Friday, December 2, 2016

The Horror of a Normie Mind

This post uses offensive language and is written in an informal style. If that bothers you please feel free to help yourself to another article.

There is an obscene term that I love from 4chan culture: "moralfag." It is a term of sublime beauty which precisely encapsulates the tendency of some people to place morality above reality in the classic Gnostic tradition. It is that peculiar thing, that asinine je ne sais quoi that only deontologists can do — the insufferable Kantian (pronounced cunt-ee-an) moral faggotry of virtue signaling which says, "fuck the world, all I care about is feeling good about myself."

Morally, I believe in my own invention that I call nested morality. It's a kind of system where those genetically and socially closest to you get priority over those more distant. Nick Land has misrepresented this as deontology. It's not, and the refusal to recognize it as a third moral code, is both a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. But whatever. Everyone wants to fit third moral codes into a consequentialist or deontological box. They are not, and the two moralities of western civilization are insane and should be destroyed. Consequentialism leads to wire heading, while deontology lets the world burn. The dichotomy itself is the problem.

Anyway, I came across an article that illustrates perfectly this type of Kantian douchebaggery. Human primates always obsessively convert everything into a virtue signaling moral argument so they can posture and express their mating worth to one another. Morality is often just a lot of signaling for neurotypical primates. Watch them posture and chest thumb. Watch them show off their shiny coats and their moral virtue;
“The right-wing nationalism of the Trumps,” Barber said, “will become not so much toxic obstacles to history, but an increasingly obsolete expression.”
"Muh right side of history. Muh moral superiority."

Of course it never occurs to them that the countryside might need to be governed differently than the cities, and that compromise itself is wholly inappropriate between city and country — that even the act of compromise between the two is fundamentally bad management.

No. Tribal humans gonna tribe, and that means they will inappropriately govern like they are at Dunbar scales when they are several orders of magnitude above that. Every argument will be a moral argument is situations where only technical description is appropriate.

The whole article is about  how "cities are a bulwark against the tide of right-wing nationalism." It is standard virtue signaling journo-vomit. Like all other articles by all journalists everywhere it completely misses technical details. It's actual content is irrelevant. This could be about any article written by any normie leftist and the commentary I provide would be exactly the same.

Since people need points, I will provide one. The point is that this is always what humans do. Neurotypicals are not interested in truth, in solutions that work, or in factors common to different problems. We could talk endlessly about HBD and immigration, or about how xenophobic impulses undermine all multicultural societies. We could talk about how diversity undermines community trust since humans are not genetically programmed to get along with those who look different than themselves. We could talk about how it simply won't work well in the short-term, or work at all in the long-term. We could talk about the need to provide all human monkeys with a sense of tribe in order to increase their eudemonia, and how a patchwork is best for accomplishing that because of Dunbar scale limitations. We could describe the technical realities of how to "properly manage your human farm," (wonderful term) to maximize flourishing. And we could talk about how identity politics and leftist party tribalism are a piss-poor substitute for a location based tribal polity (patch). And we could talk about how human information processing limitations make central control of large-scale system beyond the capacity of our species, and about how only local governance works.

But they simply don't care.

The tendency of human beings to prefer monkey games like virtue signaling over flourishing, (or even their own survival!), is the essence of everything that is wrong with the species.

The normie brain says, "how can I use this to impress my friends?" Knowledge has no value in its own right to these people. It is currency for looking good, and if it cannot be used to posture it is forgettable. They will never learn. They can never learn anything they cannot use. All other knowledge is memorized only for the test. Let that sink in. Normies don't ever learn information purely for the sake of knowing it beyond Trivial Pursuit levels of factoid memorization for small talk. Their heads actually don't store complex, rich, and detailed knowledge. Everything they know must have a purpose; to impress friends, to have a career, to make small talk, to virtue signal. It is never for its own sake. They don't do that. They forget everything they cannot use for personal gain. And they only believe what they are told. Arguments that make the normie look good by agreeing with them will be accepted over those that don't. Arguments that sound good will be accepted over other, better ones. Arguments that feel good will be accepted over reality. In a way they are all children / Gnostics who believe whatever they want. What them to agree?

Make is sound good.
Construct the argument so agreement with you makes them look good.
Make is feel good to agree, then they will agree.

If an argument could persuade them to end the world while fulfilling all of these criteria it would be adopted immediately and without protest. They would push the button.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Someone in NRx predicted the destruction of the alt-right

This is relevant given recent events.
"1: Remember months ago I mentioned that the alt right and 8chan and the like were
pawns to be sacrified?
2: Yes.
1: The time has come
2: I'm listening.
1: 8ch has been going after Correct The Record. They've also been scouring Soros
and the DNC leaks and Hillary leaks.
2: Tight.
1: I've been assisting with major efforts on the CTR campaign
2: lol. of course you have.
1: Primarily honeypot setups
2: For what side?.
1: My side of course
2: ROFL. go on.
1: Now that the GamerGate logs have been released, the evidence is mounting up
that the Clinton Foundation, with Soros, has been staging multiple false flag
culture events.
2: Tight.
1: Sort of an endless stream of them. Because of our efforts with CTR, Mrs.
Clinton went on television last night and denounced the alt-right, 8chan,
Brietbart. Those are the facts thus far.
2: Yeah, I saw that.
1: We now have to talk about the meta. I've told you about Huntington, yes?
Samuel P. Huntington?
2: Remind me again real quick.
1: Marx says all conflict stems from the poor vs. the rich. Huntingon says all
conflict stems from people getting buttblasted and bringing in friends to help
2: Yes, ok."
 There is more of it here.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Join the Denver NRx

If you live in Colorado, or are willing to visit, I encourage you to join our meeting. See this website for details.

Don't Work for Anti-White Corporations

Because they need you more than you need them. Aaron Clarey writes on Linkedin Pulse

Should White Males Work for Fortune 500 Companies?

Is It Worth It?

I had an interesting client. He was a white male and had been passed over for promotion, not once, not twice, but thrice. In each instance he was passed over for a minority or female (or both) candidate who had less experience and lesser qualifications. This prompted him to ask me,

"Should white males even bother working for Corporate America?"

To which, after some pondering and thinking I said, "No, no they shouldn't."

And it's important other white males (not to mention males in general) understand why.

There is no study or research that measures or tracks "how much white males get passed over/screwed over in Corporate America." Not only would such a statistic be stupid, but academians and politicians are too focused pushing the opposite narrative proving just how much women and minorities are oppressed. This relegates us to what humankind has relied upon the past 2 million...Full Article

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Aphorisms 25

Women love power more than truth. That is the nature of hypergamy. Women conform. Hence, in this society, women are liberal.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Aphorisms 24

"All whites are racist. To even deny racism is hate and privilege."

"People of color cannot be racist. Racism = power + privilege."

"All whites are privileged. The denial of privilege is an aspect of privilege blindness."

"White men do not get to define what racism is."

Translation; we will define your place.

Though hatred of lies has not made me a lover of bigotry, I would rather live in the sun as a "racist" than grovel in the dungeon as a slave. In other words, accepting the label of racist is freeing, because the purpose of the label is to manipulate the person who desperately avoids being called racist. Once you accept the label they have no hold on you. But this does not mean that you have to hate others — you do not have to actually become a bigot. You generate the greatest cognitive dissonance in the liberal mind by calling yourself a racist without hating anyone, ever, at all. If fact, "racist Gandhi" would drive them absolutely insane. They need the false certainty of one-dimensional personalities. Be multi-dimensional. Make it hard for them to be a cognitive miser.

Liberalism is a cognitive technique for people who do not actually like thinking to acquire sophistication and status. The "racist" label has incredible power. It is a ad hominem attack, and humans, due to evolution, are uniquely prone to falling for ad hominem arguments against others. We evolved in tribes. To attack someone with a moral label works because it show they are outside the tribe. In this respect "cuck" serves the equivalent purpose on the new right at "racist" does on the left. Words have power when they evoke tribal xenophobic attitudes. Everyone "in" the tribe has rights, duties, and worth. Everyone "outside" has no rights and no worth. All terms of shame are basically tribal. Humans use these as shorthand to decide who their enemies are. In the ancestral environment politics was routinely deadly. This is why all politics is heated, why all moral arguments are really about politics, why all political arguments are really about violence, and why simply leaving people alone — political voluntaryism is subscribed to by less than one in a thousand persons.

The oligarchy that runs America has decided that all white males will choose between supporting inequality though the alt-right or groveling under the thumb of the leftist inquisitor. Conversely, the left has been given the task of dividing and conquering itself with identity politics while alienating the one group that could threaten elites if they ever allied with them; the white male. Thus, both left and right are set to the task of propagating their own enslavement, subordination, and inequality. This is the only strategy that could make a people turn against equality in this democracy at this exact juncture. It is too exactly wrong to be self-generated.

This has been extensively edited. 11/24/2016

Monday, November 14, 2016

Time off for finals and editing

This blog needs editing and I need time to work on college homework. I will see you in a month or three.

EDIT: I may still publish the occasional short post.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Aphorisms 23

If the boy cries wolf long enough eventually people will vote for the wolf.

The wolf has not yet come. Trump is not it.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Musings on the so-called Jewish question.

I'm going to ramble so bear with.


Everyone who embodies just one perspective is an asshole. They are the definition of narrow-minded. Being cosmopolitan means being able to hold two or three (at minimum) different perspectives and shift between them. Being able to understand multiple perspectives is a virtue. It is not dishonesty like the Optimate / Vaisya side of the BDH-OV conflict thinks it is.

There are two type of information in philosophy: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive describes the world. Prescriptive demands that it change. Only the second form of assertion makes people rageful. It is only when you think the world should be a certain way that you become angry. You can always decide it is fine the way it is, if you get tired of being pissed off all the time. Only "prescriptive-fags" have rage.

Or maybe you're a rage addict. I don't know. Many on the alt-right are. Prolonged grief stimulates the pleasure center of the human brain. Maybe rage performs the same function for the right while smugness performs it for the left. That would explain the right's fetish for losing; they like being angry too much.


Jews have higher IQs than whites. Thus, Hitler, like all demotist politicians, actually practiced dysgenics rather than eugenics. Get this; the Holocaust actually lowered Germany's national IQ. So fuck you antisemites.

As for claims that Jews have a special evil character? I don't buy it. IQ correlates with success, success with power, and thus, IQ with power. This simple fact explains all Jews in power.

As for the harmful acts some of them do? If you are faced with antisemitism you respond by trying to control the White people who might oven you. Controlling white people provokes antisemitism. Antisemitism provokes controlling White people. It's a cycle. It never ends. Every now and then there is a new pogrom.

If I were Israel I would practice a little group self-discipline and assassinate Jewish anti-whites. A single person like Barbara Spectre manufactures more antisemites than all the Nazi's put together on the internet.

But then again, if right-wingers in the security services had any sense, and group self-discipline, they would also assassinate real Nazis for the crime of feeding the stereotype that all right-wing dissidents are Nazis.

And if Muslims had any self-discipline they would kill the radicals among them.

Sadly, responsibility for ones own group is not how the world works. Maybe it should.


The average IQ of Jews is 113, of whites 100, and of Blacks in America 85. Assuming Nazi's have average White IQ's, that means that you average Nazi is as stupid relative to the average Jew as the average Black man is to the average White man.

Smarter groups dominate dumber ones. Jews dominate everyone, Whites dominate Latinos and Blacks, and within Latin America, Latinos dominate Blacks. Blacks dominate no one except each other—violently, unless Whites give them power to dominate Whites.

Sucks to be black.

So no, the Jews are not evil. White nationalists are symmetrical in this regard with social justice warriors. You both feel "oppressed." Are you oppressed? Absolutely. You are oppressed, BY YOUR GENES. Asinine but true.

As a white male with an IQ of 121 this does not bother me. (Though I am actually one of the dumber people in my family). I know that recessive genes will show up in my grandchildren. So I am not worried about my future children's academic performance as long as I marry wisely.

Since the less intelligent mind cannot simulate the thought process of a more intelligent mind the smarter person looks malevolent to the dumber. Often people think I am malevolent.

I'm not malevolent, just exceedingly blunt.


Humans compulsively seek to interpret agency in the world; God, rain gods, forest gods, oppression, inequality, "the Jewish question," foundations, conspiracies, Illuminati, Free Masons.

Due to this, it follows that they see a more intelligent group as oppressing them. As already stated, high IQ people wind up in positions of power. And also as previously stated, there is a cycle of control of whites and antisemitism. Put it together and you have "Jewish influence."

But this is really just a process. Reality is like that; process driven. All anyone ever wants to talk about in politics is who is to blame. But understanding the process by which a behavior is produced is everything, blame is nothing, and blame always gets in the way of understanding process. Without an understanding of the process that creates a social problem you can never solve it. I already recommended a solution—kill your own people when they cross the line. Group self-policing by state actors could do wonders for humanity.


Back to the subject of seeing agency where there is none. Listen, there are conspiracies running all over the place. They don't matter. Yes, foundations invented libertarianism. Now they are funding anarcho capitalism by supporting blockchains. 1, 2. Even Davos has gotten in on the act. 3.  It's irrelevant. The whole thing runs on great alien forces beyond anyone's control. Even the elites are sockpuppetted by these forces. I attempted a taxonomy of these forces with the five-phase model.

I'm not saying that what elites do doesn't matter. Power may be above culture, but technology and material forces are above power. That's what my five-phase model describes. Here it is in brief;
Technology +
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
=   A  Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals
Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change, that is, power reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.
What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to affect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. 
All I am saying with all of this—the only point I am making in the final analysis, is that you all vastly overestimate the role of human agency. Humans are sockpuppets on a level they cannot even begin to fathom. I am making a bunch of little points that lead up to that. You are all owned so deeply you cannot even begin to comprehend. Reality owns you. Power owns you. Technology owns you. Culture owns you. Even language determines how you behave by determining how you think.

Power comes from a person. People are owned by material forces. Therefore even power is owned.

You sex life is determined by birth control and government incentives against marriage. That is just one example. There are many others. To postulate a great evil force is to completely fail to see the big picture. It is bad pattern recognition. The world is all process.

Edited 11/23/2016

Friday, November 4, 2016

The Method of this Blog

The Method of this Blog

This blog is values agnostic where democracy is concerned. All political systems are viewed as evil and incompetent. The nature of that evil and level of its incompetence simply varies by system. All political systems are viewed as machines that do a particular set of things based on what type of system you have. System A give you outcome B, system C gives you outcome D, etc. Nothing is neutral, everything has a vector. All systems are corruptible and state growth occurs in secure power system too. All systems die though state growth.

This blog recognizes the terminal impossibility of perfection. It takes an architectural view of all matters; nothing perfect can be designed from scratch. Nothing perfect can be designed at all. The method we choose is the same method that Apple uses for an iphone, that IDEO uses for a potato peeler; the process of iteration, where a design is done, then a new design, then yet another design, etc. Though repeated iteration, better and better versions of an idea are developed. But we do this, quite maddeningly to some readers, with politics. And that is why this blog subtitle is "the only power is iteration." Because only through generating multiple future scenarios can you even begin to know how you should take control of the future.

If it seems like I never get to the point it is because I never do. The point isn't the point. The point is the exploration.

We are building a manual here for government, not making points. Get over it. Does a car manual have a point? Does a manual for a VW Bug make an argument? Or goal is to figure out better methods of doing everything. I will contradict myself. I will come up with ways of developing better democracy. Then I may turn around and develop a way to implement monarchy or destroy democracy. Iterate, iterate, iterate. Five hundred techniques of government may be produced here before we are satisfied. It's obsessive, it's drawn out, it's never certain of anything. The process of iteration is where we develop multiple versions of an idea and then compare them to each other. It goes very roughly like this;

Develop an idea.
Critique its side effects is a positive helpful way.
Develop another idea.
Do another critique.
Etc., etc.
After several versions of the idea, or several related ideas, choose the one that is best.

This is how we do it. Actually, I may never do exactly this thing.

Basically, this is an idea machine. Nothing more. I used to call this blog "the strategic event horizon of neoreaction." Not anymore. The NRx label is restricting my though. I am ditching the label for more thought. Classify it however you like.

Edited 11/25/2016

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

The Million Year Recession

Humans are genetically programmed to be xenophobic tribal communists. Leftism, and fear of outsiders, is the natural predisposition of children, though racism itself is a learned behavior that takes advantage of this natural predisposition, and not technically genetically inherent itself—technically. Different cultures express xenophobia differently; intolerance towards lower casts (India), ethno-religious intolerance (the Middle East), and racism (the Americas). But every culture has xenophobia of some kind. They vary only in their expression.

Humans evolved in a  million year economic recession. This recession was caused by two basic problems driven by a combination of envy and failure to coordinate. These two problems are best summed up as the double coincidence of wants and the tyranny of cousins.

The Double coincidence of wants

The double coincidence of wants is a problem in barter where in order for a trade to take place two people must coincidentally want exactly what the other person has. For example; let us say that I want meat, and have only cheese to give you. But you want bread and not cheese, and have only vegetables to give me. A problem exists here because you do not want what I have, and I do not want what you have. This problem makes trade impossible unless one of us accepts what the other person has, despite not wanting it, or we find some sort of intermediary person that wants to facilitate the trade.

The double coincidence of wants problem inhibits economic activity by stopping trade from occurring. All barter economies suffer from it, and it is the reason no ancient tribal society ever build microchips, jumbo jets, or other sophisticated technologies. Without money trade can never develop to the point of complexity necessary to facilitate the long supply chains that complex technologies require.

The Tyranny of cousins

The tyranny of cousins is a problem where, in tribal societies, your cousins can simply come into your dwelling a take what you have. If for example, you kill an animal, your cousins (and other members of your tribe), may simply steal your surplus meat without asking. This is a problem because it destroys the ability of people to accumulate the capital necessary for mass production to occur. Without property rights, all capital is destroyed by the theft of ones tribal members. Thus, no economic progress, or production on a large scale can occur. All of this requires surplus capital.

Native Americans are often glorified by the left for living is a state without property of any kind. The lie here is implicitly asserting that this was a voluntary arrangement. It was not. It was enforced by the violence of theft. The fact that it become a "norm" is simply testament to the human ability to internalize justifications for power. When you cannot prevent people from taking your possessions you psychologically internalize the abuse of theft and create a moral code out of generosity. You become excessively generous because you must.

The members of your tribe are many; you are only one, and guns have not yet been invented. A strong man, or a man with  many violent friends, can take whatever he wants. Thus, the tribe is always socialist and patriarchal. And no, the last two are not contradictions in ancient societies. Tribes were both egalitarian AND male dominated.

The double coincidence of wants problem is abolished by money while the tyranny of cousins is abolished by property. Money facilitates trade between parties by creating a medium of exchange that everyone desires. Property inhibits envy by enforcing a clam on something with a police force. Capitalism can be defined as the gradual encroachment of property concepts into every aspect of life. As property concepts expand, violence decreases. By delegating the function of enforcement to a police force social relationships are formalized — that is, a ritual, or game, takes the place of guns or bombs. You have something I want. I could take it from you, or we could work out a game/ritual for deciding who gets it. This converts a contest of violence into a game of strategy. It transforms the system from one where muscle is evolutionarily adaptive to one where intelligence is genetically advantageous.

This is a persistent self-enforcing system of ritual. It is cultural in origin. It enforces itself through its necessity; humans prefer non-violence whenever possible. Capitalism can be defined as a European, and mostly British system of rituals. Considering that Europeans engaged in hundreds of years of continuous warfare due to the divided geography of their continent, it makes sense that this system would come out of Europe first.

As capitalism expands violence decreases.

Back in Quote Note # 290 I wrote;
"I think of capitalism as being a great alienating machine composed of dozens of social technologies with the tech consisting of turning countless social relationships into property.
For example:
Patents (property in ideas)
Trademarks (property in creativity)
Real estate (property in land/ houses)
Title (property in objects)
Contract (property in agreements)
Marriage (property in sex for men and resources for women)
Constitutions/Tort (property in rights)
Slavery (obsolete property in humans)
Futures (property in hedging risk)
Stocks (property in corporations)
Votes (equal property in government)
Bonds (property in debt)
Vouchers (property in services)
Insurance (property in risk compensation)
Money (property in other people’s work)
Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands its dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property."
Moreover, unlike feudalism, capitalism is distinguished by only allowing humans to be owners, and never to be property. Feudalism allows a person to own both things and people, while capitalism allows only the former. In capitalism you can own but, never be the thing owned. This is an historical accident of democracy giving people equal rights through an equal vote (equal property in government). Without democracy one would have "feudal capitalism," that is, a system of hyper-capitalism where ownership of people is also lawful.

Since all other forms of property allow accumulation except votes, voting is a form of misaligned property. Unlike stock, a person may own only one vote, and it is not transferable. Neocameralism aligns voting with the market by replacing votes with shares. The "equal property" of democracy is in fundamental conflict with the accumulative property of capitalism.

So our current system can be thought of as "democratic capitalism." Seen in this light, feminism is an extension of the democratic capitalist imperative, since it attacks sexual ownership (traditional marriage) by outlawing marital rape, (contract enforcement of sexual ownership).

But I digress.

Tribal societies have extraordinary levels of violence. In summary; capitalism ends that by formalizing all relationships. Formalization is identical to creating a "game" of economics where all outcomes are known in advance and enforced by a neutral third party police force.

The Prisoner's Dilemma of Capitalism

Any society that abandons capitalism gets overrun by the society that doesn't, since capitalism generates a large taxable surplus that is used to build weapons of war. Thus, every civilization is in a type of prisoners dilemma because of enemy armies. If you don't have capitalism then your ability to defend yourself is crippled and you can be invaded. Any society that has capitalism is militarily better off than one without, even if the socialistic preferences of some citizens of each nation would prefer socialism. One may think that Europe is an exception to this rule. But Europe is not really socialist. It is socially democratic, and the American military provides them with national defense.

Ultimately, the basis of capitalism are the militaries of the world and human genetic predisposition to xenophobia. If ones tries real socialism, (communism), then one cripples his economy and leaves himself open to invasion. An example of this is North Korea, who one suspects compensates for tremendous weakness with a lot of bluster and atomic weapons. North Korea has to have border guards watch each other to prevent them from defecting to the South. In the advent of an invasion it would not be surprising if most of their military surrendered to American forces.

One might think it could be possible to abolish capitalism by abolishing xenophobia. After all, without armies it would be possible to abolish property and money successfully. But this could only be done with genetic engineering, and genetic engineering faces the same problem that maintains capitalism: the prisoner's dilemma. Basically, any culture that genetically engineers its own population to no longer be xenophobic is then conquered by the one that doesn't. The remaining xenophobic people of the Earth carve up the land and nation of the "enlightened" people through conquest. They then genocide, interbreed with the conquered peoples, or both. If they interbreed, (which is inevitable) the genetic absence of xenophobia migrates back to the conquering culture. The conquerors are then less xenophobic than their neighbors and less able to defend themselves. They in turn are conquered by more xenophobic societies, and so on and so on. The level of xenophobia then returns to the equilibrium level worldwide after multiple conquests over several centuries.


As a process, civilization advances and violence declines as more relationships are formalized. Additionally, civilization is indistinguishable from the suppression of leftism. Suppression of leftism prevents the return of the million year recession, and prevents the conquest of a people by outside invaders. There is no escaping civilization itself. Thank God.

Oh, but you can destroy your own civilization in the attempt.

The point of all of this is to help the reader understand the nature of capitalism, why it is never going away, why anti-xenophobia is suicidal, why violence has reduced historically, and how formalization accomplishes that. Progress is equal to the expansion of formalization of relationships through property rights. Civilization is identical to suppression of leftism.

Edited 11/24/2016

Where I Depart from Orthodox NRx, and Where they Depart

I thought I would take the time to spell out my position on neoreaction since my ideas do not seem orthodox to typical neoreactionary consensus. There are two types of deviation from an established orthodoxy; ignorance and disagreement. In the first case, the reader does not understand NRx premises (usually because they haven't read Moldbug thoroughly enough) and undermines them by bringing in liberal notions. In the second case the person has read lots of Moldbug and simply disagrees. I tend to fall into this second position. For clarification I will take Nick Land's Premises of NRx as my guide and comment on them. From this you can see where I stand.

"1. Democracy is unable to control government. With this proposition, the effective possibility of a mainstream right is denied. Insofar as any political movement retains its allegiance to the democratic mechanism, it conspires in the ratchet of government expansion, and thus essentially dedicates itself to leftist ends. The gateway from Libertarianism to Neoreaction opens with this understanding. As a corollary, any politics untroubled by expansionist statism has no reason to divert itself into the neoreactionary path."

"Democracy is unable to control government"

I agree with this proposition completely. Democracy is unable to control government. And America is not a democracy anymore. It is an oligarchy. The vote of the average voter is irrelevant. The fact that the Democratic party is bringing in immigrants to undermine white voters per say does not mean that white votes matter. It means that they have to change the electorate in order to create the pretense that white votes matter. To say that white genocide is motivated by a desire to change policies is not completely precise. It is motivated by a need to maintain appearances when policies are changed. The policies are going to be changed no matter what. Mass migration is not so much about changing voters as creating the appearance that changes in policy are legitimate. The policies will change regardless. Immigration is all about maintaining the appearance of democracy. The alt-right has causality reversed. They think immigration changes policy. In reality, an agenda exists to change policy already. Immigrant votes are the necessary illusion to justify it. The policy change is foretold. It is of course a little more complicated that this, but if sovereignty is conserved then bottom up power is irrelevant. Thus, immigrants are irrelevant. They are the pawn, and not the cause, of policy change.

"it conspires in the ratchet of government expansion, and thus essentially dedicates itself to leftist ends."

And so does the alt-right, even though they do not realize it. State expansion is driven by cycles of entrenchment. I will talk about entrenchment cycles in the future. I have already talked about state expansion and its major cause in legislative accumulation.

Moldbug is where I differ. He thinks the cause is leftism through the Cathedral. I believe it is entrenchment cycles. This difference informs a completely different answer to the problem of state expansion. Moldbug proscribes a CEO / neocameral king. For this reason he thinks democracy is untenable. I grant that divided power systems expand faster than unified ones. But I do not grant that unified power systems do not expand. Monarchy, after all, became British democracy. Thus, my approach is "system agnostic," and favors measures designed to counteract entrenchment cycles instead. I favor newly designed self-stabilizing systems that halt state expansion by balancing themselves. I do not strictly favor monarchy.

"2. The egalitarianism essential to democratic ideology is incompatible with liberty. This proposition is partially derivative from #1, but extends further. When elaborated historically, and cladistically, it aligns with the Crypto-Calvinist theory of Western (and then Global) political evolution. The critique it announces intersects significantly with the rigorous findings of HBD. The conclusions drawn are primarily negative, which is to say they support a principled rejection of positive egalitarian policy. Emergent hierarchy is at least tolerated. More assertive, ‘neofeudal’ models of ideal social hierarchy are properly controversial within Neoreaction."

Agreed. Equality itself is evil since it makes the moral respect the immoral. It makes the intelligent dumb themselves down for the stupid, the courageous act cowardly so as not to appear superior, etc. I do not favor feudalism per say though. Hereditary right is not going to place the superior man in power. It will instead place his spoiled son on the throne. I favor meritocratic systems over feudal ones. My view is that everyone has the right to get what they want—and be destroyed by it.

"3. Neoreactionary socio-political solutions are ultimately Exit-based. In every case, exit is to be defended against voice. No society or social institution which permits free exit is open to any further politically efficient criticism, except that which systematic exit selection itself applies. Given the absence of tyranny (i.e. free exit), all forms of protest and rebellion are to be considered leftist perversions, without entitlement to social protection of any kind. Government, of whatever traditional or experimental form, is legitimated from the outside — through exit pressure — rather than internally, through responsiveness to popular agitation. The conversion of political voice into exit-orientation (for instance, revolution into secessionism), is the principal characteristic of neoreactionary strategy."

I agree with this also, though many in NRx, (and especially the alt-right) really just want to kill their enemies, conquer them, rape their women and take their stuff. I have heard it said in conversations that centralization is the future, and that exit-based answers are untenable. In this regard I disagree. I do not which to live in any system without city states and exit. This is more than just personal hatred of the jackboot. Without exit, systems have no break on tyranny, and without exit they have no way of removing subversiveness from society. For example; giving communists a few counties in America may seem anathema to many reactionaries, but it siphons off trouble makers. Exit creates the fantastic feature of self-deportation. Many in NRx think the god king is the only answer. To that I give them this. The system I have proposed, exitarianism, prevents hostility by catering to human tribalism and ideological difference in a controlled manner. And civilization is built on proscribed expression of primate impulses. One indulges human primate impulses in a pro-civilizational manner to bring about constructive behavior. One of the great flaws of the modern left is its alliance with anti-civilizational forces to enhance its power.

In Summary

So my essential difference with Moldbug is a rejection of the notion that memetics is the ultimate cause of Americas problems, (assuming I am interpreting him correctly here). I hold a different, structurally derived view. This is actually more consistent with "power above culture," than Moldbug himself. If the expansion of power is the result of structural sources within power itself, then that is actually more consistent with sovereignty being conserved.

Moldbug's actual views evolved over time. So it is different to pin down exactly what they are. But I believe that it is the internal structure of institutions that dictate how they decay, as well as external pressures through the 5 phase process. A quick sketch of causes of the degenerative ratchet would go something like this;

Cause no. 1, legislative accumulation, (causes state growth, entrenchment of left-wing power, increasing ideological control, and increasing market distortion).
Cause no. 2, entrenchment cycles, (makes entire sections of government beyond reform, represents re-patrimonialization).
Cause no. 3, technologically induced moral decay, (guns create democracy, printing press creates demotism, birth control creates the sexual revolution, and nuclear weapons prevent democracy from destroying itself).
Cause no. 4, synthesis of incentives that cause mass immigration, (mass transportation technology makes it possible while incentives of democracy make it inevitable).

See Neocameral Future for further reading.

Edited 11/25/2016

Monday, October 31, 2016

Mortality is a Knowledge Destroyer

Humans die. We live, oh maybe 70 or 80 years if we're lucky. This means that knowledge dies with us. And that means that knowledge itself is constantly dying. This is knowledge entropy.

Let's face is. You are, just like everyone else, a tard. You are constantly making mistakes, and no one knows how well you fuck up than you do because you probably do a really through job of hiding it. Or at the very least, you don't go around mentioning every way you have fucked up. That would be bad PR.

Just when a man starts to figure out how the universe works, oh at say 70 years of age, he dies. Shit. But that is the way is goes. Mortality is a knowledge destroyer. So we must have some way of cheating entropy—of passing knowledge on to future generations. There are three methods; science, technology, and religion. Let us define them.

Science; the way we pass on technical knowledge about how physical universe works.

Technology; the way we pass on practical application of technique. Technology is applied knowledge that is inherited.

Religion; the way we pass on social technology. Humans can't figure it all out themselves. So they use religion to pass on wisdom about how to configure social relationships to maximize eudaimonia. This is the most important of the three.

And this is why new atheism can be so foolish. It's a three legged stool guys. There is no idiocy greater than aggressive stupidity. Science really can't replace religion in the social technology game. It doesn't have the accretion of 5000 years built into it that faith does. And humans are not really rational. Men like Dawkins think that the entire human race is just like them; classic case of projection. But you really do need commandments, beliefs, injunctions, and appeals to emotion to get people to do what is in their own best interests. I've seen atheists who had, "open marriages." It always ended in disaster. Common sense wasn't enough to get them to be monogamous. Simply telling people; "you're a primate and jealousy is genetic so screwing around will never work," is a remarkably ineffective technique. Most people need the threat of hellfire to behave themselves. And it isn't just knowledge that is destroyed, but wisdom and experience, since the emotion and memory that experience imparts can never be transmitted.

Christianity is so frustrating. It has spawned a thousand heretical communisms. The very notion that all are saved by Christ is egalitarian. And that means that the knowledge preservation engine of western civilization also carries the virus of its subversion.

Indeed, in China, communism is an empty formalism precisely because it has no Christianity to animate it. Political religions do no last on their own. They need to feed vampirically on the energies of the faithful. When communism succeeds in abolishing Christianity, it succeeds in abolishing itself. Faith is like soil preparation. Soil that has already been tilled by one farmer is better for cultivating by the next occupant, and political religion is incapable of breaking in its own soil. It needs someone else to do the primary tilling. It needs Christianity. The Chinese are a fundamentally Confucian and Buddhist people. The soil there doesn't grow liberalism well.

I was not raised on Christianity. I was raised on a much more eastern way of thinking. Concepts like one man dying for the sins of another, consubstantiation, and the like, come across as obscenely barbaric to an eastern mentality. I could never feel Christian guilt, and thus, could never feel white racial guilt. To an outsider, the relationship between Christianity and liberalism is so obvious that any failure to see it makes you seem thickheaded. Whites are racially altruistic because they are Christian. Asians feel no racial guilt, because, like me, they feel no guilt over original sin at all. The later provides the primary tilling for the former.

It has been said that we need a new religion. I see no reason it can't come from the east.

Edited 11/25/2016

Sunday, October 30, 2016

What Happens When Your King Imports Millions of Asians?

In a neocameral state, (as described by Moldbug), the CEO acts to maximize profits. 

It should be pointed out that whites are not the most profitable race. Ashkenazi Jews are. Since they have the highest average income, followed by northern Asians, and THEN followed by whites.

Why do you think Moldbug, (half Jewish) favored it?

In terms of manual labor, whites are also not the most profitable race. Blacks are, (when enslaved), due to physical stamina. That is why they were brought to america to begin with--by monarchy no less. It was Kings who first created slavery in the Americas.

All pro-monarchy talk in neoreaction assumes an unreasonable faith that the king will have your ethnic interests in mind. This is because historically kings did not betray their own ethnic populations. But then again, historically, neither did democracies. What changed? Well, modern transportation was invented.

Simply put, mass immigration became possible. You take it for granted that monarchy will defend your ethnic interests, but it hasn't historically. Monarchy brought African slaves to america first before democracy adopted the practice. There is no evidence for faith in kings where immigration is concerned.

Granted, it does not have an incentive to replace its own voters like liberal parties do. But is DOES have an incentive for profit, and that has been enough in the past.

If you get a King you can look forward to being the white house cleaners to you Asian an Jewish overlords.

My plan, exitarianism combines the best aspects of demotism, (as a reserve power), neocameralism, (as the management), and monarchical empire, (as the military union). It has far far stronger immigration controls, even within the nation.

Reconsider your support for pure monarchy please.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Fixing Democracy

I wrote a series of posts on Twitter and thought I would reproduce the discussion here with elaboration. This is about the degenerative ratchet of democracy, whose technical cause is either ignored or unknown to most of NRx. Before I entered neoreaction I had already studied the cause of America's decline. Moldbug was actually the third theorist I came across in this pursuit, and other people have said it better, have said it with more technical accuracy, and with economic explanation.

There are several causes of this ratchet. This is the major one. The reason given here explains why conservatives fight a loosing battle in all democracies (so far).

Constantly overlooked is that the entire theory for explaining why the Cathedral exists is wrong. It is not just memetics, though that plays a part.

Mancur Olson already explained all of it with a better theory than Moldbug in The Rise and Decline of Nations. The gyst of what he says is that it is easier for small groups to co-ordinate than large ones. The result is that it is more profitable for insiders to make law at the expense of the public that for the public to defend themselves against predatory law making. Here is Patri Friedman, (grandson of Milton) explaining the problem. Take a moment to watch this 2 minute video. It is central to our discussion. He is basically summarizing Olson and public choice theory, even if he doesn't reference it as such.

This stuff isn't new. The Rise and Decline on Nations came out in the 80's. It was, in turn based on even earlier work. So (some) people have understood the "collective action problem" for quite some time now. This theory explains the reason why democracy is getting worse and yet nobody appears to know about it, and it is not taught in liberal universities. This just goes to show that people won't learn or teach a subject if knowing it undermines their ability to justify their own parasitism.

Anyway, all you have to do to figure out modernity, is pair Olson's theory with an understanding that power is upstream from culture. That is, you simply marry Olson's theory to that of Bertrand de Jouvel's and you get a nice concise way of explaining everything that is wrong with America, (and indeed, democracy in general), and why it is all going to shit.
Olson's theory (in a vastly simplified form);
small groups have a greater incentive and profit for lobbying government that large ones. Thus, there is an incentive to constantly make law for the benefit of elites at the expense of the public. Therefor, legislative accumulation occurs.
de Jouvel's theory;
culture is downstream from power. Whenever a change happens in culture or ideology it is due to some higher level force of power acting on society.  
Thus, as power expands so does the political demand for justifying ideology.

Eventually the whole society becomes saturated with it. Mancur Olson predicted back in the 80's the political divisiveness of the current era. He also predicted gridlock and government dysfunction. His stated reason was that as the amount of rent-seeking law on the books increased, the payoff from those corrupt laws would also increase, and thus, the pitch of the rhetoric would be elevated as a result. More payoff from corrupt law = more incentive to manipulate people with propaganda to control the payoff.

If power expands, so must ideology, since ideology is necessary to justify it. This is because humans are social creatures that rationalize their circumstances.

If a man is given a handout he will rationalize it. Give him free healthcare and after awhile he will believes he has a "right to healthcare." Give him nothing and he will work hard and resent anyone who receives a handout. He will then glorify hard work and self-sufficiency, just like frontiersmen did. Moreover, his attitude of hard work will be transmitted to his children so long as they do not receive handouts.

So ideology will change as rationalizations change. Thus, the greatest predictor of ideology are  incentives. This is the reverse of what people intuitively believe. They think that ideology controls incentives. But most of the time it is the reverse. Consider this depression era quote about the New Deal;
"There was, nevertheless, a remarkable unwillingness to go "on the dole." Government welfare and shame still were a horse and carriage in the popular mind. Researchers into popular attitudes found an accountant turned ditch-digger saying, 'I'd rather stay out in that ditch the rest of my life than take one cent of direct relief.' "
In fact, when one researches the history of the New Deal one finds out that welfare essentially had to be forced on the American people. Then, and only then, did attitudes of entitlement grow. Here is another quote;
"Popularly coined phrases such as, 'There is no elevator to the top, you need to take the stairs,' were a common outlook on working life amongst Americans, and nobody expected anybody else to provide for them. This attitude began to change in the 1980s, with a growing sense of urgency to provide the next generation with an 'easier life' then had been given to its parents. Unfortunately, this genuinely good-intentioned decision made for a generation of children who misunderstand the meaning of work."
This is not the central point of our thesis, only a necessary diversion. The point here is that the entitlement came first, then afterwards social attitudes changed. With a 50 year delay no less. Attitudes were the product of incentives, and not the other way around. Think of that the next time you hear someone complain about "entitled millennials." Then recognize the connection this has to legislative accumulation.

Getting to the Point

We live in a form of anarcho capitalism already. But this form is based on raiding a commons of public income. It is not propertarian in nature. Congressman are brokers who sell one persons money to another in exchange for campaign contributions. The thing is an extortion market. Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. This is not some joke statement. Consider an excerpt from this article directly from the mouth of the Cathedral itself;
"House Speaker John A. Boehner appears to be a master of the tollbooth. In 2011, he collected a total of over $200,000 in donations from executives and companies in the days before holding votes on just three bills. He delayed scheduling a vote for months on the widely supported Wireless Tax Fairness Act, and after he finally announced a vote, 37 checks from wireless-industry executives totaling nearly $40,000 rolled in. He also delayed votes on the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act, scoring $91,000 from investment banks and private equity firms, $32,450 from bank holding companies and $46,500 from self-described investors — all in the 48 hours between scheduling the vote and the vote’s actually being held on the House floor.
Another tactic that politicians use is something beltway insiders call “milker bills.” These are bills designed to “milk” donations from threatened individuals or businesses. The real trick is to pit two industries against each other and pump both for donations, thereby creating a “double milker” bill.
President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to score big in 2011 using the milker tactic in connection with two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. By pitting their supporters in Silicon Valley who opposed the bills against their allies in Hollywood who supported the measures, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden were able to create a sort of fund-raising arms race."
It is literally an extortion racket. They propose bills to Congress. The bill threatens someone's interests while either rewarding someone, or threatening someone else's interests. The two groups are then pitted against each other in a bidding war to see whose rights are to be trampled upon. Or to trample on one parties rights at the expense of the other. THAT'S THE TRUTH RUTH. That's how is really works.

We don't care about that though. If America were to collapse we might, like the Romans, endure 300 years of increasingly authoritarian dictatorship until the rise of some benevolent monarch. Keeping this thing going a few hundred years more and reducing the magnitude and insanity of leftism in America would definitely be preferable. We will leave Civil War 2.0 to the distant future. For now, can we at least make this thing function?

The essential flaw in democracy's entire design is legislative accumulation. We live in an anarcho capitalistic coercion market. The Founders designed a flaw right into the system at a Constitutional level. It is obvious to any engineer with half a brain that you never design a system that accumulates anything, (waste, energy, heat, genetic mutations, whatever) over time. Legislative accumulation is democracies basic flaw. The fact that the Founders overlooked this is remarkable, or at least remarkably incompetent.

Every law is a bargain struck that sells coercive force for the profit of at least one party at the expense of another. The problem is that the bargains accumulate over time.

All coercion requires ideological justification, and all bargains cause market distortions. So both accumulate as the law does.

The whole thing can be "balanced" by having a House of Repeal and a mandate that the House of
Enactment cannot make a law or a single word of law until the House of Repeal has unmade the same number of laws and words of law. A BALANCED coercion market would stabilize the current system at status quo. A reduction quota would give it a right-wing / libertarian bias.

So collapse actually could be prevented. As well as continuous left-wing movement. This is because legislative accumulation is the wind in the left's sails. It is what lets them consolidate their gains. Consider two democracies, one with, and one without, legislative accumulation.

With legislative accumulation

Corruption accumulates over time.
Market distortion accumulates over time.
It become harder over time to generate employment.
Ideology grows from being barely noticeable to totalitarian.
Numerous claims of "positive rights" are increasingly made.
Public debts grow continuously.
As the financial stakes become higher for loosing elections, the propaganda gets stronger.
Each generation of leftists consolidates the gains of the previous.
Collapse is guaranteed eventually.

Without legislative accumulation

Corruption does not accumulates over time.
Markets continue to function as well as they did when the nation was founded.
Employment is easy to come by.
Ideology is minimal and stays that way.
Rights remain relatively the same.
Public debts remain small or grow at a lower rate.
Propaganda does not grow.
Each generation of leftists has to start from scratch.
Collapse is not necessarily guaranteed.

Last Note

I am not convinced that any particular system of government is automatically better than any other, nor that abolishing this system and replacing it with monarchy is preferable. In the Muqaddimah, the North African Arab historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun says;
'It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments'"
This is the beginning of the Laffer curve, or the theory of optimum taxation. What is interesting here is not that this forms the basis of Laffer's famous curve, oh no. What concerns us here is that Khaldun is a historian telling us something historical, that is, even in his day regimens were destroying themselves with the accumulation of corruption. After all, this is the only thing that can account for why a political system would raise its taxes past the point of optimum maximization. This also tells us that monarchy is not the answer, that Moldbug's Fnargl is a mirage, that all regimes are supported and corrupted by rent-seekers, and that the accumulation of parasites destroys all nations. And it tells us that this was happening even several hundred years ago, and that is was happening to monarchy too.

Now this is important; in a democracy with rule of law, corruption is written right into the law. In most other countries corruption is extra-judicial in nature. It is customs officials and police taking bribes. It is under the table and technically illegal, and the regime is either too week to do anything about it, or is receiving kick backs, or both. In China you pay a bribe to the traffic cop.

So the problem in all societies is the accumulation of corruption. Obviously, if the power of law expands to control more aspects of peoples lives, and ideology also expands to justify it, then ideology will eventually began to practice censorship. As the demand to control what people think grows so will the need to inhibit competing viewpoints. Thus, censorship is the inevitable end run of legislative accumulation. This of course inhibits feedback into the power structure itself, creating a dangerous ignorance of the real threats it faces.

Summary Conclusion

Because of the collective action problem, as defined by Olson, it is easier for small elite groups to organize than large groups. This results in a relentless push for new law, or legislative accumulation.

Since ideology is downstream from power, and since ideology is powers' rationalization, ideology becomes whatever it needs to be. As power expands so does the reach of ideology. More payoff from corrupt law = more incentive to manipulate people with propaganda to control the payoff, which means more pervasive ideology.

All proposed legislation is extortion of some kind, or the handing out of privileges. In America, privileges are paid for with campaign contributions. Laws are made because of contributions and activism, both which agitate for handouts and privileges.

The degenerative ratchet is caused primarily by legislative accumulation, which allows the left to consolidate gains, and puts the right at a strategic disadvantage. Reversing this with a House of Repeal and a quota for shrinkage would put the left at a permanent disadvantage.

All regime types experience the accumulation of corruption. In most political systems corruption is extra-judicial. In a system of rule of law this takes the form of legislative accumulation. Accumulated rent-seeking is what brings about the failure of all states in history. As the amount of power expands so does the need to control people with ideology, thus ideology expands. The process eventually results in censorship, even in states with constitutional protections of free speech. Ideology grows from a background noise to a totalitarian level.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Broken Word II, You are Superman

Continuing where Broken World Syndrome left off and sharing some thoughts I had on twitter we continue our discussion of the implicit beliefs society unconsciously trains into people.

A thing can be described from more than one perspective and we are richer off for the exercise. Many times to say a thing over and over from a hundred different perspectives is the only best way to explore it properly—from emotional, technical, process-based, taxonomic, hereditary, memetic, and historical views. American broken world syndrome is something like that.

What people need to understand is that western culture is built on a habitual pattern of thought, one that indoctrinates you to think you can save the world. This presumes the world is broken. Presumes you can save it. Presumes it needs saving. It appeals to people because it is ego gratifying to think you are awesome enough to play Superman. That's why it sticks in peoples brains. That's why it transmits culturally. That's why it is impossible to kill, and why it has infected you, the reader, and everyone else in this society.

But the trade off is the perpetual misery and hate of believing the world is broken. If you accept the world needs saving, then you accept the implication it is broken, needs fixing, and that YOU, yes YOU, are capable of fixing it. Which is a lie. So the cost is perpetual misery is never ending rage against a world you can never change. It is ego gratifying to save the world, but it is soul destroying when you realize that you are incapable, that is is bigger than you thought it would be, that there is really no end of the problem when you think about it.

So there is a cost and a benefit. Cost = misery and rage at a broken world. "Benefit" = megalomania. To the individual of course. But there is a separate cost / benefit where society is concerned. If the cost is individual misery, the benefit is social progress. After all, this is the culture, (America) that landed a man on the moon, cured polio, abolished slavery, and founded the Republic. Believing the world is broken, perfectible, by us, in real life, is why America is not China, not India, and not even Europe. Other societies have stasis. We don't. Teaching everyone that they are Superman is bound to have some positive results.

And Superman is no longer a white male thing—it is a white female thing, as typified by Hollywood's endless parade of girl power movies.

But if Superman is a photographic positive, then entitlement culture is it's negative. For every positive aspect of this thing there is its shadow—which is defined precisely by what it is not, by it's absence or reversal.

If Superman culture is heroic, entitlement culture is pathetic.
If Superman culture is has a deep pathological guilt, entitlement culture is shameless.
If Superman culture is never good enough entitlement culture never stops blaming.
If Superman culture has moral agency entitlement culture is characterized by abject dependence on the state.
If Superman culture is white, entitlement culture is "diverse."
If Superman culture is mature, entitlement culture is childish.
If Superman culture is characterized by rational discussion, entitlement culture is characterized by emotional tyranny, cry-bulling, and censorship.

If Superman culture is typified by Elon Musk at one extreme, then it is typified by the permanent resentful twisted mouth of Tinashe Coates, which says, with a single expression; "white people are at fault."

Because Superman's culture is to tell you that you are always responsible, always to blame, that you can never be good enough. It is the secular inculcation of Christian guilt at white guilt. Superman is everywhere. Superman is all-capable. It is all Superman's fault. And it is all your fault whitey.

Compare these two images;

If whitey is Superman—giving birth to everything, then Coates is the afterbirth, and he knows it.

But do you have to save the world? And do you have to save them from themselves? Letting people destroy themselves is not the evil that it has been made out to be. Help the white girl yes, but leave Tinashe to his fate. Lay down your burdens white man. Neither a savior nor a hater be. You are not evil because you let these people die. Afterbirth is not your problem. Teach your own people not to self-hate. Cure them of their white guilt. Let the rest drown. It was never a realistic goal anyway.

Save your own race Superman.

Read part I.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Responding to Antinomia Imediata

Cyborg_nomade critiqued Chapter 4a of my sprawling thesis on exitocracy. I figured I should get off my ass and respond.

To put it in the briefest way possible, exitocracy is halfway between democracy and monarchical patchwork. It is patchwork where private governments stand for election. It is a system designed to decay into patchwork. When exitocracy is "corrupted" by the inevitable movement towards greater privatization that it would incentivize, it leads to patchwork. Decay is not considered evil in itself; all political systems decay. The current system is the result of dictatorship decaying into monarchy, (gradually after William), monarchy decaying into aristocracy, (some time around the era of the Magna Carta), aristocracy decaying into timocracy, (with the American Revolution), timocracy rapidly decaying into democracy, (with abolition of property qualifications and the 17th Amendment), democracy rapidly into oligarchy, (starting in the 1980's), caused by a vast increase in political donations. It is not decay per say that is the problem but its uncontrolled nature. Decay is inevitable. A system may "decay" into something better if it is controlled correctly. That is the purpose of exitocracy.

Since I wrote only Chapter 4a at the time, some of your questions may be answered in 4b, Exitocracy at the Federal Level, which covers one possible mechanism of enforcement.

You agree with a lot of what I say so I will limit myself to your major objections. For the sake of ease your remarks will be italicized and mine will not except when emphasis is needed.

Your remarks;
“Demotism is Conserved.” Nope. Although mass communication (and, more to the point, the ever greater dissipation of mass lethal power) is an ongoing fact since the dawn of modernity, and one that is unlikely to go away (short of Peak Oil or something), there is ever less a need to control the mob’s minds. The trend set in motion with the internet is much more of cultural, social and (therefore) political fragmentation than of mass maneuver of opinion. The very costs of attempting something like that are ever greater.
So, from what I grasp of the political trends in the 21st century, demotism has its days numbered, T minus the time necessary to build safe exit options. Bit-nations contracting with luxury gated cities for free pass, and ever more nomadic elites wandering around the world. No need for mob control, except insofar as “heavier walls” is mob control.
This really boils down to technology. No one can know the future, but one can guarantee that elites will fight like hell to prevent succession. Personally, I think Elon Musk has a better chance of colonizing Mars than anyone does at abolishing demotism. There will always be a vast incentive to weaponize crowds / useful idiots for conquest against your neighbors. What is worse is that propaganda works because humans want to be told what to think.

Let's list them out;

Technologies in favor of continued demotism;

Nukes, (as long as the supply can be effectively constrained)
University education
K through 12 education
All armies everywhere

Technologies against continued demotism;

An uncensorable internet, (may be impossible).
Crypto currencies, (as long as they don't get co-opted by elites).

Anything that makes demotism obsolete also makes nuclear weapons abundant. Atomics follows the law of supply and demand like everything else. Governments are hell-bent on controlling supply—and that is a good thing. We want non-proliferation. Anything that makes atomics available to city states possibly also lowers their cost to the threshold of terrorists getting their hands on it. That would be a catastrophe for mankind. Governments will go through hell to prevent that scenario. In any case, a future where city states can afford atomics is no future at all. It is a post atomic horror. In that case you get whatever tribalism you desire—and cannibal biker gangs.

Another possible technology is small handheld EMP weapons. There have been two eras in human history when people have has access to weapons of equal power to their governments. The first was the Greek city states. In that era the weapon system was the phalanx. When the highest quality weapon is affordable to the average man democracy ensues. Equal weapons = equal society. Granted, you got city states. But you also got Athenian direct democracy. Of course they created quite a few other political systems; Spartan Communism, Sicilian Tyranny, Thebes and its oligarchy.

The next phase was the American revolution. The enabling technology was the Kentucky long riffle. But both of these weapons systems reinforced demotism rather than suppressing it. EMP weapons will do the same by rendering tanks and bombers no more effective than a handheld device. Though this will only last until those machines are reengineered with shielded analogue components. See this.

So it boils down to which technology wins, and I see no evidence that guarantees the trajectory will go exactly towards fragmentation without democracy. For that you need a specific technology that reinforces tribalism without reinforcing individualism. One way, is for it to have an exact price point that is most efficient to deploy with that price point being determined by the size of the group, (say 100,000 to 1 million people). Any more and you gat vastly escalating costs. Any less and you can't afford it. Steel mills are a technology like this. Bigger mills only result in greater administrative costs. If some equivalent economics in weapons systems could be worked out then maybe it would work. You need a technology that favors a certain number of people and no more. Basically, I see no reason for the future to move along the vector we want it to unless deliberate efforts are made to engineer the technology that gets us there.

You quoting me;
1. “Formalism ends violence by making the outcome of a dispute known. Another way of saying this is that a process is formalized when violence is eliminated through a rule based mechanism that turns it into a game or contract of sorts.” It’s important to keep in mind that one needs an unambiguous unbreakable rule for this to work – enforcement matters. I’m saying this to make clear that the criteria for Multi-Part Elections to work is that it provides not only unambiguous rules for conflicts, but also an enforcement mechanism.
This is now covered in Chapter 4b, which was written after your remarks.
“Power creates ideology.” This is unconvincing, if only because ideology is itself a source of power. You seem to admit it straight away: “any different system will seem immoral to you, because you, having been indoctrinated by the current system, share its morals“. To distinguish between power and the idea of power will demand something more than mere affirmation.
The following discussion, based on this distinction, is not so wrong as it reverses the true complication: “The ideology becomes whatever is necessary to justify the power system. In the System of systems, aka, the exitocracy, a form of “live and let live” becomes the standard. The federal government is forced to take a culturally relativist position in order to maintain military control over its territory.” Can the federal government maintain that position and have military control? What does the military believe? What is the ideology of those with military capability? Power is this ideology, what will make them pull the trigger.(?)
Ideology may itself be a source of power. I have never claimed it isn't. In Chapter 1 of Neocameral Future I described it as follows;
"Culture really is downstream from power, but what we are missing is that power is downstream from incentives. We may go even one step further and say that incentives are the outcome synthesis of several material conditions in combination with human nature. Also, ideology programs peoples morals. When we put this all together we get a chain of causality. This gives us a diagram that looks something like this:
Technology +
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
=   A  Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals
Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change; that is, society reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.
What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to effect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. One thing I have not decided is whether religion belongs in the location of (1) or (4). It appears to have characteristics of both at it reflexively reacts to new technologies and simultaneously defies their influence. I suppose it depends on how embracing of fads and trends a faith is. More cathedral prone religions are in the category of (4)."
Everything influences everything else. The only claim being made here is that the major flow is downward from phase 1 forces to phase 5. A lot of "ideology influencing things" is false. If Obama makes a "moral decision" (and it is truly motivated by moral concern), this would indicate that phase 5 is affecting phase 3. But in reality, he derived his morals from left-wing indoctrination. Thus, the expression of morals is still consistent with downward flow.

In other words, a lot of ideology influencing things is actually recursive within the overall pattern. It is entirely enclosed by it.

Second, humans, because we are primates, have a compulsive need to think that argument matters. Actually, it really doesn't. We evolved in Dunbar limited environments. In those societies argument can actually change the whole society. This causes an instinctive predilection towards folk activism. This instinctive tendency is why Iceland as a democracy works better than America. (It is small). Democracy doesn't scale well. At large scales it becomes factional and monopolized by special interests. But I digress. The point is that your brain wants to think that ideology matters, but it really doesn't. The entire system runs on blind idiot forces of nature, and not ideology. Reactionary future has a whole thing on this, 1, 2, 3—about how ideology is downstream of power. This is a basic tenant of the whole neoreactionary field. Because of genetic legacy, humans will always compulsively want to believe that the reverse is true, and they must constantly be told that it is not. So this is not just mere affirmation.

So there you go. I hope that answers it. Leave a comment below if you have any thoughts.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Interview with Mencius Moldbug

You should read him if you haven't already.

Because this blog would not exist without him.

Interview on SoundCloud with Moldbug, aka Curtis Yarvin.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Fash the Nation Pulled From SoundCloud

So Fash the Nation was pulled off of SoundCloud for "dedicated" violations  of their terms of service. Luckily they are now up and running over at Zencast.

They are simply too hilarious to ignore.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4b, Exitocracy at the Federal Level

Go back to Chapter 4a.
Go to the Contents.

Chapter 4b, 
Exitocracy at the Federal Level

"As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects 
accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware 
of the choice at a near-unconscious level. "
—The Architect, The Matrix Reloaded

"Democracy cultivates perceptual freedom through the cognitive trick of voting. You, having voted, feel responsible for your government. Since everyone else also voted you feel that they are oppressing you when they vote foolishly. This conceals the truth that democracy is always run for the benefit of elites. It directs your anger towards your neighbors and away from the people who are actually in charge. It allows them to conceal their influence. So perceptual freedom is also a democratic trick...

So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough?...What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?"


To briefly recap; our plan call for the welfare state to be divided and delegated to approximately 3100 local districts that are run by local corporate systems accountable in elections every 5 years. These systems act as both political party, domestic law maker, domestic tax authority, administrative bureaucracy, and for-profit corporation with shareholders. They do not control law enforcement, the courts, road and infrastructure building (of interstate highways), or matters of foreign policy. They cannot have armies. The federal government does all matters related to foreign and military policy. The Defense Department, CIA, and State Department still exist. The federal government still runs the National Parks Service, but domestic authority has been almost entirely transferred to the Systems. States still perform exactly the same function they now perform, except that they have lost all federal funding. Any taxes that were collected within a particular State that were used for domestic matters have been abolished or refunded to the Systems in that state with the systems agreement. 

A new level of government—the Systems, exists as an intermediate stage between the federal and State governments. However, the borders of each System district are the same as county lines within states themselves.

Systems compete in multi-stage elections every five years. A multi-stage election consists of a series of choices, structured like a decision tree, that narrow down choices to ever fewer and fewer options. In the first election the first question on the ballot is "left or right?" In every subsequent election the first question is "Do you want to retain the system you have?" 60 % or more must say no in order for the incumbent to loose.

As a result, systems are ruled by the minority, not the majority. Migration should occur between systems as people move to their preferred form of government. Systems should begin instituting an invitation only program. A person can receive hundreds of invitations simultaneously through computerized personality testing. This has complicated internal trade matters a bit. Though there are barriers to moving people within the nation, there are no barriers to moving goods, as that remains a federal policy matter.

The federal government has strict capital requirements to prevent incompetent corporations from getting on the ballot. Systems must meet stringent licencing requirements to ensure solvency. There are three levels; level 1, the foundation or federal level, level 2, the governance marketplace (systems), and level 3, the free market.

But this does not answer a crucial question, namely; what is the enforcement mechanism for this? And how are things structured at the federal level? We will answer that now. Depending on the response I get to this write up I may have not one, but two methods for federal design. Here we will discuss the first possible design.

Modified Neocameralism

The Stocks of a Sovereign Cameralist State

In the conventional neocameral program the state is a corporation with transferable shares. Shares are perfectly formalized with actual power so that those with influence in the society also have a share in its government. The shares pay a divided out of the profits from the government. The state is a joint stock company with a CEO, and a board of directors composed of directors elected by voting shareholders. Military control is achieved though cryptographic weapons locks.

Shares also create an incentive for proper fiscal management.

In my proposed system, at the district (county) level, every microstate works just like this. Except there is no military at the local level and thus no weapons locks. Also, the corporation has to get reelected every five years. But since incumbents tend always to win anyway, and since migration attracts more people to each state that share its philosophy—thus reinforcing its control, and since the reelection is not structured like the first election that brought them to power, getting the boot is next to impossible unless they really screw up. If they refuse to leave, the federal government sends national guardsmen in to assist them.

But this is not how things work at the federal level. At the federal level the state is also a corporation with transferable shares. The shares pay a divided out of the profits from the governments revenue. The state is a joint stock company with an Emperor, and a Council composed of directors elected by voting shareholders. Military control may be achieved partially through cryptographic weapons locks.

But the number of shares outstanding is constantly being increased by the Emperor deliberately in order to dilute the control of shareholders over the government. Rather than wait for democratizing coalitions that buy up shares in the name of the people, the Emperor takes proactive measures to relentlessly increase the number of shares outstanding. This year there may be a million shares, next year two million, the year after that three.

At first look "share inflation" may seem like a horribly abysmal bastardization of the Moldbug dream. Say "inflation" with a positive tone of voice to a libertarian and he sours on whatever you say afterward. But this is of shares and not money. The national currency remains rock solid.

Share inflation performs a number of crucial functions. First, it forces the elite to compete for the favor of the Emperor. This recreates "royal court politics" in a formalized fashion. It prevents palace intrigue by making everyone's status known on a publicly available ledger. The more stock you own the more important you are. If you buy enough stock you get time to speak to the Emperor, and the more stock you own the more time you get. 

Second, it allows the emperor to pit the nobility against each other by offering discounts to weaker parties; "divide and rule." If one person owns too many shares his position is weakened by offering shares to his adversaries at a discount. Similarly, share prices for him are raised, potentially to astronomical levels. Everyone is kept down this way through price discrimination. 

Third, it prevents democratization. The number of shares is constantly increasing, their value constantly decreasing, and their dividend constantly decreasing. Because the number of shares outstanding is constantly increasing, only people who can relentlessly shovel money at the government gain power.

Fourth, what people are willing to pay tells you how weak they are and what they care about. It provides the political equivalent of market feedback to the Emperor about the relative power of the nobles. This prevents civil war by showing the emperor who is strong enough to threaten him. Anyone who is not purchasing shares or is using proxies to make straw purchases in reveling their intent. Using his Royal Financial Intelligence Service (RFIS) he can monitor their behavior and guess their intentions. He can also know who is too strong in advance. The whole point is to get everyone to write down their financial positions in electronic ledgers so that a persons agenda can be discovered by looking at their financials. Where is this man putting his money? What positions is he betting on? How does he profit? What costs him money? The state knows your agenda by formalizing all corruption, bribery, side payments, in order to discover everything about you. It discovers your incentives. 

None of this changes your tax bill. If your taxes are ten million then that is what you own. But you may buy shares in lieu of paying taxes. Since every share entitles you to a vote it is always in your interest to offset your entire tax bill with shares purchased every year. Thus, revenue and voting are unified. Unless the Emperor is practicing price discrimination against you (which only happens to the wealthy) then the cost of a share is whatever the market will bear.

Price discrimination occurs in taxation too. Powerful potential adversaries are taxed at higher rates than weak ones. Everyone is reduced to the same general level of "petite" aristocracy. The globalist rich are made equally "petty" to keep them down. Anti-trust legislation is used to break up conglomerates that are too large and powerful.

So the share purchase system is a divide and conquer system.

We also see that the System of systems is divide and conquer. In fact we see that is is a masterful way of restructuring divide and conquer as a choice from below rather than an imposition from above. The System of system divides the state while indulging the populations desire for self-expression in politics. It makes the political commons propertarian in nature. It gives the people the vote in a limited way. It allows them to throw out an oppressive government or vote with their feet by moving to a different society. It uses internal migration to enforce rights locally. It controls immigration both internally and externally from below rather than above. It gives everyone their own preferred ideology in practice. It eliminates the moral legitimacy of political dissent by providing everyone with their preferred system of government.

And regardless of who profits and has power at the local level the Emperor always gets his cut.  

This is important because you want your sovereign to have multiple sources of income so that no House of Lords can hold funding hostage and demand democratization. The Emperor collects corporate taxes and issues shares. He collects system taxes on each system. He collects licencing fees for the systems. And his RFIS bureaucracy digs into everyone's financials to discover everything about them. Financial intelligence is the preferred intelligence. 

All laws flow from the Emperors desk downward. No private individual may submit legislation. You may petition the Emperor for a redress of grievances. Surveys are also conducted.

The Supreme Court is appointed directly by his majesty. There is an Imperial Council. Like a Board of Directors, it is composed of Directors / Council Members elected by shareholders. It is a rubber stamping body that provides feedback, and has about three to five-hundred members. It may refuse to ratify legislation. The Emperor may make law without its consent. But he normally won't because it is preferable to enlist the support of the nobility. Submitting legislation to the Council also provides necessary feedback to His Majesty for proper governance.

The Bond Structure of a Sovereign Cameralist State

Modified neocameralism uses its own stock insurance to keep parasites in line and fighting each other in order to safeguard a commons. But it also uses it's debts to incentivize social investment. Unlike in the corporate world, in the neocameral state bond holders rights come before shareholder dividends. This will make sense in a second. In government parasites are inescapable, and so a method for controlling them is necessary. I

n regards to the issuance of shares, this modified form preserves a perfect mapping of social control with share ownership for the wealthy only, but adds a method of balancing these interests against each other with price discrimination and set tax bills that are offset by stock purchase. I will let you be the judge if this is better or worse than the original Moldbugian design. It trades precise formalism (which may be impossible), for less precisely mapped formalism but more secure power. Its metric is dedication to power rather than precise influence. Because obviously only the most dedicated and wealthy players will have influence.

Just like it has stock it has bonds. But it does not simply issue debt certificates in the conventional manner. That would create a perverse incentive because debt holders then lobby the government to increase its debts. Instead, the state packages a financial instrument against its own liabilities, which only pays out if the liability is reduced. Let us say the liability is;
"too much crime in x neighborhood."
When crime is successfully reduced the bond holders receive a payout of the savings to society as a result of reducing the liability. The money for the payout comes from a tax on groups that profit at the expense of society, so that parasites are forced to pay to have their own incentives restructured.

There are whole series of these types of bonds for dozens or even hundreds of different metrics of success. The reason for this configuration is to align all the interests of the market with the state. Together, all of the bonds constitute the well-being market, and serve as a proxy for the Emperors orders in the economy. Secure power is never as secure as it would like to be. Outside actors are always trying to interfere. Bureaucracies are always trying to usurp command, and outside agents are always trying to corrupt the state. To align their interests, both the market and the top managers of every agency are paid in well-being bonds. An agency head can expect to draw a small salary plus a large commission for successful management. His pay consists of salary plus well-being bonds related to his agency. If, for example, he is a sheriff, then he is given crime reduction bonds, if a teacher, educational success bonds, etc. A large portion of his pay is simply how well he does his job.

This is done not just to agency heads, but to everyone who profits in anyway that is contrary to national success.

First method: (A payoff that pays a percentage at maturity if, and only if, a condition of success is met.

Here are some other ways.

Create a metric for measuring failure. Quantify that failure in monetary terms to the nation. Find out who bears the cost of the failure. Tax the people who profit from the failure at close to the level of profit they make. Give them the power to offset their taxes by purchasing a bond whose rate of return is pegged to the success of a project.

For example; news media companies profit from race riots. So they are taxed at 100 percent for all profits made from increased viewership during a riot. The state then hands them well-being bonds which only pay a return on investment if the level of racial tensions decrease according to a predefined metric.

Second example; academics often virtue signal against the state and work to destroy order. Harmful academic departments are collectively taxed at high rate. They are then handed well-being bonds that only pay an ROI when social stability is measured to increase in their community. College professors are looked at as advisers to the community. It is their job to invent the solutions to societies problems. If society has problem it is their fault. So they are taxed and paid more or less depending on whether their immediate communities are getting better or worse.

The formula is simple;
Step 1. Identify parasitical agents.
Step 2. Tax their parasitical behavior at a high rate.
Step 3. Use the tax money to build a bond that pays only for good behavior.
Step 4. Create a trust for the parasitical agent composed of nothing but these bonds.
Step 5. Pay them out of the trust so that the majority of their income now comes from good behavior that is aligned with His Majesty's Orders.

There are other methods. One may simply empower a bureaucracy to fix a problem. The agency heads and top managers are then paid a percentage of the ROI of the success of their own agency in fixing the problem. They are empowered with mission orders, not procedural orders. They then figure out the method they will use to get it done. This prevents Conquests Law from coming into effect by forcing all agency top employees to be aligned with mission orders.

Here are some possible metrics for social success. 

Percent white birth rates above break-even.
Percent criminal birth rates below break-even.
Economic return on investment of immigrants minus tax liability of immigrants.
Liability reduction through deportation of criminals.
Reduction in cost of living.
Affordability of food.
Affordability of minor surgeries in the free market.
Affordability  of major surgeries in the free market.
Emergency room wait times by county, (pays more for less).
Population density in a given district divided by number of public transportation lines running every 10 minutes or less in that district.
Increase of average American wage for bottom 80 % of American.
Decrease in addiction rate.
Decrease in early death rate.
Small business creation rate.
Small business 5 year success rate.
Veteran lifespan.
Decrease in Veteran Waiting Times.
Success of veteran care divided by cost.
Percent of population rating themselves as "happy."
Percent of sex criminals who don't re-offend.
Fitness levels of population (percent not obese).
Happiness level of stay-at-home mothers.
Percent who claim to have "adequate healthcare."

In effect, the market puts pressure on the bureaucracy to implement the Emperors orders. The emperor insures compliance with his orders by determining the exact metric to measure success. This aligns all agencies with his metric. The point is to co-opt all possible opposition and align its interests with the state. This prevents infighting, guarantees a loyal base of support, and creates a counter-lobby to the parasites that normally try to dominate a government. Parasites are always drawn to the state. Making societal success payoff for millions of investors, (and institutional investors) creates a powerful lobby that serves as an opposition to parasitical interest. The rent-seekers are kept fighting each other with share inflation. The bond holders profit from opposing the rent-seekers. All incentives are aligned with the general well-being of the entire nation. Doing the right thing is made profitable in government too—not just the free market.

Notice that this can also be done in a democracy.

Parasitism is kept down and investment is kept up. It is not enough to control corruption. You must engineer a force of anti-corruption.

In Summary

The System of systems keeps the locals in line by structuring divide and conquer as a "choice" of ideologies. They are allowed limited self-government. The right of exit keeps them free, and elections allow them to throw out abusive private governments. The Emperor does not care what system they choose because he profits no matter who is in change. A limited number of communist systems are allowed, (despite the fact they will fail) to "drain the poison" of leftism from the rest of the system. This is just regarded as the cost of doing business. These communist systems are not undermined. Communist systems are allowed to fail on their own to prove a point to each new generation at a rate of about one every twenty years. They also serve the function of IQ shredding leftists.

Share inflation, combined with anti-trust actions, keeps the parasitical globalist elites fighting each other, and keeps them all equally small.

The well-being market aligns institutions that would normally work at cross purposes to His Majesty with his orders. This is how the civil service, academics, and media are made to serve the general good or the nation in accordance with the Emperors will.

The whole point is to create a dynamic stability. The Emperor creates order through a monopolization on violence that allows political experimentation to take place within a governance marketplace. Systems innovate in the fields of law, social technology, policy, ideology, payment, and taxation structures.

Go back to Chapter 4a.
Go to the Contents.