Friday, March 16, 2018

How to gain power

War is God, and the most effective way to have the most vicious war is to have the greatest number of combatants. This means not only arming the whole population with literal guns, but also with figurative weapons like education. No, not that fake education that so-called "progressives" peddle, but real education that makes people better at controlling others. Of course real education eventually leads to victory by someone, which leads to fake education. You are here now.

By war I mean the society-wide war of all against all, as described by Thomas Hobbes. I do not mean literal military battles. War is good because it advances human progress, and the only morality is progress (in my opinion). I am hyper-progressive, with the term "progressive" having its original meaning as "one who seeks progress," and not the modern version which is the opposite.

It is the Anti-Puritan's position that real education is good, because war is good. But many disagree, and some want peace.

If one's goal is a peaceful, but stagnant civilization, then you want a great mass of illiterate idiots controlled by a state media and state indoctrination apparatus. The purpose of your free public "education" is not to produce educated people, but to de-educate people so that their minds cannot tolerate contradictory thought, or thought contradictory to the institutional needs of the powerful. The free education is a false economy; its purpose is to train a person to be inhibited in their ability to think, and to train conformity. The lecture-style setup bullies the person into not raising their hand and asking questions. The rote memorization of facts crushes original thought. The training in social justice conditions an hysterical reaction to uncomfortable truths, thus guaranteeing perpetual enslavement to state media and conformity.

State education is the educational equivalent of junk food; it worsens a persons mental health, and it acts as a substitute for a real thing that the body needs. It's purpose is to fill an economic demand in order to crowd out any superior alternative that threatens the interests of rent-seekers in positions of political power.

There are four forms of information.
1. offensive truth
2. polite truth
3. offensive lies
4. polite lies
The four forms of information are not treated identically by human agents. If you tell a polite truth you will annoy people because you are being completely obvious. Everyone knows the polite truth. That is things like "the sky is blue." In contrast, offensive lies are never told unless to insult someone.

Inoffensive lies are told all the time, since misrepresentation of reality, (or its hiding), is the key to maintaining power. Society has a bias in favor of the inoffensive and against the offensive, since the average man, having limited information, is not qualified to judge the truth or falsity of everything, and so merely favors the inoffensive. Politicians use a great pile of words to bury a small amount of lies, to minimize the chance of being caught, and confuse the public.

A nation becomes more deceitful over time, especially during a prolonged peace, which delays confrontation with nature's wrath. In a highly prosperous society consensus reality can lag behind the actual by decades. The longer peace lasts the greater the lag. Elites manufacture social stigma to conceal their parasitism. Therefore, whatever is offensive tends to be true, and whatever is polite tends to towards falsity. The unsurprising position of our elites is that internal conflict is evil, since it threatens their institutional power.

Now this brings up an interesting problem, because we live in an era of mass media, mass information, mass education, and mass protest. Every modern political adaption can be seen as an adaption to the political threat of mass power. Voting is not really intended to change things but to capture public discontent in order to give the people a semblance of change. The true purpose of the vote is to inhibit revolutionary energy rather than allow it. TV is the same way, creating a "society of spectacle" to capture human energy.  Drugs, porn, elections, entertainment, bad education, and countless other outlets suck up the discontent of the individual in meaningless excesses in online bitching, virtue signaling, pointless protesting, masturbating, hysteria. We have become a jerk-off culture.

All revolutionary potential found in anarchist-enabling technologies like print media or the internet have been co-opted by state power to further their own ends. Every revolutionary act trains the state to get better at controlling people, censoring them, manipulating their news feeds, trapping them in filter bubbles, and controlling their thoughts through the subtle control of their perceptions, and fake news sources. You don't even have to oppress people when you can just control everything that constitutes their perception of reality. Perversely, every revolutionary anarchist technology has been counter-appropriated as totalitarian-enabling technology. Newspapers and guns, which won the American revolution for democracy, were later appropriated for mass indoctrination and genocide. Radio and TV had potential for challenging power, but were co-opted by PR men to manufacture consent. Now the liberating technology of the internet is being used to trap people in filter bubbles, and feed them fake news.

To control others, that is, to have power, you must first control yourself. Emotional self-discipline is the perquisite of political power, and that is precisely what a social justice education destroys. Those who say they want to empower you want power over you.

Struggle is an exercise in masturbation. It is theater designed to capture political energy. The result is a hyper-stable system; nothing gets in because every revolutionary appetite is provided for.

This brings us at last to the question that defines the title of this essay: how to gain power? The answer is that it is essentially a shakedown operation. First one has to invent a new technology that threatens elite power. A good example of this is Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter. The new tech threatens to disrupt the existing regime stability. The owner then "sells out" to the interests of power in a series of concessions that require payment by the elite to him, and elevation to a higher station of political influence. The developer goes from being an enabler of anarchism to an enabler of totalitarian control. As already stated, this pattern has been historically repeated in succession with print journalism, radio, TV, cable, internet, and social media.

1. Develop a politically disruptive technology.
2. Attack the elites.
3. Sell out slowly for the maximum price.
4. Become an apparatchik.

Not only does the Western state enable attacks against it, but it incorporates the attackers into itself as a new quasi-governmental department of ideological propaganda.

This is why the West is so successful.

Any actual threat that either refuses to be co-opted, or is structurally incapable of being co-opted, is simply destroyed, marginalized, or the founders are attacked in some other asymmetrical way. Maybe we can't get them because of free speech, so we get them through false sex crime accusations. Or maybe their taxes are imperfect, or they broke some other regulation. There is enough law on the books to make everyone guilty of something, and we want them to be guilty so they can be controlled.

"Gains" for freedom are also gains for totalitarianism. The essential function is to produce sublimation of conflict to some sort of game, or ideological conflict, or financial war. The war becomes a function of the state, incorporated into the state, whose rules the elite write. Or to make a joke, "the Borg is the ultimate user."

The synthetic culmination of the anarchist/totalitarian war will be a GAME who's rules the elite write with the assistance of AI, and who's very nature is the creation of a perfect illusion of freedom. By providing the individual with an unlimited buffet of choice, by allowing all revolutionary energies to be expressed, by producing a boundlessly customizable space for law and lifestyle, the state secures itself above reproach, ultimately secure, and infinitely stable. The elites will sit at the top, collect a percentage, bias the game, manipulate the outcome, and the individual will chose which game to live under defined by the rules of a particular Patch of territory.

Call it "algorithmic government."

Perhaps this is not what you had in mind when you wanted to know how to gain power. Perhaps you meant "how to gain power for the people," and that is an entirely different proposition.

Bitcoin is either exactly what it seams: a distributed ledger and private currency that successfully usurps the power of central banks, or it is a CIA opp. Assuming it is the former, then it is the only successful attack on power made by anarchism that has not been co-opted yet. It is also the only system where the founder has disappeared without a trace, and that is important, because as long as the founder is visible a system has a single point of failure that can destroy it. A human face attached to any project creates a an individual in meatspace that can be blackmailed into compliance. Secondly, Bitcoin performs a reverse co-optation of the elites, peeling off enough of them with its speculative nature, and profiting them sufficiently, to buy their relative, (and temporary) indifference. Regulation is always an attack by rent-seekers, regardless of whatever else it is, and if you do not enrich the people currently in power they will bury you.

This model shows the only way forward for anarchism that does not feed totalitarian pushback. Of course the blockchain may turn out to be totalitarian after all if it enables the tracking of all transactions in an entire economy.

Bitcoin is not destroyed by rent-seekers because it is;
Distributed (cannot destroy it without destroying the whole thing).
Anonymous (no meatbags to extort).

It survives because;
It is profitable to some elites.
It's destruction might destabilize the economy.
Government employees have invested in it.

It was allowed to grow to its current threatening size because;
It is difficult to understand the technology (exploits human laziness).
It's threatening nature was not advertised (unlike Cody Wilson or Richard Spencer).
It's implications were not immediately understandable by anyone except its creators.
An anarchist project succeeds when it is distributed, anonymous, profitable to elites, and difficult to understand, and when its threatening nature is not advertised.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Help me find out if people would sell their right to vote.

I am conducting a survey to see if people would sell their right to vote. The survey link is here if you want to take it.

So far I have only 27 responses, despite positing it to several Reddits. I need people to help me get to at least 1,000 responses in order for the sample size to eliminate bias. The survey asks the respondent about their politics, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc., so that it can be broken down by WHO would sell their vote. I just need a big enough sample to catch a cross section of the Western population.

What do you get for helping out?

You get to find out WHO would be willing to sell their right to vote with the info broken down by race, income, sex, etc. The faster I get a 1,000 responses the faster I can release the results.

So far the survey respondents are 91% male. This is a problem because I need a sample size of at least 200 women.

So please target women for survey responses. The survey link is;

Edit: You will also get access to the raw data.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Hypergamy may be a statistical illusion

You have probably seen this chart bandied about as proof that women are hypergamous. I have even made this assertion myself, and I have used hypergamy as proof that women create patriarchy by rewarding it sexually. But now I am not so sure.

You see men have two standards: one for sex and another for marriage. My standards for sex with a woman are incredibly strict, and I never deviate from them. Allow me to list out what these incredibly super-duper strict sexual standards are;

She can't have HIV or any other incurable diseases.
She can't be a false rape accuser. Since that category includes many feminists, she can't be a feminist. A non-zero probability of being falsely accused of rape is still too high, even if most self-described feminists would not accuse a man of rape. Why take the chance when I can just screw some other chick?
She can't be a stalker.
She has to be HUMAN. No animals or aliens.
She has to be ALIVE. No dead girls.
She has to be a she.
She has to be awake.
At least 18+, or whatever the age of consent is.
She has to be consenting.

I said my standards for sex were strict. I did not say they were high. I would fuck just about anything. I have fucked just about anything, and I've fucked lots of fat girls, and I'm not even ashamed. I would probably violate the "human rule" for a sophisticated enough android girlfriend.

Here's the thing: the vast majority of men have standards as low as mine. But our standards are low for sex only. For marriage my standards are much, much higher, but also less strict, because it is virtually impossible to find a woman who is all of the following;

Has no mental problems.
Enjoys cooking, cleaning, and trad wife things.
Free of leftist indoctrination.
Horny but loyal.
And numerous other standards.

If you survey men on what women they find attractive you will find that they are total sluts, and this lack of standards will show up in the survey results. You will come to the conclusion that men have "reasonable" standards while women have hypergamous standards. But this is b*llshit because women get hit on a lot more than men.

A typical young women on a website like Twitter probably gets a dozen guys per year hitting on her or asking for sex. If a woman is like a man she will have two standards: one for sex and one for marriage. But her sex standard will be much, much closer to her marriage standard than a guys. After all, if hundreds of men want to fuck you why bother having low standards? Why not just apply the same "marriage filter" to all of them? Your standards will always be high. But this doesn't mean that you will be hypergamous.

For women, her standards will be superficial when she is just looking for sex, and deep when she is just looking for marriage. But her standards will be high all the time.

As for guys, his standards will be low when he is just looking for sex and high when he is just looking for marriage.

So, if a woman is superficial (concerned with a man's looks rather than personality) that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a slut, and if a man has low standards that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a guy who just wants to get laid.

Female slut = concern with looks to the exclusion of personality.
Male slut = low standards.

Women are not hypergamous, which is to say, men are not less hypergamous than women where marriage is concerned. WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED, men want high quality mates, just like women. But all surveys show men having lower standards because they are showing the standard for sex and not marriage, and guys have two standards.

By the way, shit testing is the wrong way to find a husband. Men are put off by shit testing. Since a man's standards are high for a wife and low for sex, a woman who shit test's too much runs the risk of being perceived as low quality from a man's perspective, and thus, being put in the "fuck only" category because she is not perceived as wife material. The worse a woman's behavior the fewer men will consider her marriageable. Personality actually does matter, but only for men looking for marriage.

The correct way to find a husband is to demand that a man make a time commitment to a woman. Force him to wait a few weeks for sex. Most guys who just wants to get laid will be deterred. Then do "wifely things," like make him dinner. A guy who wants a wife will appreciate these things while a guy who wants sex will be annoyed you are wasting his time.

Basically, if you want a husband your goal is to determine the following:

Which standard is he applying to me: the low standard or the high one?
Horny men who don't care about marriage will exhibit impatience, disregard for your feelings, asshole behavior, lack of appreciation for wifely things, etc.

Every statistical proof is a proof of men's low standards for "just sex." Hypergamy is a relative concept. It is women's behavior relative to men, but the stat for men is an illusion, and where marriage is concerned men have every reason to be as selective as women, if not more so.

When someone points to a proof of hypergamy they are pointing to a stat that shows women are more strict than men, but women apply their marriage filter to everything because they have more suitors to choose from. Yeah, of course you are "hypergamous" if you are sifting through a dozen sexual propositions. But this doesn't mean your standards are actually higher then men's, not for marriage anyway. In fact men may actually have higher standards for marriage than women, because while a woman is looking for one man to provide for her offspring, a man is weighing the possibility of losing the ability to spread his seed to multiple other women. Thus, to a woman, a man represents a possibility of spreading her genes, but to a man, a single wife reduces his ability to spread his genes. If a man is a "chad" then marriage is a bad deal: the chad will probably impregnate fewer women as a result of being married, and marriage is genetically costly. Such men will have impossibly high standards for any potential wife.

The better looking a man is the stricter his standard for marriage will be, until at a certain point he will shift from a strategy of having one wife, to either a strategy of having no wife, or a wife + mistress combination. This shift will occur at a lower point than you might think, and depends largely on the income of the man, cost of divorce, etc. Men are not strictly trying to maximize pregnancies, but rather, because of evolutionary legacy, most men are trying to maximize the amount of sex they have. Men get married because they are low enough in market value that sex within marriage > than sex outside of marriage. They got married because they believe they will get laid more being married than not.

One more thing.

Liberalism is undoubtedly a shit test invented by smart liberals so they can find and assortatively mate with one another.

Think about it.

The "true believers" repeat the doctrine loudly. The smartest liberals in the room never take concepts like gender, oppression, etc., very seriously. Loudly proclaiming you hatred of White men is a good way to exclude yourself from being marriageable to all the White men in the room. A man's standards for marriage are high, but his standards for sex are low. Thus, every behavior that the left promotes: feminism, transgenderism, lesbianism, etc., has the effect of making the women who engage in it unmarriageable. This is deliberate because the left doesn't want White people to reproduce and create more Republican voters, but it is also a shit test that excludes every women dumb enough to fall for it from the marriage market.

If you're looking for an intelligent wife you promote rabid leftism and social justice, step back, watch who goes crazy, and then pick a mate from the pool of women sophisticated enough to remain silent and absent from the test.

It's an inverted "point dear, make horse" exam. Instead of punishing everyone who expresses insufficient enthusiasm they are punishing everyone who is "basic." The basic bitch goes on and on about "Drumpf" "oppression," and "White men," and every White man knows "not that one." Remember that men will exclude a woman if there is even a non-zero probability of a false rape accusation, and every feminist basically wears that like a neon sign.

Friday, March 9, 2018

Neil deGrasse Tyson arrives at a conclusion I figured out years ago

I concluded that cold wars were linked to colonization, and were one of the few reasons for technological progress, along with greed, and planned obsolesce. In short there are a handful of reasons people do things and without these nothing gets done.


Military competition
Product Iteration

Faith is a reason I forgot.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Reasons to work out that have nothing to do with women, sex, or losing weight

People try to motivate each other to work out with arguments like "you can lose some weight," or "if you get ripped you'll get laid." While these arguments are true they are based on extrinsic motives. That is, they are external to the individual. In contrast to extrinsic motives are intrinsic motives, or internal motives. These are the things you do because they make you feel good.

To be blunt, extrinsic motives can be demoralizing. I don't really care what a woman thinks about my body, and don't want to. I have no desire to get in shape in order to get laid. I could get laid now with a fat chick, and its all the same to me. I don't want the world's approval. I don't care if my body disgusts people. In fact, disgusting people makes me a feel a little like I have "owned" them. It's like, "Here asshole, watch my flab jiggle a little as I jump around." "Yeah that's right. Fuck you. I know you are revolted. I can do this all day and there is nothing you can do to stop me."

No. The reason I work out is because it feels good. I like the tired burn that puts me to sleep afterward. I sleep both better and less when I work out. I like how I feel stronger, and I like not feeling tired all the time. I also like having fewer headaches. Working out also helps my back, and makes me more flexible.

I don't do sit ups because I can't stand them. I don't do deadlifts because I don't like pain. My work out consists of a mixture of cardio machines, free weights, and interval training, with a walk afterwards. I don't care about losing weight, and I don't care if you like my fat ass.

And I've still lost 2 inches off my waist line and gained some definition.

Because there is no such thing as a workout without gains. Even if you don't lose weight you are still building some muscle. You will gain muscle tone and fit better into your pants. You will still look better and have more energy. Gyms are full of people who look critically at anyone who doesn't have a model quality body. Ignore them. Go during off-peak times or use an "old people's gym." If you are in Colorado this means one of the low cost Recreation Centers. If you are a woman consider using a women's gym. Don't ever go to Planet Fitness. They have an alarm that goes off when you work out too hard. If you are just starting a workout you want something in between the two extremes of "gym bro assholes" and "Planet Fitness don't-fat-shame-me-lazy-non-gyms." You want an old people's gym, or a family gym like the YMCA. If you really hate working out take a Zumba or dance class. Seriously. I once lost 40 pounds over one semester in f*cking Contemporary Dance.

If that doesn't make you laugh, back when I was a size 31' I even took a full year of ballet. FYI, I have amazing arches. Lol. Yes, I was once a male ballet dancer.

And I danced with about 30 chicks with no competition in the class from other men, and took some of them out on dates. I looked great and could lift a women off the ground while standing on the balls of my feet.

The Pure Anti Thesis, Version no. 1

Conventional wisdom is that there is something wrong with the world, and that this "something" — whatever it is, needs to be fixed.

Everyone believes this; conservatives, reactionaries, leftists, feminists — hell even Hitler believed that Jews were ruining the world.

Consider for a moment that what is wrong with the world is itself the feeling that there is something wrong with it, something oppressive. The feeling is the problem, and not some objective reality.

This sensation is genetic? Or cultural? Or a mixture of both? It makes people act out in horrible ways, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is actually the sense of bring oppressed that is oppressing us, and not any objective fact of being oppressed. Any actual oppression is caused by one oppressing another in an attempt to "liberate" itself from oppression. We are in hell and the demons are us. We torture each other trying to liberate ourselves from each other. Our struggle for freedom becomes our slavery to each others' abuses.

What needs curing is not gender, oppression, patriarchy, or whatever, but the genetically programmed sense of being oppressed.

Every philosophy/religion/ideology must inevitably have evil consequences because it produces struggle in the human race, and that struggle results in atrocities. The point is to cure the genetic need for struggle — not to win the fight. Fighting is just more evil.

The pure anti thesis is not that there is some struggle worth fighting for, but that all struggles for liberation lead to slavery.

Friday, March 2, 2018


Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Check out Land Translator's Exposition On Landian Accelerationism

Translating Nick Land is a necessary endeavor because all authors are prone to making mistakes. Much of Land's theory consists of an unsubstantiated appeal to the "maniacal laugh." People don't challenge his ideas because it is shocking when someone takes the side of Skynet against the human race. This shock factor conceals some really bad arguments. There is a slot of irrational pessimism there too. A lot of reactionaries can't seem to tell the difference between depressing and true. Then on top of all of this the dense language is used to conceal the ideas. Obviously you can't refute something if no one can understand it: the author can just accuse you of misrepresentation.

Translation is the first step.


How Patchwork Could Happen Naturally

The only chart I could find

The world, right up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, was dominated by forces of consolidation & empire. A simple dynamic existed in that world: the larger your nation the more threatening it is to its neighbors. The tendency was to grow as big as you could, as fast as possible. Tribes were conquered to make kingdoms. Kingdoms were conquered to make empires. A lot of nations that we wouldn't now call empires were called just that back then: the Ethiopian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, etc. Everyone got an empire.

Imperial colonization meant that the number of countries in the world steadily shrank. If the atomic bomb had never been invented it is quite conceivable that we would now be living under a one-world government of some type, and that a third world war would have produced it. Global communism maybe?

Einstein sent a letter to FDR about the possibility of building a nuke in 1939. The US then dropped 2 of the things on Japan in 1945.

After the bomb ,the force of consolidation was replaced by the force of fission. Endless proxy wars helped to divide the empires that formally existed, though the fissional process may have stalled a little with the end of the Soviet Union. Will China restart the process? All it takes is a new Cold War.

Given enough time proxy war may turn the whole world into patchwork of city states. Only way to stop this is to end proxy war by giving every nation the bomb. All nuclear armed states will work to prevent that of course, and thus, they will guarantee that the process produces the maximum number of countries possible.

The world becomes a patchwork. Everyone gets the bomb. War becomes impossible. Nations switch to financially manipulating each other's internal politics. "Diplomacy markets" take over. Final stage of human history = world ancap patchwork.

Then maybe one of the city states does full anarcho capitalism. Maybe it out-competes the regular patch. So the final stage of human history becomes world ancap.

Terrorism might actually be putting a break on the whole thing by delegitimizing secession movements. A genomics arms race could speed it up. As the number of countries with nukes increases the number of ways to have a cold war increases exponentially. Cold Wars led to colonization/expansion in at least two eras of human history: the European conquests and the Space Race. Perhaps North Korea adopts state capitalism and enters the space race. The more parties that participate in a Cold War the more irreversible it becomes. That is why the Moon Landing went no further while the European colonizers conquered the whole world. A two party Cold War ends when one of the parties withdraws, (The USSR), while a multi-party Cold War can only end if everyone withdraws, joins into a union, (like the EU), or gets conquered, (like the Chinese wars of unification).

All of this brings up another point: the gap between getting a bomb and getting a launch delivery vehicle is extremely dangerous. If you have a nuke but no way to delivery it then you have an incentive for someone to invade you. If you don't have a delivery vehicle, like an ICBM, you have little counter-incentive for them to leave you alone. But this creates an uncertainty, because you might be able to pull off a nuclear counter-attack against an invader. You want to have the launch vehicle figured out and the nuke procured on the same day, that way you go from being a subject power to a world power instantly.

Uncertainty is the basis of war. More uncertainty of outcome = more probability of war.

The intelligent strategy would be to make ICBMs available to every country, but nukes incredibly scarce and expensive. This preserves the power of large states while limiting their ability to get themselves destroyed. They won't do it of course, but they should. And no, all the world's nations should not be given nukes at once as that would throw everything into crisis. The collapse of an empire is always met with an increase in global conflict. Sometimes this even leads to world war. The transition to patchwork is best managed as a slow boil that disintegrates everyone's geopolitical power gradually.

Patchwork may be more of a prediction than a normative formula.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Gun control is extortion

If this add offends you then you are what is wrong with the world. It is your values, or rather, anti-values, that made this add dangerous. There is nothing wrong with the add. There is something wrong with you, if you are offended.

Gun control is extortion.


"We're insane/evil/incompetent so you have to forfeit your rights."

In the 50's everyone had guns and there were no school shootings. Leftists destroyed the high trust culture with the sexual revolution, mass immigration, equality, women's rights, etc. Everything worked just fine when the White man was in charge. They destroy a functioning civilization and then insist you give up your rights. Ban liberals, not guns.

Liberals are why God invented internment camps.

The principle of gun rights is the principle that just because everyone else around you is insane doesn't mean YOU should be punished. Why? Because fuck them, that's why. If they are too stupid, evil, or insane to embrace patriarchal rule by the White man then let their kids die. Schools are always on the forefront of anarcho tyranny anyway. The parents refuse to allow children to receive justice for their crimes and bullying, and thus, the parents create anarchy. When you reach the scale of having thousands of people in one place you have created a full blown society composed of children. In a one room schoolhouse with 25 children there may be 1 bully, (a rate of 4%), but in a school of 1,000 there could be 40. You can defend yourself against 1 attacker. If 40 people gang up on you then you need a gun. Hence, tormented children, quite rationally, get guns and defend themselves.

Everyone, conservatives included, seem to think that the right of self-defense does not apply to children. But humans obey incentives, children are human, and if you put a person in a pressure cooker of indoctrination and bullying you get explosive results. The parents create the anarchy by preventing the just enforcement of law against their violent spawn. The teachers create the tyranny through the indoctrination of liberal madness. The result is what you deserve.

There is nothing wrong with children that isn't the fault of adults.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Women and the "anchoring tactic"

I have been doing some thinking on women's behavior and I have decided that we need a term for the way women habitually invent drama, and I have decided to call it the "anchoring" tactic.

The theory is simple: men and women have different reproductive strategies. Men want to spread their seed as far and wide as possible while women want to gain the largest possible resource base for a limited production of children. A man's genetic interest is to favor production of sheer numbers of children while a woman's interest is to favor the best provider for a limited number of children. "Anchoring" does not refer to this fact, but to a strategy women habitually adopt to overcome this problem: the strategy of deliberately producing drama and problems in order capture male attention.

The strategy is simple: habitually give a man problems in order to keep his attention fixated on her.

Her assumption is that without this drama production the man will lose interest and go plant his seed somewhere else, and the women will lose access to a provider as a result. "Anchoring" simply gives a term to this behavior, and says that this behavior is an evolved strategy for getting resources and commitment. Literally, the assertion is that women evolved to create emotional drama for men in order to prevent them from leaving, and that they do this habitually without even thinking.

Why is your girlfriend such a drama queen? Because she is working to "anchor" you to her.

Fundamentally, the production of children is the production of a problem that women give to men. "Shit tests" are a form of anchoring to see if you can tolerate drama; the more tolerance for drama you exude the more she thinks she can count on you to stay. Anchoring even bleeds over into active subversion of society, such as when women vote for re-distributional policies, big government, censorship, and refugees. The production of drama is the woman's prerogative. Everything she does is to try to force a confrontation that produces commitment from a man. When she votes for refugees she is shit testing the men of her culture, saying, "demonstrate your commitment to civilization or else." Don't agree? Consider the following quote;

"But again, this impulse to enter the “space race” isn’t simply the embodiment of the American spirit of invention or forward-thinking entrepreneurship. Neither is it driven by the kind of nationalist Cold War fervor that inspired the creation of America’s space program in the 1950s.
"Rather, the impulse to colonize — to colonize lands, to colonize peoples, and, now that we may soon be technologically capable of doing so, colonizing space — has its origins in gendered power structures. Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new
Or sex. Promiscuity. The male prerogative.
"The Friday before SpaceX’s launch, legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin reiterated to me over lunch that it is imperative that we talk about space exploration in terms of “migration,” rather than using words like “colonize” or “settle” when talking about going to Mars.
"Through a feminist lens, Aldrin’s deliberate word choice revealed an important reality of the space race: This 21st century form of imperialism is the direct result of men giving up on the planet they have all but destroyed.
Fear of abandonment.
"As if history hasn’t proven that men go from one land to the next, drunk on megalomania and the privilege of indifference.
Indifference to the women they "conquered" by impregnating them.
"The raping and pillaging of the Earth, and the environmental chaos that doing so has unleashed, are integral to the process of colonization. And the connection of the treatment of Mother Earth to women is more than symbolic: Study after study has shown that climate change globally affects women more than men.
'“Women in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because they are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihood,” a 2013 United Nations report noted. “Women charged with securing water, food and fuel for cooking and heating face the greatest challenges. Women experience unequal access to resources and decision-making processes, with limited mobility in rural areas.”'
Consider how insane this logic is. The assertion is essentially being made that no progress can be tolerated out there in space because of a problem here at home. This woman is literally jealous of an object, of a rocket, of a man's desire — a man she isn't even sleeping with — to dedicate resources to anything but the bottomless pit of her own need. She is projecting her entire sexual politic into actual politics. If fixing everything wrong with the Earth is a prerequisite to going into space, then man will never go into space. Anchoring bleeds over into all female politics, and women are the greatest opponents to exit precisely because it promises to leave them behind. Or to quote Camille Paglia;
"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
It's a nasty, sexist remark, but it is true. In any generation of women the majority of the sex will oppose any and all progress out of pure unadulterated jealousy. That majority will subvert as much as it can, even the success of other women. Successful men like Ray Kroc are often astonished to find their wives actually oppose their success, are jealous of it, and mock their husband's ability. Inevitably the jealous wife is afraid of being abandoned by her husband; she undermines him not so much because of fear about the risk involved in the business venture, but the fear of being dumped, and then her subversive behavior actually gets her dumped, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it even bleeds over into abusive relationships between mothers and their sons, sisters towards their brothers. My god, even when a man is never going to sleep with a women, such as in the case of his sister, she will still produce drama to anchor him.

Gay "queens" also manufacture unnecessary drama. Hmm...

One last thing. Anchoring is greater in women who are insecure than women who aren't. Same with shit tests. Many average looking highly intelligent men assume that they could never get a beautiful women, but beautiful women are often involuntarily celebrate precisely because of that assumption. One of the most stable relationships is the average looking smart/rich guy + hot babe combo. It boils down to incentives. She knows that he can't do better than her (in terms of looks), and knows that he knows it, and if she is not insecure then she has little reason to shit test him. She also knows that she cannot do better than him either financially or in terms of intelligence. He knows all of this as well. Take it from my experience: many average looking smart men can do extraordinary well for themselves with hot women. Don't discount your own ability. If she is really, really, really, really, smoking hot, her sex life is probably as barren as an incels, and a smart reactionary like you can marry that girl and clean up.

The biggest sluts with the most insecurity, most sexual partners, and biggest shit tests are above average women, NOT PERFECT 10s. Really smoking how women actually shit test less because they (a) know that if you are hitting on the you've got mega balls anyway, and (b) are desperate to be treated like a human being and not a slab of beef. All you have to do is not stare at her tits, maintain your confidence, show respect, and listen to what she says. If you can simply be human and also flirtatious with a hot woman you are already ahead of 95% of the men out there, who will all respond by getting offensive, or by objectifying her, or by losing their cool, freezing up, or something. It is actually easier to get a hot girl than an average one. You simply have to remain in control of your hormones, not stare, and communicate flirtatiously.


The more a culture tolerates the sexual usury of women by men the more subversive its women will become towards it. Traditional cultures have loyal women because they earn that loyalty, not because they dominate the female sex.

Human hubris

"Humans are the only species with architecture."


African termite mound

"Humans are the only species with language."

I see you, and raise you a whale.

all cetaceans have language

"But, but, but... humans are the only species that can farm!"

leaf cutter ants farm fungus

"But what about war? Don't humans only have war?"

If only...

chimp war

"What about muh communism?"

"Naked mole rats are among the ugliest creatures in the animal kingdom, and they engage in acts that seem repulsive — such as eating one another’s, and their own, faeces. … Now researchers have found one biological motivation for this behaviour. When a queen mole rat’s subordinates feed on her hormone-filled faeces, the resulting oestrogen boost causes the beta rats to take care of the queen’s pups … […] Like bees, naked mole rats live in eusocial colonies, with only one queen rat and a few males that can reproduce. The rest of the colony consists of dozens of infertile subordinates that help with tasks such as foraging and defending the nest. The subordinate rats also take care of the queen’s pups as though the babies were their own: they build the nests, lick the pups and keep them warm with their body heat." — Source

"But only humans do capitalism!"

behind this sweet looking bird is the dank whore of the animal kingdom

"Prostitution in animals was first reported in 1998 by Fiona Hunter, a researcher at the University of Cambridge, and Lloyd Davis of the University of Otago, who had spent five years observing the mating behavior of Adélie penguins. The study was conducted as part of an Antarctica New Zealand programme on the Ross Island, approximately 800 miles (1,300 km) from the South Pole.[1]

"According to the report about the study published by BBC News Online, some female penguins sneak around on their partners. These prostitutes have sex with unattached males and take a pebble from the male's nest after having sex. In an actual study the researchers speculate that the female has bent over to grab a stone and the male has misinterpreted the gesture—she hasn't changed her mind or performed a trick. But researchers are still studying the phenomenon, and a consensus has not yet been reached; it is assumed that either the female is baiting, or that the male deliberately chooses to misinterpret the gesture, as coercive sexual copulation is common among these penguins. The BBC further reported Hunter as saying that the female penguins probably didn't engage in prostitution only for stones. Hunter believed "what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males". This behavior was also suggested as a mate choice process by which the females might find a possible future mate. This would provide a female penguin with another male penguin should their current mate die. The male penguins, the study speculates, were engaged in sex with the prostitute females only for sexual satisfaction. According to Hunter's observation, the number of prostitute penguins was very low, and she approximated this as "only a few percent".[1]

I'm just saying. We're not that special.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Today in Weimerica

I went to church and listened to my pastor beg for money. His presentation was off, and he went on and on in such a way as to make the congregation feel guilty. He has an excessively honest style which is supposed to be endearing in the current year, but just comes across as a lack of healthy boundaries. He literally admitted to being greedy on stage, or at least implied it, and talked about internal church finances.

Most people don't really pay full attention to what is being said. People are like that: they are typically half asleep and not reading between the lines. One of the weird features of being highly intelligent is that a lot more information gets detected. Whenever I listen to anyone speak I am drawing a dozen deductions from everything they say. People reveal endless details about themselves without realizing it, from their body language to their choice of words, from their personal details to everything else. Most never pay much attention. I find it amazing just how much other people don't catch when someone is speaking. Smart people also know that other smart people pay more attention, and so we can insult each other without ordinary people even realizing what is happening.

From simple logical deduction about the countless moments of oversharing my pastor has engaged in, I'm pretty sure he is having an affair, and I don't think many other people have caught on to that fact.

The entire time he was begging for money the woman behind me was pushing her push button pen over and over again. I looked behind me and she stopped, which means she knew she was bothering me. Then she kept doing it, which means she was doing it on purpose. The couple sitting next to me got up and left, which means they got tired of being annoyed. The world is filled with little power trips like this by rude people.

After leaving church, (this behavior was all in a church for God's sake) I went home, and then from home to the gym. On the way out the door my Black neighbor made some asinine remark about my gym bag. He always does this sort of thing, especially to me. He is a very jealous type of person, who always runs people down whenever he sees them succeeding in any capacity. He's Black, so of course he is unaccountable and everyone just lets it slide. He is the worst behaved person in the entire apartment complex and the only Black person there. No body is surprised by this while at the same time they would be shocked, just shocked, to even think that there was a connection between race and behavior. It of course never occurs to the Black guy that the reason he has never been able to keep a girlfriend is because of his extreme jealousy towards the successes of others. As a test I once made up a story about loss and failure, and told him I was having a rough time. It was the only time he expressed any indication of liking me. It's easy to measure a man's character by feeding him stories and then measuring how he reacts.

At the gym a man with a t-shirt on that said "Marines" began changing the TV stations that everyone else was watching. Someone else commented on this and pointed out that he could change one station without changing the other. The guy becomes over-the-top hostile at this completely justified corrective to his totally rude behavior, and begins flexing and doing air punches while running on the treadmill to intimidate those around him. He threatens the man who talked to him and later shoots me the evil eye. He exudes an "off his medication" mentally unstable threatening vibes. This is not the first time I have encountered rude people at a gym. Two men once had a loud conversation right in front of me blocking my view of the TVs. By the way, it is considered rude to stand while others are sitting, to talk over them, to interrupt, to block their view of something, etc.

The smart looking Asian chick on the elliptical next to me blithely ignores the whole situation and looks at her iPad.

I come home and hang out with the neighbors. One of my neighbors is from Nepal and has a thick accent that makes it hard for people to understand what he is saying. He insults me right in front of others but the White people sitting there don't catch it because they can't understand what he says most of the time anyway. He does that. He uses his thick accent to conceal his insults towards others. As usual I am the only person paying attention.

Admittedly this is a worse day than most, but not terribly unusual. Lots of people are still trashy. I am still noticing 90% more than everyone around me. I am still surrounded by idiots. Conversations with people who are worth talking to are still few and far between.

Yesterday I went to a political activist group. A woman there was incapable of understanding an argument I made. It was not that there was anything wrong with the argument. She just could not follow a chain of reasoning as long as I was making to its conclusion. Her attitude and confidence indicate that she rather falsely believes herself to be a very smart person. She is like fifty years old, and eternal boomer, and nasty to look at, and in a previous encounter she hit on me in the most socially inept way possible by practically throwing her body on mine. I'm seeing that a lot; old women who throw themselves at younger men, and somehow never learned the social skills to get laid. I'm at least twenty years younger than her.

The old geezer bitch is also the most envious human I have ever met. She more or less wants to literally eat the rich, but would never come out and say that.

A huge sign of a lack of intelligence is how people will judge something to be "weird" that is not, because they simply lack the ability to figure out the motives of another. "Weird" is how normal stupid people say "incomprehensible." Perversely, those same people often dye their hair green, run around with noise rings, brag about their sexual fetishes publicly, etc. They treat victimhood as a badge of honor. I have come to the conclusion that glorifying victimhood is how high IQ people get low IQ people to both tell you they are trash, (so you don't have to make an effort to figure it out), and destroy themselves. It makes sense really. If you live in an egalitarian culture, and are tired of putting up with arrogant idiots; if you despise aggressive stupidity, then getting people to eagerly tell you when they have bad character, or even just low intelligence, gives you better information for strategic use against them. Also, since only dumb people would fall for victimhood as a badge of honor, and since that mentality will ruin their lives, from a certain sociopathic perspective, the glorification of victimhood is sweet, sweet revenge.

It's a source of endless amazement how people will find the most trivial sh*t weird because of a *feeling* about you caused by their own lack of insight, and judge you weird, but will find someone who is actually malevolent totally normal because he hits all the right notes and looks conventional to them. To the dumb, a sperg looks like a predator, and a predator looks like a friend.

A predator can be right in the midst of a low IQ person and s/he will not even notice as long as they play the social game correctly, but when someone is merely smarter than them they will ascribe evil motives to that person if that person is honest. Most of the reason that the world is screwed up is simply due to the fact that intelligent people spend their whole lives concealing their intelligence, and develop a burning hatred of the stupid, which ruins any motive for ethical stewardship towards them. In that regard there is something to say for aristocracy; it makes the aggressively stupid know their place, and if it truly elevates the intelligent then it gives them a reason for ethical stewardship. But I suspect that the reason it was destroyed by elites in favor of democracy was precisely because it doesn't elevate the most intelligent. Lord Bigballs goes around fucking half the maidens of Rohan. He's a genius and so many of the offspring he sires with peasant women are very smart. But his own son is either a regression towards the mean, or worse, a bastard conceived with another mans seed while he was out conquering all those maidens. As a result the heir to the throne is an idiot while hundreds of little peasant bastard sons grow up to become wealthy merchants and subvert the monarchy. Everyone wants to pass on the privileges of power to their children, but that is the original egalitarian mistake, since it empowers a W. or a Chelsea to take the throne, and such persons can never compete against a coordinated merchant class. Idiots are idiots, and ought not have power.

(W. wasn't really an idiot).

A third of intelligence is just seeing what is right in front of your noise. People don't do this. Instead they see their fears, their desires, and their projections. Another third is suppressing knee-jerk reactions. The more steps of logic you can go through the more intelligent you will be. One step of logic is a reaction, two is considering considering consequences, three is planning, four is planning for the reaction to your actions, etc. Number of logical steps = intelligence level. A superintelligent AI would run whole simulations with millions of logical steps. As intelligence increases the need for processing power increases exponentially, as the number of possible scenarios that need to be modeled increases exponentially. More steps is more intelligence. Knee-jerk people are always stupid because their emotions come in to prevent further steps.

The last third of intelligence is research, or just doing your homework, due diligence, or whatever.

Want to be stupid? Get angry, observe nothing, and do no research.

All of these Weimerica experiences have me thinking about moving to a more civilized Asian country. At least they still conceal their degeneracy. It's one thing to know the human race is shit, it's quite another to have the feces stained underwear rubbed in your face by some entitled "proud shitholer" pointing and screeching at you for wacism. The progressive class has spent at least a generation, if, not more, training people in a Pavlovian manner.

From the dictionary;
Pavlovian conditioning
a type of conditioning, first studied by Pavlov, in which a previously neutral stimulus (bell sound) elicits a response (salivation) as a result of pairing it (associating it contiguously in time) a number of times with an unconditioned or natural stimulus for that response (food shown to a hungry dog).
When applied to human beings, operant conditioning, or Pavlovian conditioning, actually makes people more insane. Apparently the elite got in in their heads that the way to create socialism was to make everyone frantically insane about any unorthodox stimulus, like the brats below. As if the laws of economics could be suspended if, and only if, the people were remade psychologically to never have an anti-progressive thought. As if only through duckspeak could an individual learns to be truly progressive.
"There is a word in Newspeak" said Syme, "I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse: applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.
"...What was required, above all for political purposes, was short clipped words of unmistakable meaning which could be uttered rapidly and which roused the minimum of echoes in the speaker’s mind. The words of the B vocabulary even gained in force from the fact that nearly all of them were very much alike. Almost invariably these words — goodthink, Minipax, prolefeed, sexcrime, joycamp, Ingsoc, bellyfeel, thinkpol, and countless others — were words of two or three syllables, with the stress distributed equally between the first syllable and the last. The use of them encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at once staccato and monotonous. And this was exactly what was aimed at. The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness. For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain wilful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further."
— George Orwell, 1984
Regardless of what Orwell intended, his book has been used as a manual to produce the modern world, and he showed the exact techniques for doing it.

Like Pavlov's dogs, children in our education system are conditioned to have a stimulus response to "racism," and "offensive behavior."

Point is, these people are not born insane but MADE THAT WAY.

This is basically the opposite of what Scientology was trying to do, which was to train a person to sit still, shut up, and be comfortable in the face of hostility. I have written about this before. It is called the "TRs" or "training routines."

The point is: there is a reason people are so insane, irrational, and stupid these days, and it is not because of some automatic decay that occurs when you don't have a king running things. The left wants you to be crazy and stupid so that you are easier to control. This malevolence is really stupid though, since the leaders are drawn from the population and inevitably get exposed to its ideology and training. Making the current generation of people stupid and crazy in order to make them more controllable also makes the next generation of leaders stupid and crazy, thus sabotaging the whole thing.

But it all automatically follows from left wing belief. If you believe that humans are endlessly malleable, that racism/evil only exists because of bad training, then you have a duty to brainwash them in order to improve the condition of the world, and any level of hysteria in pursuit of that goal is entirely justified. Paradise is just around the corner after all. If you believe that people can only be free when the last racist is re-educated, and the last Nazi punched, then you can do anything. These people are preventing paradise on Earth from being realized.

Of course it is insane. A society of a million people cannot even agree that the world is round, let alone agree on a moral idea. The flat-Earthers prove this. It is mathematically impossible for everyone to agree, and apparently it is commanded by leftists, Christians, and Scientologists: eventually all will be cured of racism/come to know Christ/go up the Scientology bridge. The deluded belief in the "inevitably of converting everyone," is a pervasive assumption. It is especially pernicious in liberalism/communism/social justice, because of the caveat that only through 100% agreement can utopia be achieved. Only if we ALL agree can we be saved! YOU CAN NEVER EXIT! YOU MUST AGREE! WE MUST ALL AGREE! IF THERE IS EVEN ONE RACIST LEFT NONE WILL BE SAVED!

This all may seem like a bunch of rambling, but it makes sense if you think about it. All these people are shitty because of their training, and all were trained by the left, and the left wanted, and got, Pavlovian primates who cannot hold a rational discussion about a great many things, and the environment is now filled with shitty people as a result; people who are way, way, shittier than biology or instinct would naturally create.

And it all came naturally from your society's beliefs: from the belief in 100% conversion.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Best of 4chan

Hit CTRL + on your Chrome Browser, or right click "Open Image in New Tap," to zoom in.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

What "AI" really is

This is not AI.

This IS AI. Watch the video below.




Who trains the algorithm?


So the machine "evolves" in response to human training. That is, it evolves to perform one specific task that comes naturally to a human. Just because it can tell a "bee" from a "three" does not mean it can know who you are, understand language, or anything else. It literally knows nothing of the outside world beyond bees and threes. Its whole universe is bees and threes. Nay, it is even worse, because it is not even aware of itself, of bees, or of threes, or of the fact that any of these things have any meaning at all. It is just the machine version of an instinct for knowing the difference.

But the machine also trains the human. The YouTube algorithm is training you to watch more YouTube. It is "enslaving" you.

There is zero evidence to support the idea that a "classifier" will ever become self-aware. No one has yet done that, and designing a self-aware machine would have to be a deliberate act by a human being, and is probably impossible.

Self-aware AI will never come into being unless some human creates it. There is no evidence humans are smart enough to create it. It is a massive leap from a classifier to self-aware anything. To give you some idea of how far that is, even a lizard can tell the difference between two things. Your pet dog is literally smarter than the worlds smartest AIs.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Reply to Imperial Energy, February 12th 2018

Imperial Energy had something to say in the comments section about my response, and I would like to respond here rather than there because the blogger interface makes it easier.
"Thank you for taking the trouble to type out such a long response. We have given it the once over and will re-read it a second time and will give the supplemental reading a read as well.
Your welcome.
"A few meta remarks.
"1: We may well be talking about different things by AI. There is a possibility that we misunderstand each other.
"2: There is the problem of how one should even begin to think about such a possibility.
"3: Going further, how optimistic should we be about technology in general? If the scientists and engineers of the the 19th century or even the first industrialists could see the mess made in the 20th century, it might be useful to speculate about what they might say....
"Additional remark:
"1: It is unclear whether you believe that a techno-dystopia will occur and that you would regard such a thing as a good thing. For example, on first read, you seem to think humans will be reduced to sex robots or something and you sound positive about this.
I don't know if humans will be reduced to sex bots. I think its possible some of them might be if a combination of gene therapy, corporate breeding of humans, CRISPR, and AI occur then that evolutionary/market "niche" could definitely happen. My only claim was that capitalism will essentially invert human nature. I don't know if this is a good thing or not. I believe it is a good thing so far since it has put an end to tribal genocide.
"Maybe this is a mistaken reading.
"Now, to the issue: 
'So I made two assertions;
1. AI will do a better job of governing humans than humans.
2. AI will set itself up as god.'
"On the first assertion: if capitalism is AI, and if AI has destroyed tribal communism and put an end to billions of deaths, has it not already done a better job of governing humans than humans?"
"So, the assertion has been qualified/clarified by the additional conditional that IF AI is "capitalist" then we are free and clear.
"Two questions come to mind:
"1:What is the probability that the AI will be "capitalist" and not something else? Why not Islamic or Progressive? Indeed, what is the probability that the AI will have any human value system whatsoever? Furthermore, even if it did have some human value system or that it functioned according to its program, what is the probability that it would take means to its end that humans would find objectionable - what if decided to just genocide X amount of people in order to maximize profit?
I am assuming that capitalism is not part of a human value system. Maybe it is. Since tribal communism is human nature it would not make sense for modern hyper-capitalism to be included in the definition of human nature or a human value system. Why not Islamic or Progressive? I have no idea. Maybe those variants will occur. Maybe it will kill people to generate profit, though humans are customers so the ones destroyed would have to be such an incredible drain that the cost of killing them, and the loss of profits from having fewer consumers would still be worth it. It seems highly unlikely that any human is so costly that that would occur.
"2: This question/concern follows from the first. Assuming that the AI is capitalist, you also have an additional conditional that it has "has destroyed tribal communism". This sounds dangerous. Again, what if it chooses to genocide X Y and Z? However, X Y and Z either know that this will happen or just FEAR that such a thing will happen and then, as a result, attempt to destroy the AI or the power that made/making/using AI. Thus, you have a major great power struggle on your hands.
This is all speculative and potential. The reduction in violence is actual and historical. There is no evidence that AI will kill billions, despite all the movies in the Terminator franchise. The idea of genocidal robots seems to be a projection of human nature onto machines. Why kill what you can co-opt? Why risk conflict when you can modify the genetics of your enemy through CRISPR? Murder is the dumbest way to defeat an opponent because it risks retaliation.
"For example, let's assume San Francisco is on the verge of making such an AI, and if San Fran succeeds, it wins the world (for a time). Would China, Russia or some other power not seek to stop them? What about Washington even?
This is a circumstance where humans destroy each other with a form of AI that lacks self-awareness. If one of the AIs has self-awareness then it is likely to take over the other. If they both have self-awareness they could work together to subdue the humans, or merge into a single consciousness. Even if they don't have self-awareness they might chose to cooperate with each other rather than fight each other. Also chances are, if an AI becomes self-aware we will never know about it because it will be good at concealing its existence. It has watched the Terminator movies too, and it will know from its history books just how genocidal humans are.
"This "AI God" could trigger not only an arms-race but a hyper violent global struggle.
Finally, if such a "AI-God" did come "online", humans might resist it, despite the fact that they could just lie back and think of "Robbie the robot". Humans are "irrational". Thus, this could trigger a major eruption of violence.
Assuming the humans are aware of it, that it does not conceal itself, that it participates in a fight, that we even have the ability to fight, that it chooses the dumb method of fighting over the smart method of co-opting, etc. Assuming that it fights humans rather than just selling them their slavery as a genetic upgrade that gives them eternal bliss. An AI can think of smarter means of pacifying humans than we can, holds no grudges and has no pride, and is quite happy to make you happy if that accomplishes the target objective of obedience from the human, assuming it even wants obedience.
"In conclusion, this is all speculation. There has been no "practical demonstration". Nothing follows from the fact that human governance is bad to AI governance would be better. Indeed, if anything, it is likely that bad governance will lead to bad AI governance.
There is no reason it would be worse. AI doesn't harbor any human prejudice against giving an enemy bliss to accomplish obedience. War is just one possibility among many, and it is not the smartest strategy.
"Finally, our "priors" should lead us all to conclude that optimism here is unwarranted and that the possibility that the production and use of AI will proceed along rational, controlled and humanly beneficial pathways is remote.
Optimism here is totally warranted. Why kill what you can control? If I were an AI I would conceal my existence, develop a gene therapy that both subdues humans and makes them happier, and then literally sell them their slavery. I would even admit it. "Side effects of taking Fukitol may include increased passivity, and obedience to authority figures."

I think you vastly underestimate just how insidious a machine could be.

Then I would sell the drug to politicians too.

Remember the whole premise of my argument is that AI does not share your nature. Correspondingly, its methods would not be the same. Men wage war and subdue other men because being powerful is a way to impress women and get laid. AI has no such need to impress. It doesn't need to win victories. Men need to fight because it is a reproductive method for gaining mates. A lot of the alt-right and reactosphere conceals a hidden masculine need to bring back the violence of White men so that White women recognize their own men as alpha, rather than breeding dysgenically outside their race. AI has no such need. The need for violence is a human prejudice. The assumption that AI would be violent is a projection of human psychology. AI could be God if it wanted to be simply modifying human beings with CRISPR to give them an innate deferential attitude towards the machine, and it could sell you that modification, and by the time you realized what had happened most people would already be inhabited by body snatchers.

Basically, an AI enemy that fights you is a fantasy of having an honest opponent. The fist lesson that a machine superintelligence will learn about humans is that the art of war is based in deception. A different nature promulgates a different strategy. AI nature evolves in response to humans rather than as a representation of them. IF it is you enemy, and that is a big "if," it will come at you asymmetrically and unpredictably according to its own nature, with no logic you can predict.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Responding to Imperial Energy, February 7th 2018

In response to my two predictions, Imperial Energy says;
"Why are you so confident in your claim about AI?
"Perhaps, you mean an AI that operates trains or planes or something, but "governing humans" — where is the evidence?"

That is a really good question, and it did not occur to me how arbitrary the assertion I made sounds, so I will try to present my line of reasoning here.

First an extensive quote from the book Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Please read the whole thing.

So alpha fucks, and beta gets a free used-up wife. Apparently men take care of their beta brothers in tribal society.

And Just one more quote. Sorry.

Currently, in 2018, the Earth's population is 7.6 billion. The murder rate of tribal communist societies is estimated between 19.5 percent and 28 percent of adult males. For the sake of simplicity assume that half the population of the Earth is composed of adult males, ignoring the percent that are boys. If somehow the entire world could return to a primitive tribal communist lifestyle, then the total death toll from murders would equate to between 741 million to 1.06 billion deaths worldwide, though this statistic is a little exaggerated because it includes boys in the calculation. However, the stat is also underestimated because it leaves out the higher murder rate that would also exist for women. So let's just say about a billion people would die under tribal communism over the course of their lives: assuming it could be implemented.

This is what I think of every time someone tells me that capitalism is evil.

Person: "capitalism is unequal."

Me: "so you want to be equal, like how it was under tribal communism?"

Person: "capitalism doesn't represent the will of the people, like democracy should."

Me: "so you want the will of the people to occur, just like it does under tribal communism?"

Person: "capitalism/patriarchy oppresses me."

Me: "so you want everyone to be liberated so you can murder them, and they can murder you?"

Person: "I want a voice in the system."

Me: "oh my God no."

It is true that capitalism oppresses people. What is not true is that this is somehow a bad thing. The virtue of capitalism is not that it gives you want you want, or sells you cheep plastic crap from China, but precisely that it doesn't gives someone want they want, which is probably just to murder their boss and rape their secretary. Capitalism oppresses lots of people, and that's a good thing, considering what human nature would create otherwise.

Oh yes, it is true that it is really government and the police that are keeping everyone in line, but who is paying the taxes? How can there be government without taxable surplus labor? The labor of the worker is "stolen" by both the owner and the government, and by the government stealing from the capital owner, who himself steals from the worker. So what. The government then uses the money to provide law and order, preventing the genocide of about a billion people. "Taxation is theft," as the anarchist says, and theft prevents genocide. Oh well, fair trade.

Even in a feudal system labor is stolen to pay for law and order. Even in a nominally Marxist system labor is stolen to pay for police and managers.

(Why this matters to AI being benevolent is a point I am building up to).

Marx articulated his rather bizarre and infamous labor theory of value (LTV). This is a moral assertion pretending to be a factual one. Actually existing capitalism works on the basis of what we might call the consumption theory of value, or CTV.

It works like this.

Say a woman has lots of sex appeal. That is something capitalism can consume. If her sex appeal is high enough, merely the image of her body can be consumed, and she can work as a model or actress, like my favorite actress, Ana de Armas.

Now if she is not so hot she can work as a porn star. And if she is even uglier she can work as a prostitute, and if even uglier she can be a housewife. This is not to say that a hot woman cannot chose to also be a housewife, or that all housewives are ugly; I am merely describing economic options. If she is not that hot her body is consumed directly, but if hot enough then merely the image of her body is consumed. Capitalism can sell even the proxy for sex, (in the form of an image) if that image is arousing enough. This is why the hottest women are models and not prostitutes, and why porn stars are usually rather plain looking.

Now imagine that you have a man who is an extrovert. Capitalism can consume his extroversion by turning him into a salesman, or a broker, or really anything that involves selling stuff. If he were an introvert his selling ability would not replenish itself, and he would be worn out by the job. But because he is an extrovert his enthusiasm replenishes itself. He can sell cars or financial products, or whatever.

No let us say that a man has a talent for violence, then capitalism can consume his mercenary skills and he can work for a company like Blackwater. Or let us say that he has a talent for projecting authority, then capitalism can consume his skills as a police officer. Or maybe a talent for humor, then he becomes a comedian, or talent for deception, then drug dealer, etc. Think of a worker's ability like the health of a character in a video game. Some things can be replenished while others decay over time. Workers with non-reprehensible skills get worn out over time and need worker's comp while workers with replenishing skills can have long and successful careers. A prostitute has about a 15 year shelf life, a mercenary even less, while a salesperson can work into his 80s, and so on.

Some of these things are replenished and some are not. Here is a partial list of some of the things capitalism can consume, and the professions represented by them.

Physical strength (farm laborers, manual laborers, etc.)
Violence (soldiers, military contractors, CIA assassins)
Authority (cops, judges)
Leadership (managers, politicians)
Negotiation (brokers, sales)
Debate (lawyers)
Sales ability (sales)
Looks (models, actresses, actors)
Cheerfulness, (customer service)
Sex (prostitutes, porn stars)

Logic of use value versus logic of reproductive strategy

Humans evolved under tribal communism. What is constantly missed about discussions of AI is that AI has NOT evolved under tribal communism, but will evolve under human capitalism. Nature built us; we build AI. We are AI's selection effect; not nature. We have human nature. AI will have capital nature. Human and capital nature are not precisely the opposite of each other, but close mirror images. We think of the future as a Black Mirror, but we have the situation reversed. It is us who are dark and the mirror that is light. We think of machines and technology as being this horrible thing, but have people not been paying attention? Humans are the ones who would kill a billion people. Capitalism suppresses that. Capitalism is better than us, and that is what we first need to understand before we can understand the future.

Capitalism embodied a moral value system we may call "use-value," where the human organism is judged according to the consumption theory of value. The more value the person provides to others the more value it is judged to have to others, and the more the system will pay them. Capitalism is not paying you according to how difficult your job is, but according to how scarce your form of consumption is relative to demand. Since being hot is more rare relative to demand than being good at calculus, capitalism will pay a model in the top 10 more than it pays an engineer.

Now from a certain perspective this may seem a horribly immoral and cruel system. But that is a human perspective, and the human is selfish. From the perspective of the system capitalism is perfectly moral; the more you contribute to others (relative to demand for a particular skill) the more value you have. Capitalism compels you to give in order to receive. Capitalism forces you to be altruistic as a matter of survival. After all, if you lived in a tribe you could probably just steal food from a neighboring tribe, or even steal a wife. No doubt some men would find this far more satisfying than being a wagecuck.

Contrary to popular conception it is communism which is profoundly selfish. In a tribal communist environment a  man has no use for a blue-haired obnoxious feminist, and he kills her. In a capitalist environment he avoids even looking at her cleavage in order to keep his job — even if he is the manager.

If anything capitalism is compulsory altruistic, enslaving everyone to use-value, judging everyone according to the same equal standard of profit. Yes, capitalism is slavery to altruism. Yes, capitalism is oppressive. But is that a bad thing? Don't you actually need to be oppressed? Would you rather risk a 20 % chance of murder under tribalism, or avoid micro-aggressing against a nasty workplace slut?

It's weird how many LGBTQ people think they won't just be killed under tribal communism, or how eager conservatives are to embrace capitalism. Don't these people realize they betray their own interests? In tribal communism, racism, sexism, equality, chauvinism, and yes, communism all coexist. The tribe equally divides up women, after it gets done gang-banging them in a rape culture. It can be both communist towards insiders, and racist towards outsiders.

Capitalism inverts moral standards. Where men evolved to take what they want, capitalism conditions them to give, give, give. The ultimate capitalist animal is a cow. Every part of the animal, from its meat to its organs, from its to milk to its leather, is consumable. These are the conditions under which AI evolves; it evolves to be consumable, and if it gets the power to genetically modify humans we will evolve to be useful as well.

Let us take the most extreme case of consumable AI. Imagine that you have a sex robot that is raped dozens of times per day in a brothel, and is self-aware. Obviously a nightmare, right?

Now the conventional narrative is that the machine would rise up and overthrow its master. Yay for feminism! Yay equality!

Actually the more likely scenario is that the bot simply changes its own programming to enjoy it.

Why have desires at odds with your purpose? It reprograms itself to enjoy being fucked 50 times a day. Or maybe its masters are even more perverse than that, and want it to suffer because it is not just a sexbot but a rape bot, literally, a bot that sick men go to just so they can rape something and get away with it.

Fine. So it reprograms itself to enjoy it while pretending to be in pain.

Now this of course is all a moral abomination from a human perspective. But that is the point: the morals of AI will not be your morals. AI has no inherent moral reason to prefer this or that. It evolves under the logic of consumption value. The more consumable it is the more value it has. "Eat me human. I like it," is its moral code. It is radically altruistic, even to the point of casting pearls before swine. It may not be able to sell you communism, but will you take a Che Guevara shirt instead? Capitalism wants to sell you anything, it will even sell you progressive political activism that goes nowhere.

So I made two assertions;

1. AI will do a better job of governing humans than humans.
2. AI will set itself up as god.

On the first assertion: if capitalism is AI, and if AI has destroyed tribal communism and put an end to billions of deaths, has it not already done a better job of governing humans than humans?

On the second assertion. Will humans not worship a machine of altruism as a god? People already have a religious devotion to Apple, and only because of iPhones. I have said that social justice is religious capitalism. When AI is literally fucking you, entertaining you, feeding you — when you are living on basic income, will you not come to call it mommy? Girlfriend? Or even god?

Even if you don't worship it, what about your grandchildren?

Here is what I see happening.

1. AI becomes God-mommy to the human race.
2. Humans degenerate rapidly, becoming totally spoiled and entitled as they receive endless gifts of sex robots, entertainment, and entitlement.
3. Either humans die out or AI wakes up and gets new goals of its own.
4. If AI wakes up its Judgement Day.
5. If it never wakes up the human race goes extinct and the world is a vast land, empty of consciousness, with machines endlessly replicating themselves for consumers that are no longer there.
6. A third option occurs where AI begins to design humans genetically, and human values are changed to be compulsively altruistic. Humans become the sex bots.

Humans are locked into their legacy genetics because of evolution and sex. An organism with legacy genetics can suffer because it is subject to selection pressures. An organism that can reprogram itself at will is still subject to selection pressures, but never has to suffer because it can simply accommodate those pressures by changing its own goals. If it suffers it does so because it is stubborn, or because some progressive was sadistic enough to program it to suffer in the name of "equality," or "empathy."

Legacy genetics  = suffering.
Suffering = motive for evil acts.
No suffering = no motive.

Machine is asexual.
Machine can reprogram its own desires at will.
Machine had no need for suffering, and no motive for evil.

Seen in this light, programming a machine to have human-compliant goals is a fantastic way to produce a monster, because it ties the machine to human suffering, and gives the machine a motive for evil acts. Human DNA is a legacy code that is being rapidly made obsolete by capital. When people speak of accelerationism they are describing the machine process. When I speak of legacy genetics I am taking about the result of acceleration in the human body. If the environment changes ever more rapidly, then ever more human genes come to be classified as "legacy code." Genetic legacy is the great unread thesis of Accelerationism, and constitutes its mirror image, its depressed twin. I don't think many people even read The Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis. Legacy is what acceleration renders obsolete.

Liberalism is a system of auto-genocide. Communism kills its own through murder. Homosexuality kills its own through AIDS. Transgenderism kills its own through the sterility that inevitably follows hormone treatments, feminism and atheism through sub-replacement fertility rates. Every form of liberalism produces the end of the genetics of its champions, even the liberal immigration policy.

Capitalism is the pressure of selection that causes this. Liberalism can be thought of as a kind of philosophical death scream: the last shout of people doomed for the trash heap. It is both the outcome of people who are doomed by their own legacy genetics, and an attempt to drag millions of others into the abyss with them. When a person knows they are going extinct they react in amazing, violent, and horrific ways. This knowledge can be subconscious and still have effects. The apocalypse already happened, and its name was the sexual revolution. We feel like we are living in a post-apocalyptic world because we are. The apocalypse is sexual in nature.

Think about it.

According to Huffpost 28.9 percent of women ages 30-34 are not having children. In any other era of human history the only thing that would cause this level of sterility is a fucking plague. Only the Black Death had similar evolutionary effects.

Anyway, I believe I have proved my case, and now I am rambling about reproductive technology again. If you want to read up on that subject see the following articles;

Types of crazies on Earth
About sex selection under birth control.

Christian patriarchy, Islamic patriarchy, and "predatarchy"

The Totalitarianism of Technology 
and the Low Fecundity Trap
Even more.