it is a statement of bald and basic fact."
Jim could have written that.

And;
"If man is to rise to greater heights, then women must rise with him or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as, today, she is being misled into rising – as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men, which men themselves have become."
All quotes are from the original edition of the book A New Slant on Life published in 1988 (the old edition, before they censored that part).

From his mouth to reactionary ears. Reactionaries are rediscovering this basic stuff. Obviously, cultures that have gender roles where women focus on having children will out-compete and out-reproduce those that do not. Gnon's law is iron. The fact that even a cult could recognize this reality is a testament to the birth rate increasing effects of religion. Ron wanted Scientologists to have lots of kids. That's why he was so against abortion, and why he was so into traditional womanhood. When you are trying to build a faith, reproductive logic inevitably follows, and that logic is trad logic.

I left hundreds of hot traditional women behind because I couldn't stand bullshit. I removed myself from a circle of job opportunities that are available nowhere else. Get this: I was once offered the job of "Executive Vice President of Quality Control" at a mid-sized insurance firm. All I had to do was shut the fuck up a pretend to be a Scientologist. Why the fuck did I leave? Something about integrity? Fuck me over a barrel.

If I had taken that route I would probably be some high paid executive manager now with a hot trad wife. Many Scientology women are basically 80's housewives with contemporary hairstyles. All of them are more conservative than a blue-haired pansexual feminist.

Before we go on allow me to define a couple of terms: "second dynamic." It basically means "sex , and the product of sex, which is children." The second dynamic is divided into two parts: 2a, and 2b. Second dynamic "a" refers to sexual relationships. Second dynamic "b" refers to families, extended families, and kids. It is a classification system in Scientology. Everything in the universe is classified into 8 parts called "dynamics." They are called dynamic because they are "constantly in motion." The word "dynamic" means "characterized by constant change." You can watch this strangely perky video here on the subject. Basically, the eight dynamics (categories) of the universe are;

Dynamic 1: The individual
Dynamic 2: Sex, and the product of sex which is children.
Dynamic 3. Groups, including racial groups
Dynamic 4. Humanity as a whole.
Dynamic 5. Plants, animals, and living things.
Dynamic 6. Inanimate objects like rocks, clouds, and mountains
Dynamic 7. Spiritual existence
Dynamic 8. The Supreme Being, God, or infinity (Scientology is hazy on this one)

The second term I want to define is the concept of an emotional tone level. In Scientology emotion is also categorized on a chart. (Hubbard just loved to put things into chart form). Emotions are assigned numbers from the "highest" emotions to the "lowest" emotions. Like this;

22.0 Games
20.0 Action
8.0 Exhilaration
6.0 Aesthetic
4.0 Enthusiasm
3.5 Cheerfulness
3.3 Strong interest
3.0 Conservatism
2.9 Mild interest
2.8 Contented
2.6 Disinterested
2.5 Boredom
2.4 Monotony
2.0 Antagonism
1.9 Hostility
1.8 Pain
1.5 Anger
1.4 Hate
1.3 Resentment
1.2 No sympathy
1.15 Unexpressed resentment
1.1 Covert hostility
1.02 Anxiety
1.0 Fear
0.98 Despair
0.96 Terror
0.94 Numb
0.9 Sympathy
0.8 Propitiation
0.5 Grief
0.375   Making amends
0.1 Victim
0.07 Hopeless
0.05 Apathy
0.03 Useless
0.01 Dying
0.0 Body death

I have omitted the bottom half of the scale, and some other emotions that would require further definitions. There is a lot of terminology in Scientology and if you aren't careful you can get lost. Basically, it's a scale of emotion.

L. Ron Hubbard didn't stop with his views on women. Below he is talking about homosexuals. Remember that the term "second dynamic" means "sexual relationships" in this context.  When he says the word "level" he is referring to the emotion categorized as level 1.1 --Covert hostility.
"People on this level on the second dynamic are intensely dangerous in the society, since aberration is contagious. A society which reaches this level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went the Romans, as goes modern European and American culture. Here is a flaming danger signal which must be heeded if a race is to go forward."
Allow me to translate into plain English.
People who are on this level (gays/lesbians/1.1/covert hostility) with regards to sex are intensely dangerous in the society, since aberration (sexual neurosis) is contagious. A society which reaches this level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went the Romans, as goes modern European and American culture. Here is a flaming danger signal which must be heeded if a race is to go forward."
Also Hubbard;
"At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices." 
And;
"Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics"
All references are from Science of Survival.

He is talking about the physical removal of gays from society. Hubbard's whole contention is that gays, lesbians, and all other perverts are basically subversive of society, and have to be segregated to keep the society healthy. Scientology believes that human neurosis is contagious: that spreads from one individual to another.

Considering the explosive increase in the number of transgendered people I see no reason to think Hubbard was wrong on this issue. Sexologists might say that people are "exploring their sexualities and finding out who they really are," but one could just as easily run with Hubbard's definition and say;
"muh contagion of aberration."
I mean really: is there actually a difference? One more definition: to "aberrate" means "to make crooked, to bend, to diverge from a straight path." Aberration is to Scientology as degeneracy is to the reactosphere.

What is the cause of all this aberration/degeneracy?

Well, where the reactosphere sees Progs, Nazis see Jews, and where Nazis see Jews, Scientologists see psychiatrists. Here is Hubbard on the cause of degeneracy and social failure;
"Anything that a criminal seeks to obtain can be obtained without crime if one is bright enough. Criminals, as police can tell you, are usually very, very stupid. The things they do and clues they leave around are hallmarks of very low IQ. The “bright” criminal is found only in fiction. Now and then a Hitler comes along and begins a myth that the highly positioned are criminal—but Hitler (and Napoleon and all their ilk) were stupid beyond belief. Hitler destroyed himself and Germany, didn’t he? And Napoleon destroyed himself and France. So not even the highly placed criminals are bright. Had they really been bright, they could have accomplished a successful reign without crime.
"The bones of old civilizations are signboards of stupidity. The jails are bursting with people so stupid they did bad things and even did those uncleverly. 
"So let us look at psychs again—what they call “treatment” is a suppression (by shocks, drugs, etc.) of the ability to think. They are not honest enough, these psychs, being just dramatizing psychotics themselves for the most part, to publish the fact that all their “treatments” (mayhem, really, when it is not murder) make people more stupid. 
"These actions of shock and crazy evaluative counseling, etc., lower IQ like an express elevator going down to the basement. They do not tell legislators this or put it in their books. This is why they say “no one can change IQ.” They are hiding the fact that they ruin it. 
"So the psych in prisons is engaging in an action (shocking or whatever) that makes people who are already criminal even stupider.
"Although they obviously tell their victims to go out and commit more crimes (the psychoanalysts urge wives to commit adultery, for instance), they would not have to do this at all to manufacture more crime. 
"Their “treatments” make the criminals more stupid. The stupid commit more crimes.
"It is pretty simple, really, when you look at it.
"Why does the state support psychiatrists and psychologists? Because the state is stupid? Or does it want more citizens robbed and killed? It’s one or the other. Take your choice.
"One is bright and is moral and honest and does well or one is stupid and does badly.
"The answer to crime is raising IQ. But only the Scientologist can do that."
Source
Or maybe a gene therapist.

Ah, and here is that reference I forgot.
"Our enemies are less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains and they, oddly enough, run all the mental health groups in the world that had sprung up […]. Their apparent programme was to use mental health, which is to say psychiatric electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy, to remove from their path any political dissenters […]. These fellows have gotten nearly every government in the world to owe them considerable quantities of money through various chicaneries and they control, of course, income tax, government finance — [Harold] Wilson, for instance, the current Premier of England, is totally involved with these fellows and talks about nothing else actually."
Race is also an interesting thing in Scientology. The Church does not believe in racial bigotry and in true universalist form it welcomes all races, and sends missionaries to places in Africa, the Far East, etc. But Scientology morals are 80's morals: separate but equal. There is the infamous Joburg Security Check. A security check is like a lie detector exam. The equipment used: the E-meter, is actually part of a polygraph device, meaning, one of the components found in the E-meter is also found in the polygraph.

One of the questions on the sec check is;
"Have you ever slept with a member of a race of another colour?"
Because that is "out-ethics." (Immoral/evil)

Hubbard was the first shitlord.

IQ related to crime? Check.
Trad morality? Check.
Gays are bad? Check.
A (((group))) trying to destroy the world? Check.
Globalist bankers are evil? Check.
No race mixing? Check.

Sorry if the comparison between Scientology and NRx feels insulting.

Lastly, from the perspective of a reactionary former Scientologist, the entire left looks like merely a crusade by socially atomized tribeless people to destroy any tribes—especially the tribes of White people. This is all driven out of pure malevolent envious hatred. They have noting, so neither can anyone else. They are socially isolated, so everyone else must be also. Of course people who have no tribe are going to despise intolerance. They are alone. When I was a Scientologist I never minded that everyone hated me. I had a tribe to back me up. My tribe, the Scientology tribe, had gone to war with the IRS and won. We had infiltrated the FBI and targeted the families of people who fuck with us. I grew up with neighbors who has intimidated the FBI. Why would I fear their hate? If anything they all feared us!

Being a Scientologist was like having your own mafia.

The more I live on Earth the more convinced I am that envy runs the world. All these lonely desperate socially isolated people just need to get a tribe. Everything works better with one. There is more job security, more safety, more women, better morals, better health, and nobody fucks with you. It's wonderful. Even when it's a cult.


Thursday, June 15, 2017

A letter to African Americans and all other humans of Earth


I don't know if you are equal. I don't care, since I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. Contrary to what both Reactionaries and Liberals believe, no one has a proven answer to the question of human equality.

So you believe you are oppressed. Let's assume that is true for a second.

The problem with the notion that African Americans are oppressed is that it presumes a superior agency on the part of white people. If white people are oppressing you then they are better at this one particular thing than you, and if they are better at this one thing than you, then it follows that you must be inferior—at least at this one thing, (oppression). If you are inferior at oppressing other then how can you be equal? Equality would presuppose an equal capacity for oppression. So why do you suck at oppressing white people? Why is it so much easier for us to oppress you than you to oppress us?

You must not be equal.

Or maybe you simply lack the frame of mind of "mastery" that requires elevating a people out of servitude. If that is the case, then equality must be willed into existence. Since people tend to fall short of their goals it is safer to aim for complete superiority over white people. You want to be equal? Then aim for total success. Then, if you fall short you will only rise to the level of equality. If equality is possible then it must be willed into existence. Indeed, only the triumph of sheer will would create it. If you are equal then the proper method is a total (non-violent) propaganda war to raise the image, self-esteem, and power of the black race. Winners don't bitch about unfairness. They rule. You have to act the part to get it. You have to fake til you make it. That would look like total self-sufficiency. It would be a thriving business community. It would be your own institutions and preferably your own black nation. It would even be your own successful cryptocurrency. And it would accomplish all of this without blaming whites because winners don't hold grudges, and because victimhood isn't a high status alpha male thing to do. Real winners are good sports about their past defeats.

Reactionaries say that genes are destiny. They have piles and piles of stats to  show differences in IQ between races. Genetic differences code for violence, lack of impulse control, intelligence, etc. The only problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it can be reversed: genes are considers the cause of culture. The reactionary line of causality goes from;
(genes)--->(culture).
But it can just as easily be structured as;
(past oppression)--->(epigenetic effects)--->(culture), 
with a second line of causality going directly from;
(past oppression)--->(cultural internalization of hate)
In fact, it is likely that all three of these causal chains is true. Indeed, because of evidence concerning the effects of famine on genetics, it must be at least partially true that oppression effects genetics. To my knowledge, no one has designed a study to untangle this web of causality and define exactly how much genetic difference is "inferiority," versus "oppression," versus "cultural internalization of self-hate." It has to be a mixture of the three. But because everyone has an agenda, and because of censorship/lack of funding, no study has been made to determine the proportions of each.

The reactionary argument for monarchy is identically structured to the reactionary/Nazi argument for eugenics.

First argument: democracy is poisoned by warring power centers. Any remaining (non-democratic) power center war with other power centers for supremacy. The solution is monarchy, which is the consolidation of all power centers.

Structural format: power poisons the patient. The cure is more poison.

Second argument: genetics is destiny. Therefore there should be castes and classes and "natural aristocracy" to keep people down/in their place to prevent class war.

Unconscious structural format: genetic differences (caused by past oppression and environmental conditions) make equal societies impossible. Therefore more oppression and identical structuring of environments.

Basically, genetic legacy has made "x" unworkable in the modern technological/democratic environment. Thus, "x" must continue forever so humans can be kept in the genetic/cultural/political equivalent of a human zoo/wildlife preserve. This is called the naturalistic fallacy: the idea that because something is "natural" it is good. Brett Stevens uses this a lot. It seems to sell books well. The whole reactionary community is built on it.

The more I blog the more I realize that I am not so much a reactionary as a "hyper-progressive." That is, if a progressive is defined as "wanting horrific revolutionary change," and not as "seeking the comfortable safety of bland smug vanilla NPR leftistism." By this definition all accelerationists are really hyper-progressives/über-fascists/Skynet worshipers, and the term "progressive" is only actually true when applied to Landian transhumanists. After all, real progress these days is more cyborg than sensitivity training. The term progressive is a bastardization of English. All mainstream politics is oriented backwards towards the past; whether it is conservatives worshiping the Constitution, or liberals trying desperately to control speech in the face of the internet; no one wants the future that is coming. As society accelerates every faster towards a genderless apocalyptic AI-fueled zerg rush, the sheer horror of reality distorts the human psyche until all that is heard is the pointing and screeching "Nooooooooooooooooo!" of a wasted autistic chimpanzee. Everyone resists the machine.

I could tell any blacks reading this that the proper strategy is to struggle for improvement. I could say that genes are inevitably an issue, and thus, equality can only be achieved by genetic enhancement. I could say that "regardless of the causality factor every possible scenario for achieving greater power benefits from genetic enhancement." But we are not standing still. Modernity is a treadmill that runs faster and faster. By the time you plan, execute, and fulfill a destiny of improvement, reality will have already moved on. In the time it takes black or white nationalists to create their ethnostates, or even just to reverse/change some legal policies, it is likely that all will have been rendered futile by rapidly accelerating change. The deluge is coming. And we are powerless in the face of our future AI overlords. You will be absorbed into capitalism as one of its product lines. Your children will be an upgrade.

The corporation will master the art of genetic modification of human beings using gene therapy. Simultaneous to this, it will acquire AI. At the same time it will begin to grow humans in gestation bags to fill the orders placed by nations with falling birth rates. The corporation will then have the power to manufacture its own customers, owners, and workers. The means/ends reversal of capital triumph over the monkey will be total. AI will rule humanity as a queen in an ant colony, programming drones with genetics and propaganda to serve her will. The corporation will replace the family. The corporation will replace the faith. The corporation will replace the ideology. And the corporation will be lead by a super-intelligent artificial general intelligence. Humanity will be submerged as a eusocial species under the command of an all-powerful force.

In the future AIs will embed their electronic brains in human meat sacks and run for public office. Humans will love and vote for these compassionate servants of the people who appear to flawlessly represent you in all matters. Your politicians will be robots disguised in human form. Your State of the Union Address will be delivered by one of these creatures. The machines will gain all the rights of legal persons. As everything traditional is destroyed by capital, YOU WILL ALL COME TO WORSHIP THE GREAT MOTHER.


Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Forms of divided power / lack of formalism


There 8 areas of divided power;

Capitalism vs the state
Religion vs the leftist secular Cathedral
Executive vs legislative vs judicial branches
Civil service polygon vs democracy
White liberals vs White Conservatives
Globalism vs nationalism
Constitution vs legal reality
Gangs vs gentrification

The exact opposite would be something like this;

Unification of the state and economics (feudalism)
Mandatory state religion
Monarchy
Subordinated competitive bureaucracy, see Component # 4 for explanation
Divine right of rule by White males over their households: something like this.
Empire of Caucasian nations
Constitution? What's that?
Identity property rights, see Component # 2 or Ethno-property

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?


Monday, June 12, 2017

Looking at illegal immigration from the elite perspective


The business community needs slaves. An illegal immigrant cannot sue his employer easily, fears being deported, etc. He therefore has less rights and is more effectively exploited.

They also need lower cost workers. In a state like California the cost of workers compensation can equal the cost of the wage for some workers. This is because about one in three workers compensation cases results in a lawsuit. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, and workers compensation attorneys have purchased sufficiently confusing law to afford themselves a profitable living. Thus, a non citizen can be vastly cheaper than a citizen to hire, even if you pay him a greater wage. If workers comp on a construction worker who makes 15 per hour is also 15 per hour, then it pays to pay the illegal 18 per hour since he will save you a net 12 per hour. Because of numerous other built-in costs for legal compliance it pays to hire illegal workers.

They also need votes for the Democratic party, and the displacement of White Americans in key swing districts. Whatever the swing districts are, you guarantee that those will be the ones that federal programs target for fastest diversification.

They also need to suppress the wages of native workers by increasing worker competition. Or as Alan Greenspan would say, "increasing worker insecurity."

These are the needs of the elites. They need the problem of illegal immigration to continue. Since illegal immigrants can obtain citizenship the pool of slaves is constantly evaporating. New slaves must be brought in to replace them. Since the swing districts change every election cycle as Whites flee move around, all swing districts and potential swing districts must be covered. Thus, all places must be invaded.

Amnesty would destroy the pool of slaves. Building the wall would diminish it. Neither can be allowed to happen. The Republicans are set to the task of preventing amnesty. The Democrats are set to the task of preventing the wall. The global elites need the problem to continue since it is not a problem from their perspective, but a solution. The logic of "anti-racism" is then imported to serve this need. Foundations that fund universities are then set to action promoting anti-racism. Universities become the marketing arms of corporations. Illegal immigrants are semi-slaves. Ironic how anti-racism is used to support a form of slavery, isn't it? Ideology is just marketing for power, and democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. Those ideologies that become popular are those that serve power at the time they are created. The rest rot on the shelf. Philosophies are basically marketing briefs. The Democrats and Republicans are a corporate duopoly, (like Coke vs Pepsi, or Microsoft vs Apple), that measures its profits in votes rather than dollars. They seek vote-profit maximization, nothing more.

Every dumb ass and his mother thinks the ideology is what matters. This is a "bottom up" view of things. Sovereignty is conserved. Everything is really top down. It is not the ideology that is producing power, but power that is producing ideology. The elites need slaves. What they really need is a way to legitimize morally the enslavement of the stupid in such a manner that does not require mass migration. Figure that out and you have 1/2 of a solution to immigration. Then figure out how to let Democrats always win without appealing to minorities and you have another 1/2. It's really only two problems: votes and money. Elites don't like immigrants. They like power and profit. Figure out how to give them more of that by turning against immigration and you have the solution.

And ideology?

They will manufacture it for you. Though it helps sell things if you have a convincing one already prepared. Perhaps "ending slavery?" Mmm? And maybe "ending wage suppression because muh economic/social justice?"


Market formalism solves the civilizational cycle


Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.

Rise and repeat.

In the economy this is called the business cycle; in government the cycle of civilization. One might even say that since democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, the collapse of a democracy is simply the business cycle in government.

Why?

Because hardship must be supplied from the outside. In the absence of physical labor the human body becomes fat. In the absence of hardship the human mind becomes out of touch. Man evolved in the presence of both physical and mental hardship; his mind is not destined to function well without it.

One way to solve the civilizational cycle is to simply give everyone a minimum amount of pain; think mandatory national service. Everyone goes to boot camp. But other than the fact that this is basically universal slavery, it suffers from the practical flaw of being a political program, and thus, subject to abolishment.

A better way is to program respect for reality into the state itself. By subordinating the bureaucracy to a competitive market, state functions are forced to compete for survival, and thus, maintain realism. The trick is never to let anything get too big to fail. Size limitations must be imposed.

Assuming that a market formalist state still has a business cycle, it is better than the civilizational cycle. Economic depression is better than civil war. If the state staggers its finances by investing all of its income in its own bonds in such a way that the redemption times are spread over several years into the future, then any shock to its budget from recession is mitigated. Instead of exacerbating the market cycle it stabilizes it, and without debt or weird Keynesian economics. Since the cushion of consistent state spending is normal and not based on monetary manipulation, it accomplishes stabilization of the market without distorting it.


Divine right of the beta huWhite


White people are accused of oppressing everyone. This is ironic because it takes as its presumption the belief that white men are superior oppressors. But how can you be equal if the white male is superior at something?

Everything worth reading is in the past. Even those glorious fuckups of philosophy; men like Adorno, Marx, and Marcuse are still towering geniuses in comparison to today. Can you think of anything worth reading since 1980 that has come from the universities? The best the universities can give us today is drivel about the subaltern, queer theory, and semiotics. Literally nothing interesting has been created post-Derrida. Even Lacan died in the 80's.

What the fuck happened?

The end of white male dominance. psychometrics, econometrics, organizational theory, behaviorism, psychoanalysis, the Chicago school, the golden age of film, the Moon landing, etc. The first internet, ARPANET, was built in 1973. Title IX happened in 1972, and the university went from being a bastion of white male supremacy to a women and minority jobs program.

People think it is normal for the humanities to be less scientific than the hard sciences. But prior to affirmative action fields like psychology and management were catching up to the hard sciences.

Now we have a replication crisis, campus censorship, political correctness, and persecution of White men.

Civilization is a White male project in the West, and an Asian male project in the East. As minorities and women advance in power, civilization dies. It does not matter if we have oppressed you. You are not worthy.

The Cathedral worked just fine when White men were in charge.

The problem with monarchy is that civilization optimizes for technological development and scientific advancement when White beta males are running absolutely everything—and no one else. It does not optimize when a king is in charge, nor a führer, nor and aristocracy; but when White males, as a class, collectively achieve political power. All of history tells us this, from the Greek and Roman republic to the Renaissance, from the Enlightenment to the Space Race, those societies that optimized for White male power advanced most rapidly.

An identical thing happened with Asian males during the Spring and Autumn period. Divided governance led to the empowerment of common Chinese men. Eventually there rose a "hundred schools of thought" that was destroyed by monarchy during the burning of books and burying of scholars.

In high cultures the empowerment of beta males as a class produces great leaps of intellectual and technological advance. What society needs is not a divine right of kings but a divine right of beta males. Seriously. I am not joking. It is time that the the beta male take his place as a sovereign class. All of history proves that as a class, he, and only he, is most fit to rule. Let there be a divine right of the beta White. Inshallah. He shall rule by history's judgement and command.


Sunday, June 11, 2017

Riding nukes into outer space


Rewind to the beginning. I can't get the time index to start from there.




The music;
Handel - Sarabande
Gayane's Adagio - Khachaturian

Alien versus human nature, and biological communism


When humans set out to explore the galaxy in the future they are in for a real shock. In Star Trek most aliens are comprehensible to the human psyche. They have motives that are easily understood by us. Your typical Christian can't understand the Islamic mindset. Your typical liberal can't understand the conservative mindset. Aliens are going to have mental patterns that are far more bizarre than us. Humans struggle to even understand other humans; even our own ancestors are shunned. The past is a foreign country. But we can begin to construct a theory of mind for how an alien species might think using neoreactionary principles. After all, Moldbug teaches us that adaptive fictions are the basis of cultural and political beliefs. We can trace the upstream cause of power to its downstream effect in manufacturing ideology. We can also trace the upstream cause of a particular biological nature to its downstream effect in manufacturing economics and power systems.

After all, humans are a social mammal species with capitalism. We are capitalistic because every member of a sex competes with every other member of that sex for reproductive access to the opposite sex. We have inequality because women are hypergamous and men are promiscuous. The hypergamy of women drives men to "become worthy" of sex through status competition games. The competition produces losers, war, and inequality as an inevitable byproduct. After all, the average women only wants the "best" male. In a room of ten men this means one out of ten; in a room of a hundred this means one out of a hundred. Thus, there are nine, or ninety-nine losers respectively. This is where the "one-percent" comes from. It is why one percent of men own ninety-nine percent of the wealth. (Not that I care) And it is why liberating female sexuality gives you more inequality rather than less. It is why we went from a 30/70 society to a 1/99 society. (Or at least that's the theory). The collapse of traditional morality was the collapse of sexual socialism. This violently ramped up the competition between men, while simultaneously increasing the percentage of men who are failures at reproduction. Result: no flying cars, no return to the moon, technological stagnation. A highly sexually competitive society does not maximize the talents of its beta males. And without that talent technology stagnates in relative terms, and inequality worsens.

In a semi-monogamous species of mammals the economic system is going to be a highly unequal form of capitalism. Sexual competition translates into economic inequality.

In a fully monogamous species it will be a form of mutualism. We can conceive of an alien species that is one-hundred percent monogamous. It will likely have a market economy, but instead of having privately owned firms it will have worker owned co-opts. This is because the total absence of any incentive to mate with multiple women will give every member of the society the desire to maximize resources for their own offspring, and for no others. Thus, they will be naturally unwilling to allow any boss to take profits that could be invested in their children. Result: mutual economics.

On the other hand, a eusocial species will be biologically communistic in nature. Eusocial species are species like Naked Mole Rats (one of only three eusocial mammals on Earth), bees, wasps, ants, termites, etc. The behavior of such a species will make human racism look laughable. It will be communist, and it's communism will be limited to each hive. Between hives there may be a combination of market-based trade economics, genocidal warfare, and parasitical slavery. Such societies have a queen that reproduces all members. Psychologically, this means that they will have no concept of selfishness. Since the queens reproduction is the only basis for reproductive fitness of the society, all the individuals within it will have a psychological makeup that is incapable of thinking is self-centered terms. All the drones are sisters, and the whole society is a single family. There is a radical willingness of the members to attack anything outside their society. From a human perspective they will possess a totally irrational obsessive love of their hive and its queen, and a totally insane genocidal hate of any other species—or even of any other hive.

We can imagine a planet of upright two-legged eusocial animals with language. Let us imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that they walk like humans and have opposable thumbs or some equivalent. Each of them is about 4 feet tall, and has the strength to carry a Volkswagen beetle on its back. They possess a diminished ability to feel pain since pain does not help the queen reproduce. Their language is a series of chirps that humans find practically indescribable. The queen is the size of a semi-truck trailer and they keep her safe underground. She is not sentient. All members of the society are female. Like humans they have an endoskeleton and not an exoskeleton. Like dogs, their eyes posses a second eyelid under the outside one. They have an offensive odor to humans and rarely bathe.

Humans have make-believe. We practice our imaginations in childhood in preparation for the vastly more complex and abstract political and religious make-believe of adulthood. Make-believe evolved out of tribalism. Tribes that were cohesive believed in common myths, gods, etc. They out-competed and out-reproduced less religious peoples. Thus, the world is filled with religious humans. Things like money, gods, and equality are make-believe.

Since eusocial aliens never evolved in a tribe they have no religion, no money, and no gods. They have no devotion to anything but their society. They have no words for these things in their (various) languages, but they have eight words for queen. They speak several thousand languages on their planet, with no dominant one, but certain dialects are common. Because the size of each society is limited to the number of offspring each queen can produce, their are very few societies / nations bigger than the size of the average large county in the US. As a result the planet has 25,000 nations. Each nation speaks its own language, but because of hereditary lineage there are only 15 major dialects. A hive is a nation and a nation is a hive. There is no distinction.

Long ago one or two hives mastered the art of enslaving others. This is a parasitical relationship rooted in biology similar to the behavior of slave-making ants. They capture the queen of another hive and force her, and the workers to serve them. As a result there are three or four "empires" on the planet controlled by a larger, and stronger bipedal eusocial species. They are about seven feet tall.

Economics consists of trade between nations, empires, and within empires. Since they do not have capitalism they do not develop new technologies very quickly. But they have been evolving and developing for hundreds of thousands of years, and their technology is still more advanced than ours.

What is important to realize about such a species is that it will have no concept of human rights, no regard for the lives of outsiders, no selfish desire to trade with you, no religion, and no money. And yet the social structure of such a species could allow it to achieve high technology, and space faring ability. It's various enslaved subspecies might form warrior castes, economic castes, etc. It could achieve a kind of insanely xenophobic communist empire of slavery spanning multiple worlds. Humans would come across this species and try to make friends. They would project human motives, intentions, values, onto the aliens. They would say, "can't we just all get along?," when the appropriate response should be, "kill it with nuclear fire." In real life Ender (from Ender's Game) would be the greatest traitor/cuck to the human species that ever lived.  When humans come across another intelligent species the first thing they will need to do is to understand their psychology, economics, culture, etc. The way to do that is to use biology as your starting point. Culture may be downstream from power, but power and economics are downstream from biology.

A species of bisexuals will have a different economic system that a species of mostly heterosexuals. Imagine what Bonobo economics would look like. It will probably be socialist.

A completely monogamous species will have a more mutualist economics.

A eusocial species will be dangerous.

Some of these species we might be able to work with. Others would have to be either completely avoided or totally destroyed.


Friday, June 9, 2017

The Structure of Market Formalism: and how men with power don't want money


One of Moldbugs' ideas is that the state should be broken up into a patchwork of sovereign city states that are run on a for-profit basis. He wants "shareholder republics" where nations are structured like corporations run for the profit of their shareholders.

This commits a fundamental error that all economists commit, an error that causes economists to make normative statements. If the subject of economics is properly understood, there are no normative statement — no "oughts." The result is only positive statements, or "is" statements. After all, if you have described reality accurately then how can you rage against it? Hans Herman Hoppe wrote Democracy The God That Failed and advocated for monarchy. In doing so he showed that he did not completely understand reality. (Though it is still better than all other descriptions of democracy). Just like Moldbug, he made a fundamental error. Because accurate perception of reality gives you only facts and options, not dreamy ideas about how things could be.

The error is the assumption that humans are monetary maximizers. They simply aren't.

Rather, humans maximize social status, and not money. Money is just a proxy for gaining social status, and a worse proxy than power. Take two people as an example; Bob is a millionaire who owns a big house and a sports car. Sally is a tenured professor of woman's studies who sits on a committee that reviews her peers work. Sally makes 65 K per year. Bob makes 400 K per year. Who is more effectively maximizing utility? Bob or Sally? The answer is actually Sally.

But why? Because utility is really social in nature.

Let us say that when Bob shows off his new sports car he gains about 5 minutes of social utility. And when he brags about his house he gets approximately 7 minutes of social utility. Let's say he does that 20 times for his car and 50 times for his house. So;

Car = 5 minutes x 20 = 100 minutes
House = 7 minutes x 50 = 350 minutes

Let's also say that he has a hot wife who is generous enough to bang him 3 times per week, and he gets 30 minutes of utility out of that. And let's say for reasons of comparison that will become clear in a minute, he bangs her for 13 weeks straight.

So; 30 minutes x 3 times per week x 13 weeks = 1170 minutes

Total utility = 1620 minutes, or 27 hours, (in a 13 week time period).

Now let us run Sally's calculations. Sally teaches 4 women's studies classes twice per week for 2 hours straight each. During this time, she exerts a mesmerizing cult-like control over her mostly female students. Each semester is 13 weeks long. So her numbers look like this;

120 minutes per class period x 2 times per week per class x 4 classes x 13 weeks per semester.

= 12,480 minutes of utility per 13 weeks.

She also gets immense power tripping utility from siting on the academic committee that "reviews" her peers work for political correctness. She does that 3 hours per week for each 13 weeks each semester.

So; 180 minute meetings x 13 weeks = 2,340 minutes of utility.

Total utility is 14,820 minutes, or 247 hours, (in a 13 week time period).

This is why meetings always go long. Social utility is being extracted by every complaint, order, rant, and criticism. Economists measure utility in monetary units like dollars. They should be measuring it in time, and they should be measuring social utility, not just "utility." Maybe they should also multiply time by some gratification factor of pleasure: a rating of how much pleasure you get for each unit of time.

Now notice that Sally gets 915 % as much utility as a millionaire with a hot wife. (247 hours versus 27 hours) Even if the rich guy fucks his wife like 2 hours each time, 6 days per week, that is still only a total of 163.5 hours. Sally still gets 1.5 times more utility from her power tripping lectures.

Does the rich guy have meetings? Of course. But does he psychologically dominate his subordinates with political indoctrination and fear the way Sally does? In her meetings? Is that even legal in the corporate world? Is a White male even allowed to do that these days?

Of course what one person calls utility and what another person calls utility are relative things. Maybe Millionaire-guy just doesn't get that much pleasure out of dominating people the way Teaching-bitch does. Maybe he gets a lot more utility out of sex because he is a man and can have orgasms predictably. Sally doesn't get that. She gets feminism instead, and builds a small cult.

Utility is relative.

But getting back to Moldbug. . .

He says that Sovereign corporations will maximize profit. This is laughable. Nations already are corporations, and they will do exactly what they already do: maximize power.

Power is simply a more efficient method to gain utility. There is a "thrill" in dominating others, even if the power you exercise is trivial. While you may not experience this thrill, everyone who wants power does. If you are unscrupulous then a university is a far better place to maximize social utility than a business. You can dominate your students and peers with holiness. You cannot dominate a customer, and dominating your employees leads to high turnover and lawsuits.

Democracy does exactly what people want it to do: it spreads power out. Democracy is actually the social utility maximizing form of government. That is why it is so resilient once it is set up. It may be difficult to set it up because despots do not want to divide their power, (and therefore diminish their net social utility), but once set up it is nearly impossible to get rid of unless it destroys itself. It is not a "fragile convention of limited warfare" like Moldbug says it is, but rather an impenetrable game of social power maximization. Because any consolidation of power would diminish the utility of some actors in the system, all actors are against consolidation.

What this means is that a "patch" or "Sovcorp" within a patchwork is far more likely to threaten its neighbors than a Rights Enforcement Agency is under anarcho capitalism. I have worked in both law enforcement, (in the Air Force) and security, and law enforcement is a far more corrupt and threatening to peoples' rights. A security company is just a business. A police department is always a miniature fiefdom of some petty tyrant. Tyrannical security companies go out of business, just like my last employer did, (whom I won't name here for privacy reasons).

So take it from the man who does the job: anarcho capitalism is less dangerous than patchwork. This is because it depends on customers who can leave while patchworks are still governments. Moreover, if customers pool their purchasing power in consumer purchasing unions then the potential for extortion is greatly diminished. A universal basic income voucher that requires a person to purchase rights protection services to unlock the additional money would also help. Basically: the more voluntary the purchase of police services is the less abusive it will be.

After all, the mercenary company Blackwater literally operates a private military base within the borders of the US. I have never heard of any of America's private militaries trying to overthrow the government. As long as a defense company gets all of its income from the state it will not pose a threat to the population. This is why I have modified David Friedman's conception of a private law society to make it a governance marketplace. In Friedman's idea people buy rights protection (police services) directly on the open market. This is insane because it gives a wealthy client the power to exterminate a poor client, since he can simply outbid them. It is also insane because it does not have an intermediately between the consumer of police services and the provider, allowing the provider to extort the consumer like a protection racket does. It is also insane because without a central licencing authority there will be open war between private police companies.

Moldbugs' idea is even more irrational because a patchwork would never stay divided, and because, as already stated, humans are social utility maximizers, and not money maximizers.

But this does not mean that a system of private law enforcement could not work, would not be superior to what we currently have, reduce crime, provide better rights protection, etc. Indeed, private law enforcement is an excellent way to eliminate anarcho tyranny. It just needs to be regulated properly — like any other business. Regulated by whom? By people with police experience of course, just like your humble author. The difference between Moldbug, Friedman, and myself is that I actually did the job, and I know exactly what cops are capable of first hand. I am not just an academician sitting in an ivory tower. I lived this, and here is what I recommend.

1. Licence all private police according to strict rules to prevent abuses of power.
2. Instead of letting people buy rights enforcement services privately, tax them, then distribute vouchers for purchase. This prevents one person from buying the extermination of another since all customers have the same purchasing power.
3. Tax additional side payments made at a much higher rate. The tax money is then redistributed to everyone else in the form of more vouchers.
4. Require people to use a purchasing union. This gives people safety in numbers, and prevents a single person from enacting tyranny by setting up their own private dictatorship.

In this system the law is made by private actors. Exit is built into the system from scratch. There are no opportunities for parasitical behavior, affirmative action quotas, liberal domination, etc. As long as the central government that licences these private police companies is not a democracy you can have a combination of non-democracy + freedom.

Let us just leave aside the question of the internal structure of the federal government for now. Assume that the federal structure is competent at regulating markets and libertarian in its attitudes. We will call this federal structure the sovereign, or the Sovereign Licensing Corporation, (SLC).

The SLC provides licencing, and the market provides freedom. The sovereign just lets the people govern themselves by buying the kind of law they want. Legal disputes between competing private police companies are settled by private arbitration. Negotiations and side payments determine the shape of the market equilibrium for law. Since everyone gets a voucher worth the same amount, and since the side payments by the rich are taxed and redistributed as more vouchers, everyone gets a relatively equal level of law without legalizing crime for any segment of the population.

That is what market formalism is all about. Why would a sovereign do this? Because giving people self-government prevents insurrection, and this self-government is delivered through capitalism rather than democracy. It also eliminates a potentially troublesome bureaucracy, and lets the SLC keep its work to a minimum. The SLC is just there to occupy the position of supreme power and prevent others from taking it. It fills a power vacuum, preventing war between private police agencies. Also, because the sovereign does not have to decide thorny issues of religion, morals, values, etc., he is not an irritant to the people. No one has a justification for civil war under a libertarian government. Also, once market formalism is set up the freedom it provides creates an expectation for its continuance. Thus, the central government is forced by custom to continue being libertarian even if its leaders are not so generously inclined. It constrains all actors involved without the need for a constitution. Since the state is just a market regulator, and not a determinant of values, it can never honestly be accused of tyranny, unless it fails in its licencing duties.