Sunday, June 17, 2018

Introducing Family Capitalism





Imagine there are two groups, one that values having children even if they cannot afford it, and another that values having money and does not want children.


Group A will out-breed Group B. They will have all of the children and none of the money.
Group B will out-accumulate Group A. They will have all of the money and none of the children.


Superficially, this will look like "rising inequality." There will be a tiny group with all the money and no kids, and a vast group with all the children and none of the money; the "rich" and "poor" respectively.


Also, it is not black and white. There will be a group in the middle that values having some money and some children. They will be called the middle class. There is no force that ensures the middle group has to have a stable existence. The wealthy are perpetuated by their continuous preference for money over children, which destroys the competition from other business owners by limiting the number of progeny they have. If they had lots of offspring their wealth would be divided, or some of their children would go into business for themselves, either of which would tend to multiply competitors. In contrast, the poor are also self-perpetuating since their preference for children they cannot afford keeps them poor. The middle class, on the other hand, faces genetic decline if it starts acting like rich people, and financial decline if it starts acting like poor people; it is buffeted from both directions, since children are expensive and cut into the time needed to run a business.


Since IQ is positively correlated with valuing money more than children, the world will become radically unequal, dysgenic, and stupider, as the poor relentlessly expand and the rich relentlessly decline in number.


The connection between valuing wealth over children, and high IQ, is probably due to centuries of income being connected to birth rates under the feudal system. If you live in a society with high infant mortality rates, people who have children they cannot afford may have more children, but their children die in greater numbers. It makes sense that most humans would come to prioritize having sufficient income before having children, since their children would live to adulthood more often if they did, and greater survival selects for responsible family planning attitudes. On a farm children are also an asset rather than a liability, since they provide labor. Whereas in a city they are purely and expense you cannot recoup.


In the modern world these two aspects, income and birth rates, are detached from one another. Infant mortality rates are low, so poor children do not die as often as they used to, female education rates are high, so the smartest women have the fewest children because they waste their reproductive years in college, and no one lives on a farm, so children are a financial liability rather than an asset.


But what if they were an asset?


All this is exacerbated by Baby Boomers who work with governments to inflate housing prices to enrich themselves, by lobbying local governments to restrict the housing supply, which has the side effect of raising rents on their own children. If housing prices are high young people cannot afford children and everything implodes.


We need a way to make children an asset in such a manner that the reproduction of the next generation is aligned with the profit of the current generation. We also want parents to have a stake in the reproduction of their children so they vote accordingly.


Men and women have different needs. Let first work out two methods for how children might become a financial asset. It will become evident why one method is appropriate for women and not men, and the other vice versa.





Method 1: The Method for Daughters and Granddaughters

Every parent is entitled to 5% of a daughters income, for a total of 10% of income collected by the couple. The income starts accumulating when the girl starts working and is deposited into a locked account. The parent can invest the money but not withdraw it, and once the daughter has a child of her own the parents can unlock the account and make a withdraw.


If a daughter never produces a child the parents can unlock the account by selling it nor earlier than age paternal 70, to a broker, who the receives the income right.


You get the money locked away that is already yours and whatever fee the buyer pays you for income rights to the future income of your daughter. A daughter can "forward" up to 10 years worth of payment obligations to her own daughter, whose bill is calculated by taking the average income of the daughter up until then, multiplying it by 10%, and then attaching the bill to the granddaughter(s) financial obligation. If there are more than 1 granddaughter the obligation is split by all the granddaughters that are descended from that daughter, and the obligation starts on the granddaughter(s) 18 birthday(s), or whenever she/they start working, whichever is later, and the obligation is divided over 20 years. Forwarded time must only be used to have children, and one may only take a maximum of 2 years per child. Falsifying forwarded time constitutes fraud, and carriers a steep criminal penalty.


Say a couple has a baby girl when they are 20 years old, and the daughter begins working at age 17. She works until 75, and takes 10 years off from work to raise children, "forwarding" that bill to her own two daughters, (her parents granddaughters), which descend from her. The initial grandparents have a total of 3 children, 2 girls and 1 boy.

As a result the daughter earns a living for a total of 48 years, (75 - 17 = 58 - 10 years off = 48 years).


Adjusting for inflation she makes an average of 38,000 for each year of work, for a total of 1 million 824 thousand dollars of income.


(48 years x 38,000 = 1.824 million).


Each parent gets 5%, for a total of $ 91,200 dollars per parent.


The 2 granddaughters start working when they are 18, and they both make the same average pay as their mother, (38 K), so collectively pay 3,800 each into the grandparents fund, per year for 10 years, bringing the total payout to the grandparents to $220,400.


However, since the grandparents had her when they were both 20 and they both die when they are 85, and the daughter has her first kid at 20 and stops working at 75, the grandparents miss collecting 10 years worth of income, and so the total number of years of income is only 58 years, with 10 of those years being paid for by the granddaughters.


(Age of first conception + age of daughters first employment) minus (age of granddaughters conception + age of grandparents death).


(20 + 17) - (20 + (75-10)) = 48 years of work x 3,800 per year = $ 182,400 total.


This money is paid from the time the daughter has her own first child at age 26 until the death of the grandparents at the grandparent age of 85, 10 years before the daughters retirement.


  • Age of grandparents at daughters conception: 20
  • Age of daughter at first grandchild's conception: 26
  • Age grandparents were when they received their first payment: 46
  • Age when daughter first started working: 17
  • Age of grandparents when they both died: 85
  • Age of daughter when she retired 10 years after death of grandparents: 75
  • Number of years daughter continued to work after age 26, while grandparents were still alive: 39 
  • Average yearly salary of daughter: $38,000
  • Grandparents take: 5% per parent, for a total of 10%.
  • Initial payment to both grandparents: $34,200 lump sum and 316.66 per month for 39 years thereafter, with a 10 year gap in payments. (Subtract the 10 years she didn't work because she had a daughter of her own).
  • Total "bumper payment" from both granddaughters for the 10 years the mother didn't work: $38,000 total, or $19,000 each, divided over 20 years or 240 months, for a total of 79.17 per month per granddaughter.


The grandparents have a second daughter who makes exactly the same average salary per year, so multiply everything above by 2.


Total payout to the grandparents by their 2 daughters: $ 364,800


Now let us imagine that they have a son who makes and average of $75,000 per year. Sons are calculated differently using Method 2, which is simpler.





Method 2: The Method for Sons and Grandsons


We don't care if sons take time off from work to raise children since their wives can handle that. We also don't care as much if the son has sons of his own. Our goal is to maximize his income.


The son also owes his parents 5% each parent for a total of 10%. But there is no requirement that he have children for the parents to receive payout. The money from his paycheck is withheld until he has at least one child of his own, or until he reaches age 45, whichever is first.


The strategy with sons is therefore, invest in your sons for maximum income and marry them off. While the optimum strategy for daughters is turn them into brood mares so you can get paid immediately, and so you don't have to lose money by selling your income rights to a broker.


You can sell the income rights in daughters to a broker if they do not produce children, since production of children, or sale no earlier than parental age 70, is required for withdraw, but you can not sell the income rights for sons, since you will get paid if they reach 45 and you are still living.


With an average income of $75,000 the son produces a take home of 3,750 per year, per parent. If the son also begins working at 17, and the parents have him when they are 21 (he is the middle child), the the son begins accumulating income in a locked account when the parents are 38. If he is a bachelor the parents can withdraw from that locked account when he is 45, (making them 66 at the time), and they will receive a haul of $210,000. In addition, they will continue to receive $625 per month for the rest of their lives. They will live until age 85, and so collect another $142,500 over the course of 19 years.


The total income from all three children is therefore $ 709,700 broken down as follows;



  • First lump sum payment of $34,200, and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 1, starting when the parents are 46.
  • Second lump sum payment of $34,200 and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 2., starting when the parents are 49.
  • Third lump sum payment of $210,000 and $652 per month thereafter from the son, starting when the parents are age 66.
  • A total of $1,285.32 in monthly income coming from all three children at age 66.



Cha-ching. Don't we love family values?


(Daughter No. 2 technically begins working 3 years later than Daughter No. 1 and therefore the total haul is $709,700, or $7,800 less than what you would think).


Now add this to the normal Social Security you get and retirement is looking somewhat comfortable. Naturally, smart parents will want to maximize the income of their children by pushing them into high paying careers. This may have a negative effect on college enrollment since parents will prefer to maximize aggregate income of the child's entire lifetime. Anything that delays work delays profit. The best strategy is to get them working and earning money at a young age, push them into some high paying trade that only requires a couple of years of education, and have the daughters take a few years off work to crank out a bunch of kids so the parents can get the payoff right now. Then use the payments your getting from your children to get a mistress and a second round of kids.


Breed. Train for high income. Get you kid a high paying job. Repeat.


Alternately you may specialize by training most of your kids for high income while having a few of them produce grandchildren. Or you might start a business to ensure they all have high incomes, or you might pass on the family trade to all of your sons, or have a brother train your sons in his high income trade. Whatever the case, the parents will want to get their child into a high paying job, and get them married off to produce grandchildren.


Of course the children will want to repeat the process because of their own greed. And the grandchildren, and great grandchildren. . .


Remember that all of these calculations are before decades of investment interest are calculated in. This money is not sitting idle. At 8% interest an initial investment of $100,000 compounded over 30 years will yield $1,006,265.69.





Transferable or Non-transferable Rights


Don't give me any horseshit about this constituting slavery, since by that definition all redistribution is already it. The welfare state enslaves the productive to the degenerate, Social Security enslaves the young to the old, and liberals enslave the young, productive, and White to the old, degenerate, and brown. They don't even have a problem stealing from, and excluding, minorities with high rents in the coastal cities they control. Liberals don't hate inequality, they love sanctimony and power.


Family capitalism represents a property right in the income of children. That right may be transferable or non-transferable. If it is transferable then the parent can cash out the right by selling it to a broker. The broker is going to want to get the son or daughter the highest paying job possible in order to maximize his own take. But the effort he spends on hooking the kid up with a well paying job will never exceed what he expects to make, and he will focus on the ones who show promise the most, and will be unwilling to take lazy and degenerate kids as clients. The brokers job will be to (a), identify the ones with unused ability who are being underpaid by the market, (b), use his connections to get the kid a high paying job, and (c), collect the resulting rents.


Since the broker will always have that kid as a client, so long as he owns the income right, he will always be looking to get him paid more, and map out his career progression. This is like having a social worker who occasionally calls you up to try to add thousands to your salary. "Hey, we have this new position that will help you progress in your career. It pays 18 thousand more than you are currently making. Want the job?"


With transferability there may be an economic incentive to enslave the lazy into jobs where they can be put to use. A criminal might cost money to society as a hoodlum, but getting him into a job as a heavy machinery operator or something might generate a large profit. What if he doesn't want the extra money? What if he would prefer a low paying life of crime over a higher paying life of profit? Then lobbyists might pressure the government to allow them enslave troublesome, but potentially profitable minorities, the same way they endlessly pressure the government to increase the level of slavery/redistribution against White men. Behold the horrific spectacle of a Black guy being forced to make too much money.


If income rights in children are non-transferable then parents cannot sell those rights right away, which means they cannot invest the profits from sale right away, which means that the spendthrift cannot blow those profits as quickly. Making income rights transferable lets those with low time preference invest at an early age, taking the lump some payment early to get more compound interest from investment later, while letting the stupid piss away their wealth faster, while encouraging the system to change the law and enslave troublesome people with potential. Prohibiting transferability does the opposite of all of this; it wastes talent, puts the income in the hands of parents who have less skill at making that income go up, gives the kid fewer job connections, and subsidizes high time preference degenerates by making them wait for the money.





Birth Defects Versus Longer Telomeres


A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome. The longer it is the longer lived an organism tends to be. Paternal age is associated with greater telomere length in male sperm, which codes for longer lived offspring. Many octogenarians are the result of multiple generations of men having children in old age. In contrast to this, the older a woman is the more birth defects her eggs will have. Paternal age is productive for health in offspring while maternal age is destructive.


Method 1 is designed to get women to hurry up and have children, since their period of fertility is shorter and young maternal age is associated with positive genetic benefits. Method 2 is designed to allow men to have children at a later age so they can concentrate more on earning income to support a family, and because longer telomeres breed longer lived children. Any method is possible and this post is just meant as an example.





How Do You Do This In a Democracy?


In a democracy only collective and publicly managed slavery is legal. How do you adapt this for commie madness? Why you collectivize it of course.


You peg Social Security payouts to the number of children people have. You do all the same crap but you call it a childcare benefit, and you have the government administer it. It's all about branding. Slavery is fine if it's "the will of the people."


FYI: this whole system of partial property in the incomes of children could be a plausible alternative to Social Security under a system of anarcho capitalism, so long as the patch of sovereignty is willing to use the courts to enforce it. But don't expect it to spontaneously work without enforcement.





Friday, June 15, 2018

The terrible psychosis of asexual women



Running in the circles that I do, moving in succession through radical right, and radical left, and back again, I meet a lot of interesting characters on the right, and batshit insane characters on the left.


Every asexual woman I have met was a power obsessed monster. If you want proof of this ask them their views on rape, and you will discover they all have a "rape for me, but not for thee" view of sexual assault. You will find that they believe that a man who even looks at them the wrong way is "oppressing them, and using violence" while simultaneously believing that a transgender "women" can have sex with a straight male without disclosing the fact, or being guilty of rape. You will find that they think it is alright for a woman to murder her husband in cold blood because he beat her 6 months ago, "because she is being oppressed," but that a man murdering a "transwoman" because it lured him into sex without disclosing what it was, is totally unacceptable, even though if you fail to tell someone you have altered your body to look female and they believe you are female then you have engaged in homosexual rape by deception, and murder is a completely justifiable reaction to being raped, since it is self-defense.


Rape by deception is still rape, just like command rape is still rape. (Command rape is when a military officer uses threats or blackmail to force a subordinate to provide sexual favors).


Liberalism is always riddled by contradictions. Everything is a construct accept victimhood, which is considered the only thing that is real. Everything is rape except the rape of straight men by women, and by "traswomen." Everything is racism except their racism. Everything is power except their will to power. Racism is "power plus prejudice," but nevermind that the fact that the left is always in power, and always prejudiced against White men.


These "asexual" women all believe they have a right to rape men, and therein lies the true nature of their so-called asexuality. Inevitably these women are in the process of "changing their gender" in order to "become men" (something which is delusional and impossible of course).


And the desire to become a man is not the desire to become a man, because these creatures only understand their sick caricature of masculinity. "All men are rapists" they say, while they surgically alter their bodies to become rapists/men.


Because they think masculine sexuality = rape, and thus, by becoming men they seek to become rapists, to recover the sexuality they have lost through self-sterilization, through the will to power, through the inversion of sexuality against itself. Asexuality is not the absence of sexuality but the presence of a will to use sexuality to annihilate sexuality.


In women, the will to power is self-sterilizing. All the defense ministers of Europe are childless. Feminism lowers birth rates because the pursuit of power by any woman destroys her sexuality. Female sexuality is by nature a receiver of sexual conquest, and not a giver. Among those women who give sexual power, all are dykes playing the masculine role. Among those lesbians who receive it they are still playing a sort of feminine role. A woman who can play neither the role of straight receiver or gay receiver, nor the role of gay giver, is directing the will to power against her own sexuality, and destroying her sexuality in the process. She is "asexual" as a result.


Every "asexual" woman I have met has implied or told me that she thought it was morally acceptable to put men in prison on false rape charges. Some have even admitted to it publicly at a dinner table in front of other people and myself. All of them were solipsistic to the point of believing that because they felt it was rape, that it actually was, even though no crime was committed, and they could not tell that an objective reality even existed.


The sexual compulsion here is to use sexuality to destroy, to destroy others with sex, to destroy herself with sex. Sex is supposed to be a creative act, since its normal state it leads to procreation, and since procreation is how the species propagates itself. Asexuality is the denial of life, or love, or procreation, of self, or creative capacity, or joy, of any ability to find children worthwhile or fun. Asexuality is the desire for self-annihilation, for suicide, for auto-genocide, for castration, for the end of one's race, one's species, one's survival. Asexual women are the single most dangerous and destructive people you will ever meet, especially if you are male, since the will to castrate herself becomes the will to castrate you, since the madness of suicide can easily become the madness of genocide. Because in the desire to take herself out she will try to take everyone with her.


Asexuality is the ultimate expression of protestant values, since one is never good enough, the flesh is weak, self-denial is required, children are considered worthless, joy is a sin, the body is disguising, masturbation is not engaged in, giving birth is like vomiting, take up your cross and bear it, sacrifice yourself to a vile mob because Jews demand it, destroy yourself for others, "morality." Asexuality is the perfection of self-annihilation and self-sacrifice inherent in the Christian dogma. No doubt the asexual sees herself as morally superior for destroying herself, and destroying those around her. Asexuality is the political worship of death made manifest and internalized psychologically as sexlessness; it is what happens when you politics/religion destroys your sexuality.


Avoid asexual women like you life and freedom depends on it, because it does.




Sunday, June 10, 2018

Go-ocracy Rewritten



I have decided to re-write portions of the original go-ocracy post in order to make upgrades to the design. For the original article, click here.







Introduction

When we begin to redesign democracy we see that majoritarian systems are an accident of history.


A republic can be conceptualized as a game consisting of three parts;
Constitution = rules
Elections = the game
Supreme Court = the referee


Typically, we think in terms of three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and rules, (habeas corpus, equal protection, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.), but the UK has no real written constitution, and its supreme court does not have real power like the US version does.


We may add to this the fact that a republic is based on the consent of the governed, but there is no reason the game has to take the form of elections. It can be based on the Chinese game of Go.


Yes, seriously.






I.
The Constitution of Rules, 
and the Game Itself

First we must understand how Go works. To quote Wikipedia;


The playing pieces are called "stones". One player uses the white stones and the other, black. The players take turns placing the stones on the vacant intersections ("points") of a board with a 19×19 grid of lines. Beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards,[8] and archaeological evidence shows that the game was played in earlier centuries on a board with a 17×17 grid. However, boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard by the time the game had reached Korea in the 5th century CE and later Japan in the 7th century CE.[9]

Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board when "captured". Capture happens when a stone or group of stones is surrounded by opposing stones on all orthogonally-adjacent points.[10] The game proceeds until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and komi (points added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second, which is normally either 6.5 or 7.5 depending on the rule-set being used) to determine the winner.[11] Games may also be terminated by resignation.


Go-ocracy, pronounced go-ock-ra-see, adapts the game of Go to serve the function of elections within a republic, with little else changed constitutionally.


Imagine that each parcel of land is a square on the board.


Imagine that the inhabitants who own land (or mortgage it if mortgaged) constitute the "squares" that need capturing.


Then you capture them by getting them to sign a literal social contract to obey the laws defined by the player who is soliciting their permission. Basically, instead of political parties and congressmen you have players. Each player has his own legal code written by his firm. The player goes house to house in meatspace asking the inhabitants of a parcel for their delegation, (not their vote), or calls them on the phone, or whatever. He basically campaigns for delegations, the same way a congressman campaigns for votes.


The inhabitant is defined as the person, (not bank) who pays the mortgage on a property if the property is under mortgage, and the owner of the property if it is not under mortgage. With apartment complexes this is the landlord, and with houses this is the person who bought the house, the mortgagor. It has to be this way, otherwise banks would determine the legal system and control everything.


If one gets a series of delegations of properties that are adjacent to each other, with adjacent being defined as either (a) the property lines touching, or (b) the property lines being across the street from one another, then he begins to build a "ladder" which he can eventually use to encircle some parcels. Once parcels are encircled they are "captured" and fall under the legal jurisdiction of the the player and his laws.


To prevent gangs from terrorizing people into delegating to one player or the other, players are not allowed to have armies or police forces, and the cops are a separate part of the government. Players make law but do not enforce the law.


Also, to prevent the endless harassment of home owners by campaigners for their delegations, each home owners fills out a card which rank orders his his preferences like this;


First choice: Mayfield's legal system.


If I am in jeopardy of being captured by any of the following;
Jim's legal system
Bob's legal system
Jack's legal system

And If it will get me uncaptured then my second choice is;
Mark's legal system

If the above is not available, and if it will get me uncaptured, then;
Ethen's legal system.

Etc., etc.


This is a simple version, but basically one can program a whole flowchart of alternatives which says, "to avoid being captured by X, Y, or Z, I will choose automatically Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω in that order."


Every parcel of land on the board is like this, with rank ordered preferences of alternatives.


This makes the board fiendishly complex and can set off cascades of territory change.


To prevent the police from being confused, a snapshot of the arrangement of law-territory is taken once per year on September 1st and that becomes the configuration of the law for 12 months until August 31st of the following year. The game is played in real time 4 hours per day, 3 days per week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but the territory of law changes one year at a time.


No one player may capture more than 20% of the territory in a given county. In one state, up to 25 players per million inhabitants may play the game. If there are more than 10 applicants, new players are added on a first-come, first-served basis.


A homeowner may update their rank ordered preference at any time with their local brokerage office. If a person does not make a decision by the cut-off date one is automatically assigned to a player by lottery.




II.
The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.


Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive courts, each of which can fulfill the role of a supreme court according to a process of selection. The rest of the time when an individual court is not fulfilling this role, it fulfills the role a district court might normally fill. There is no circuit court level.


A supreme court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Allow me to explain.


Whenever there is a dispute between two players one brings suite against the other. But first they must determine which court it shall be tried in.


Say there are 94 district courts. Each player fills out a card with a rank ordering of 48 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (48). There is always at least one guaranteed overlap. The number of rank ordered preferences is equal to 50% plus 1 if the total number of registered supreme courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always one overlap, and exactly one.


The highest ranked preference, which is shared by both parties in the dispute, is the court in which the case is tried. All decisions are final. If there is more than 1 overlapping preference the highest mutual preference for both is the one chosen. If there is a situation where both parties have a total of 4 highest mutually agreed upon rank ordered preferences, then a coin toss decides. For example;




Now you may object and say, "but what is to stop someone from being tried in a biased court?" Competition. Think about it. Let's us say that you run a terribly biased supreme court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someones list, but it will get you ranked at the bottom of their political opponent's list. The overlap is the one who gets the business, and so every court is competing to be as unbiased as possible in order to get business. The court that gets the business gets a voucher from the state, and gets paid. The one that does not get the business does not get paid. Thus, all referees compete on neutrality.



III.
The Way Rules Get Made

Federal laws, aka., game rules are proposed in a parliament, but then they go directly to the people for voter approval. All approvals are temporary since they are additions to the existing constitution of rules. New constitutional rules may be created but the original ones may not be repealed. The length of approval depends on the level at which they are passed. Like this;


For each percentage above 50%, take the percentage above 50%, multiple by 100 and divide by 2 to get a number of years n, to which the integer 2 is added, and then rounded up.


For example;


A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.


.65 - .50 = .15

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = n

n + 2 is 9.5

9.5 rounded up is 10 years.


The new game rule shall be in effect 10 years, and then automatically expire.


New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire. Any formula can be used. The point is to make federal laws temporary so that meddling in game play is kept to a minimum, and system diversity preserved.



IV.
How The Federal Government is Appointed

Using a process similar to the one described for the supreme court, a selection process occurs for who shall be appointed to a unicameral elected House of Game Players.


One player files a "Notice of Argument" against another. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would chose as a neutral third party. Instead of having players vote for federal representatives the format is like a series of fights where a third party is chosen for each argument. One does not seek power in this system, one cooperates with another player to choose a neutral player for power. Typically, strong players will choose weak or distant players as their third parties.


Just like when choosing an arbiter, when each player is choosing a representative, each of them makes a list of rank-ordered preferences with 50% + 1 of the members in the system. Each time a player is selected for a seat in the House a vote is recorded for that player. No more than one notice of argument may be filed per player with any other player. The 100 players with the highest number of votes fill the seats of the House. Law making then proceeds just like it would with a regular parliamentary system, except that bills must be approved by the direct vote of a majority of the population in accordance with the procedure outlined in Part III.



V.
Discovery of a Method

The definition of a republic has never been fully clear, and has always relied on some assertion that republics differed from direct democracies because they upheld the ethical principle of individual rights, and that republics have representative rather than direct rule. While this distinction is technically correct, (rights vs. majority rule, representative vs. direct), it lacks precision and specificity. It is much simpler to say the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is simply a game-based form of government, while the latter has the game subject to a referee and rules. Viewing republics as systems built on games brings a remarkable clarity to political science, and also shows the way forward to developing other designs for systems, possibly even communist republics that actually work. It also allows the introduction of predictive elements, since games can be modeled with AI, can be played at a small scale before being played at a large scale, and can be designed iteratively. This opens the door to knowing in advance whether or not your communist revolution will work, or at least knowing that it has a pretty good chance of working. For ethical reasons complex systems must be simulated beforehand, and game design bridges the gap between theory and praxis. It is not morally acceptable to try a system without proof that it will work, and games modeled with AI can provide that proof. Marxism could never be as ethical as this, since no amount of words can compensate for observation of game play. The Founding Fathers were on essentially the right track before being derailed by the charlatan or Trier. If the deadbeat had known what he was doing he would have given us a constitution instead of a manifesto.


Furthermore, the whole point of a game-based political system is the rules. Having a game that decides how power is allocated suppresses the natural tendency of humans to engage in a violent struggle for power, since the power hungry do not really want to risk their lives to get it, and the game itself provides an excuse for the much more important introduction of constitutional rights, since rights are limits on game play, and keep them game working by limiting its viciousness. Seen in this light the game itself is simply the brilliant excuse for the rule of rights. Laws are restrictions on the people, but game rules are restrictions on the state, and that is wonderful. Games give you an excuse for rights.


With all of this knowledge we now understand that the correct way to seek a greater perfection of government is an iterative method that involves a sequence of events. First a literal game is developed, and it is played at a small scale with different individuals forming the three elements of any republican game; (a.) players/parties etc., (b.) referees (supreme court). and (c). the people who give their consent to be governed. The game is played in real life so that the kinks can be ironed out and the rules perfected. This is done for any new republican design. Ideally, the first step would involve a massively multiplayer online game that includes things like virtual currency and allows for bribes and side economies in order to predict the effects of corruption on the system. Once this is done, the second step is building a city-state to perform further real life analysis. And once that is done then, and only then, can you implement things at a larger scale. But something tells me revolution will never be necessary if your system is truly an improvement over the status quo, since it will be wildly popular by then anyway, and have proven results.


A form of patchwork is the ideal outcome of this. That is, a world where a thousand city-states compete for citizens, operating under a hundred different forms of government. Not a utopia of some worldwide monolithic communist dictatorship, from which no one can escape, but a series of competing systems where escape is the very essence of it all.


Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that anything becomes sacred if there is enough dust on it.


Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; (1) hierarchies, (2) "games" (republics), and (3) "anarcho capitalism."


In other words,

  • Pure hierarchies (dictatorships)
  • Games controlled by a hierarchy (republics)
  • Games not controlled by a hierarchy (anarcho capitalist markets).

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always join one faction or another. There are two major parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round. In contrast to a majority rule system, players govern their clients directly, and do not share power with anyone else, and in contrast to the layers of majority rule that comprise a federal republic, the only place majority rule exists is the top level, and there are no elections to get there, unless you count being in "the top 100" of non-threatening preferences an election.



VI.
Meta Rules of Republican Game Design

There are essential principles that govern the development of all political systems based on games. These principles are meta rules, meaning "rules governing the construction of rules." The first two of these are that (1), the system must be based on the consent of the governed, that (2), the people must not be intimidated by power, and that (3), no permanent winner must ever emerge. From these three meta rule all other rules flow, for example;


In a democracy the consent of the governed is obtained through votes, while in a go-ocracy it is obtained through delegation. Consent is essential, otherwise you do not have a free society. Even anarcho capitalism contains an element of consent by creating a transferable property in justice.


Next, you must prevent the usage of coercion against individual citizens by players or political parties of the game. In the past, political parties would beat up voters and send them to the polls to vote over and over again. Voter registration combined with the secret ballot was used to put an end to this practice. Political parties still use handouts to buy votes, and immigration is used to manipulate the outcome of elections. One particular political party in America has even at one time in history or another used gangs to ethnically cleanse Whites from their neighborhoods, or used White supremacist organizations to intimidate Black voters!


Ah, the good ol' Democrats.


The problem with introducing a game where the pieces on the board must give their consent is that a dynamic tension is created between the needs of power and the laziness of the citizen. This problem exists in all game-based systems, whether democracy or otherwise, but manifests differently depending on the system. In a go-ocracy it will be more necessary than usual to prevent political players from having their own police powers or armies, since territory is what is being argued over rather than positions of power. Thankfully, in a go-ocracy it is unlikely that immigration would be used for political purposes. A go-ocracy should be free of majoritarian politics, and thus, of a two-party system. With multiple players on the board it is unlikely they could get away with manipulating demographics, and with the consent of the governed being defined in terms of space rather than popular will, the individual citizen can delegate for immigration restrictions to prohibit illegal immigrants on their property, the property of anyone who delegates to the same player, and all the public property of streets and thoroughfares in between those parcels. This aspect of space over leadership shifts society from the stated preference system of democracy to a revealed preference system. A liberal might vote to bring in immigrants to someone else's neighborhood, but never his own backyard. Go-ocracy is therefore a form of republic based on revealed preference rather than virtue signaling, since all delegations concern one's own property, taxes, and benefits. It would probably be substantially libertarian.


Lots of other rules are actually restrictions on intimidating the citizenry. If free speech is compromised then the voter has an incentive to vote for the violent overthrow of the government. The right to bear arms raises the cost of violating the rights of game players. If you think guns are fruitless against modern armies then you have not been paying attention to Americas foray in Afghanistan, and the success of the Taliban at holding back the worlds most powerful army.


Rights are economic; they raise the cost of overthrowing the game (the right to bear arms), or prevent the development of perverse incentives (free speech), or get voters to behave more rationally (separation of church and state), prevent black mail (right to privacy), keep certain things neutral (eliminating the spoils system), etc.


Lastly, no permanent winner must be allowed to emerge, or the system will convert to a dictatorship. A one-party state eventually captures the referee, (the Supreme Court) destroying the game, and foreclosing the possibility of a future challenger to power. The first aspect of democracy is there there are elections at regular intervals. A government seat is never held permanently. The second feature is term limits. A nation should have party term limits as well, just to be on the safe side. If a party holds power for too long it should automatically lose the majority after a fixed period of time. In a go-ocracy similar procedures will be needed. The game will need to have a "partial reset" every year, where all territory not held through delegation or capture is uncaptured and played over again, and a "hard reset" where all territory is released once ever four years. It will also need "player term limits" where no one player can hold a piece of territory for more than, say, 12 years concurrently, and where after 12 years someone else must capture that territory for at least 2 years. Both parties and players themselves should be limited, so that every 75 years a political party/player is dissolved and new parties/players given the chance to enter the board.


Any other game-based political system will need analogous rules for its design. These problems will spontaneously emerge as a consequence of game play, and you will need to develop rules and rights to fix that. Every set of constitutional rights will differ based on the game chosen for selecting leaders, but similar patterns will abound with all of them.


The point this entire article is to demonstrate one possible configuration for the design of an alternative republic, in order to fire the imagination of the reader, and encourage them to develop their own alternative designs.








Thursday, June 7, 2018

Thoughts on the American Civil War and election-free republics


Whenever the issue of exit is brought up, people invariable point out that the fact that secession was used as a pretext to extend the institution of slavery. This is faulty logic, because there was simply no one fighting for the right position during the Civil War. The right-wing was fighting against the exit of Negros, while the left was fighting against the exit of their masters. This compounded the original error where the North tolerated slavery on the basis of the principle of exit, hypocritically denying exit to blacks while simultaneously supporting it for whites.

The moral action would have been to free the slaves and then kick the South out of the Union. You can't deny exit for them, but you can't make us deny exit for you either, and if you try to re-institute slavery once we leave we will invade you again.

The left is engaged in a similar folly today with free speech, and the right is engaged in a similar trap. The right is using free speech to advocate the destruction of ethical principles, forcing the left to compromise its own principles just like the South forced the left to compromise the principle of exit. Then as now, the right-wing is using a principle to violate a principle. Back then, they used the right of exit (secession) to deny exit to blacks. Now they use free speech to intimidate and silence the free speech of minorities. The answer is not to play into their hands and turn against the principle of free speech, but to answer the exercise of a right (the right to engage in hate speech) with another exercise of speech, (the rational defense of classical liberal values). Yes, we will allow you a platform for your hateful ideas, and no, we will not shout you down, but we will present a reasoned argument for why equality of rights is necessary even if equality of ability is not possible.

Rather than censoring them they should construct a media megaphone for blasting the principles of human rights into every mind. They should double down on classical liberal principles, and not the folly of equal outcome. But they will allow this right to be destroyed also, by allowing themselves to be maneuvered into a position of contradicting their own principles, and then the left will then be authoritarian like the radical right, and there will be no one left to support freedom.

The right breaks an institution and forces the left to bring down the jackboot, affirming the principle of jackboots; a right-wing principle. The right makes an agency dysfunctional and then calls for its privatization, denying that functional agencies were even possible. This would be like the left unionizing a company to bankrupt it, and then claiming private corporations don't work.

The more concentrated power becomes the more insane politics becomes. The right says it wants to end politics, but nothing is more political than the frequent civil wars and religious conflicts under monarchy. The 1950's was more democratic and less political than today, and the government power was less concentrated and intrusive, and yet reactionaries still insist on thinking more concentrated power will yield saner results! Are these people stooopid? Why yes Sherlock, they are.

In communism the government owns all the business and land, and manages it under a one-party state. The communists act like capitalists because when you conquer all the industry in a society the incentives of industry conquer you. Eventually, the communists begin to sell favors and jobs for bribes. Afterward they begin to pass on their jobs to their sons. Eventually all the corruption becomes formalized and certificates of paper are issued entitling the people who bought these government jobs to "rights." There is a holy state religion called "Marxism-leninism" that all must study and obey. The religion is new, so people take it seriously, and the regime is relatively free from corruption.

In a feudal monarchy all the land and industry is owned by the king. The king sells favors and government jobs in exchange for bribes he calls "fees" which sell at a regular price according to a fixed fee schedule. Government jobs can be purchased with bribes and these jobs are called "royal titles." The whole abomination of corruption is made sacred by having so much ancient dust on it, and is controlled by a holy state religion that all must study and obey.

Communism is a cleaner, more bureaucratic form, of feudalism.

Monarchies have civil and religious wars.

Communism has civil and ideological wars.

Christianity believes in the equal ability of all to be saved by Christ.

Communism believes in the equality of all.

Supposedly these are all radically different things.

Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that people can make anything sacred if it is old enough.

Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; 1. hierarchies, 2. "games" (or republics), and 3. "anarcho capitalism."

In other words,

Pure hierarchies (dictatorships)
Games controlled by a hierarchy (republics)
Games not controlled by a hierarchy (anarcho capitalist markets).

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always joins either the left or right coalition. There are two parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round.

A game that requires a majority to get things done, or which allows one winner to control the whole system, will always produce either a two-party or one-party outcome depending on how it is set up. It is possible to design an alternative republic where there are no parties, by structuring the game to allow multiple players, and eliminating majority rule. A system can be set up where instead of elections, disputes decide who is elevated to congress. One party sues another. The lawsuit can be "blank" and does not actually have to contain any grievance. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would like the dispute to be tried by. Each list must contain the names of 50% +1 of the judges in the system. The highest ranking person on both lists tries the suite. Any grievances are combined into the blank suite and tried by the same judges. The system therefore selects for the most neutral arbiter in all cases.

The 100 most popular and respected arbiters, (as measured by the amount of business they get) are elevated to congress automatically, where they write the laws governing the whole system. Federal laws need the direct vote of the people for approval.

There. A republic with no political parties, no elections of politicians, no political parties, and no meaningful politics. The rest of the system is go-ocracy parts 1 thu 4. If you read the article on go-ocracy you will probably also realize that such a system would probably have no welfare state either, since the people elevated to congress don't need votes to get elected, or at least, no welfare state at the federal level. A welfare state might still emerge as a result of people choosing players who offer it, but such a system would be governed by market equilibrium rather than party politics.





Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Against the violent domination of women


The reactosphere believes that women lack agency, that civilization run by women is insane, that emancipation causes a nation to implode, and that women need to be controlled. The first three assertions might be true. I am not going to dispute that. I will dispute the prescription that women must be controlled. I have a problem with this, but not for moral reasons.


Everything that follows here is speculation, but that is how it must be, since political correctness prevents testing of these assertions.


When women are dominated they are forced to reproduce against their will. This happens even without rape, since social coercion is genetically equivalent. Normally, selection would favor with a strong sex drive. Those with low sex drives reproduce less, while those with stronger sex drives reproduce more. The selection effect biases the genetics of the species in favor of a strong libido, which maintains the reproductive fitness of that species. When women are coerced through violence or social pressure that natural bias is eliminated, female sex drive deteriorates, and levels of asexuality rise.


It is often asserted that female judgment is so terrible that women must be protected from the consequences of their own actions. But here again is the rub, by protecting women from their own bad judgment you are breeding that bad judgment, since a woman who would normally meet her end lives to bear children. In effect, you are letting her outsource her reason to the male sex, and that reduces the selection pressure to reason logically, causing the level of irrationality increase.


Over time the effect might be cumulative, so that a low level of dominance prolonged over a great interval can cause a high level of madness and asexuality.


Reactionaries then say, "women are so insane that if we let them off the leash they will destroy everything."


Well, yes. But if you keep them on the leash they will get even worse. To quote the post Hell Baked, "To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate." Do you think this applies only to men?


If you must compel women to become mothers, maybe one should deliberately have more children with the sane? And sexual? Regardless of what men do, they must learn to avoid breeding mad bitches.


Imagine what a few thousand more years of male dominance could do to the female sex. Breed sentience out? Cause universal mental illness? Make all women sexless? A world where mad asexual women are strapped into rape stirrups at puberty is not a place I want to live. This isn't a matter of moral outrage, I just simply find sexless women repulsive. If she doesn't enjoy the dominance what's the point? You want your submissive to enjoy it. We're not animals here.


Awhile back, a friend of mine was talking about a highly neurotic girl we both know. He said, "there is just something about her I find irresistible." To which I said, "Lots of guys find crazy women attractive. Why do you think there are so many?"


IF, we assume that male dominance can even be restored, then it should be moderated. What few have considered is that the sexual revolution may represent a genetic bottleneck for the female sex. Previously there was a stable equilibrium characterized by the ironclad connection between sex and pregnancy. Sex always resulted in pregnancy, more or less. Women had to preference good providers over good looks. Men had to do their duty. Everyone had to tolerate the situation and get married. And all of these incentives meant men had a licence to control women. After all, it makes no sense to have rights de jure when one does not have rights de facto. Without birth control, sexual rights are just scribbling on paper, and surrendering control raises her sexual market value to prospective husbands anyway.


The bottleneck has the potential to cause the extinction of the human race, or maybe just the "higher" races, or maybe the higher groups within each race. This bottleneck must be widened enough to slow the process down, but not be stopped. The human race must be preserved against extinction, but the genetic change from dominance + madness, to assertion + consent, needs to take place. Political regimes don't last forever, and the only way to be safe in the long-term is to get to the other side of the catastrophe. One way to look at this is that birth control unleashed this catastrophe, but another way to look at it, it that the unsustainable equilibrium of male dominance has finally been disrupted. As a genetic process, male dominance must eventually destroy itself, whether arriving at a totally deteriorated condition in the female sex, or pushing past that to an even more degraded state where a lack of sentience in women threatens sentience in men, since men inherent one X chromosome from their mothers, and a deterioration in one sex eventually must affect the other.


Seen from this other view, the sexual revolution is a necessary disruption to a deteriorative process, though nothing ameliorates concern from the other direction.


Things like polyamory, cuckoldry, etc., may very well represent the rise of female dominance. We got here through a sexual revolution in reproductive technology for women. The symmetrical equivalent for men would be the rise of sex robots and artificial gestation. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be. A world where men don't need women is one where male behavior is much, much, worse. We explored the problem of technologically-induced moral decay among women in The Exemption Hypothesis. What happens when men also become morally exempt from their ethical obligations to the opposite sex? Female dominance might not last more than a few generations before being disrupted by equivalent male technology. Indeed, the very existence of so many nasty women will push the technology forward.


Artificial gestation radically changes the dynamics of human reproduction. In short, it moves the point of selection from women to parents, and from families to corporations and governments, (assuming the latter is legal). This is a complete change in the direction of human evolution. Past evolution was defined by a recursive cycle; women chose good providers because of the entrenched link between sex and pregnancy, and because they needed resources to raise children. Success is correlated with higher intelligence, and her selection for success acted as a selection for intelligence. The daughters of these women inherited the effects of higher intelligence through the X chromosome of their fathers, causing the selector (women) to evolve along with the selected (men), so that not only was the human species evolving to become more intelligent, but the process of selecting for intelligence was itself improving, so that there was an exponential increase.


It is said that IQ peaked in Victorian times. This would happen if an increase in prosperity allowed the growth of the lower classes, if female selection shifted to favor "pretty boys" over resource providers, or if levels of early death fell significantly. But this second case is hard to make, since women were picking men on the basis of wealth as late as the 1950's, and many still do today.


The future potentially adds several more points of selection to the human genome.


  • The selection effects of celibate, and involuntarily celibate men who decide to have children through artificial gestation.
  • The selection effects of porn, sex robots, and virtual sex.
  • The selection effects of families picking traits for their children, through embryo screening, artificial gestation, and gene therapy.
  • The selection effects of governments picking traits for children, through artificial gestation, embryo screening, and gene therapy.
  • The selection effects of corporations picking traits for children, through artificial gestation, embryo screening, and gene therapy.
  • The selection effects of reproductive technologies like birth control and abortion.


We can know what the range of possible futures will be by guesstimating all possible selection effects on the basis of the personal and institutional needs of individuals, families, corporations, and governments. By looking at the desires of these groups we can get a better idea of what humans will become, and we can see the "floor" on how bad things can get.

Single men who purchase artificially gestated children will want children for many of the same reasons that some women choose to become single mothers, but some may also have a desire for legal daughters who are not biological daughters — because incest. The regular men will not be a problem because the human race already has the selection effect of women choosing to have children without the opposite sex, and it has survived just fine, but the pedophiles could be problematic. You have men who are gestating a child in order to raise it for sexual purposes either once it grows up, or before that. The interference of law makes this scenario unlikely, but if it happens enough it becomes an evolutionary factor, so don't let it happen enough.

Breeding a non-biological daughter for eventual sexual purposes creates an incentive to produce a personality that is controllable, and that will bond easier with the abuser. You can anticipate the general effects of this selection mechanism on the female sex if humans gain the ability to determine the personalty of a child, and none of it is good. The outcome is daughters with genetically programmed Stockholm Syndrome introducing it into the general population through children of their own.

Now that we're done with that weirdness, let us take the other points one by one.

The selection effects of porn and other sex substitutes are pretty simple to understand. Eventually an aversion to these things will develop, by either proximate or indirect methods. Maybe a racism towards sex robots evolves. Maybe the sensation of the uncanny valley becomes vastly more intense. Maybe men lose interest in masturbation, or just develop a disgust to everything other than the real female body. Maybe guys lose the ability to see a two dimensional images as three dimensional, or perhaps they develop a need for romantic love. Sex robots are a potential extinction threat and should be banned just in case, porn too.

In regards to parental selection, parents generally have the best interests at heart for their children. The only real danger is "cuteness creep" the danger that neotenous traits could be magnified over time. I doubt any couples would be evil enough to produce a child who is so adorable it has health problems, but if they did I imagine the law would intervene to prevent subsequent cases. Preemptive legislation should be created to prevent selection for cuteness, since traits that make a child look adorable when young can be inhibiting to later life success.

When governments and corporations begin picking genes things get scary. Institutions want obedience and conformity to power. Corporations want consumers of their products. The thought of humans being engineered to suite a product, or citizens being engineered to suite a government's need for conformity, is too horrifying to be tolerated. Preemptive legislation should be made that categorically prohibits this, and engineering citizens might be classified as an act of war by other nations. The genetically engineered might emigrate, and so every nation's enhancement program is everyone else's business.

The same problem simply does not exist for marketed genetic enhancements. There is an essential difference between the corporations selling genetic enhancements for unborn children to couples, versus corporations or governments growing humans for their own use. With sales, the point of selection is the couple and the market, mediated by legal restrictions, but with gestation the point of selection is the business itself, since the business is growing people for its own use. A person grown to be a worker is going to be produced with a different set of priorities in mind than one grown to be a child for a couple. It makes all the difference in the world when this is combined with editing the human genome to manipulate personality traits. The corporation has an incentive to move the genome towards the kind of eusociality observed in insects, while the couple/customer does not. The corporation wants a drone, while the newly expecting couple wants a family member. This is worse for governments, who have no incentive to regulate themselves. Genetically altered immigrants may even be considered an act of war.

Birth control selects for women who desire children, while abortion selects against men who commit sexual assault. Abortion also selects against left-wing women since the pro-choice have a lower TFR than the pro-life. There is a potential that abortion could annihilate an entire series of phenotypes on the left, including gay, bisexual and pansexual men and women, and the generalized predilection to a more fair and equitable distribution of goods in society.


This matters to me for personal reasons. Abortion should be greatly limited and slowed down until a detailed study of the genetic effects has been conducted to ascertain how it is changing society, and a thorough public debate occurs that decides this matter openly and honestly. It isn't enough to limit this debate to moral matters of an immediate nature. The long-term future is also a moral matter, and it is not permissible to auto-genocide entire phenotypes because of some arbitrary injunction of "choice." There is no such thing as a victimless crime, or an act that does not violate the non-aggression principle, or even an action that is completely independent of consequence to anyone else. Everything affects everything else, humans are a genetic whole, exit is a non-entity, and moral obligations don't have a definite limit.


Imagine a single self-destructive action, say the decision to kill oneself. A woman ends her own life. A man is deprived of a partner, children of an aunt, workers of a friend. That one person made countless decisions throughout her life that affected others. The accumulation of those actions are immense, and their absence is also immense.


Lifestyles always infringe on one another. If enough people are promiscuous it crowds out the ability of others to preserve their virginity until marriage. Premarital sex is not just an "individual choice" but a choice to contribute to the collective imposition of a lifestyle on others. One cannot really be chaste in America anymore than another can be promiscuous in Saudi Arabia. "Freedom" is the illusion that nothing is imposing on you, while reality knows there are only trade-offs. A sub-optimal sexual market equilibrium is just as imposing as any law, if not more so.


Norms and laws infringe on "victimless crimes" precisely because those actions alter the environment for everyone else. Gambling may be a victimless crime, but as someone who once worked in a casino and has seen gambling addicts shuffle in and out, a community with indebted and broken people affects everyone else. Premarital sex is a victimless crime, but a society with free love is victimized with abandoned women, broken homes, and desperate men. Prostitution may be "victimless," but tell that to the father whose daughter is a whore, or the rape crises councilor. There is this magical libertarian thinking where "Action A" is supposed to be independent of "Action B," and because those things are magically separate markets, knock-on effects, bad equilibriums, genetic disasters, and such, are all hand waved away with the "but muh consent," line.


Yes, but this stuff automatically produces that stuff as a byproduct. Human agency is not an absolute, but a gradient of more or less that varies from one person to the next, and increases or decreases depending on the circumstance. Nothing is ever purely consensual or not, crime is relative to social norms, double standards abound, and shit gets complicated.

There is never going to be any substitute for the hard work of anticipating consequences.





Friday, June 1, 2018

Elon Musk and the third alternative




Humans have a fundamental nature caused by their ancestral environment. Absent genetic intervention, that nature evolves slowly. It is communist, tribal, xenophobic, religious, and limited in trade activities.


Since the industrial revolution, capitalism, has evolved at a far more rapid pace than human nature. It is mechanistic, polluting, greedy, winner-take-all, fast-evolving, rerouting, exiting, emergent AI.


The gap between this slowly evolving condition, and the fast evolving mechanism of high capitalism, is deemed "rift" and describes a widening gap between us and the machine.


Humans have invented three ideas for how to solve this problem.


They are;

  1. Abolish capitalism to accommodate human nature (the Marxist-communist plan)
  2. Abolish human nature to accommodate capitalism (fascism, or its nicer cousin, transhumanism)
  3. Go into space (the method championed by Elon Musk)

Space is a weirdly communist environment. A starship is basically a tribe on a ship. A space station is basically a city state. A settlement on Mars is little more than a small band of humans living in tribal configuration.


Space is brutal, violent, and deadly, just like the ancestral environment. Cohesiveness is forced on people by circumstances, but the threats come mainly from the natural world rather than other groups. Thus, evolutionary pressure is very high, but works to make people practical rather than religious. Religion is a tribal adaption that allows you to form armies to defeat genocidal threats to your tribe, but on Mars the threat is running out of air, food, or water. Space breeds hyper-pragmatic communists, while Earth has already bred religiously hysterical communists.


By "pragmatic communist" I mean someone who will kill you if you don't get off your ass and fix the air processor.


"Fix the air machine."

"No, because rights and shit."

"Throw him out an airlock."


But hyper-capitalism reemerges in space too. Once the population of Mars achieves a critical threshold hyper-capitalism comes back, and on a rotating habitat of many millions of square miles it emerges again. At the level of a Bishop Ring it emerges again. (A bishop ring is one of the largest possible megastructures that can be built with carbon nanotubes).





No doubt, a Dyson swarm composed of millions of rotating space habitats would be governed by hyper-capitalism; one might envision a form of insurance that guarantees the swarm will collectively point its mirrors at any aggressor if one of them is attacked, turning the swarm into a mega-laser, aka., a "Nicoll Dyson Beam," that destroys any space station that invades any other.




It also makes for a useful way to defend a solar system.


Space recreates the stress of the ancestral environment. It cannot be overstated how important this is. In the absence of threats to survival humans become physically obese, and mentally deranged. Our bodies have been built by evolution to confront daily challenges and threats to survival, and a sports car is not meant to idle.


Space is deadly enough that it may solve the issue of mutational load. Yes, the radiation of space increases mutation, but one can have a genetic archive for that, and one is evolving everyday to be more pragmatic. Lastly, space is the last frontier. If humans can survive there then we have made it as a species.


Whether Musk knows it or not he is pursuing the third strategy.




Thursday, May 31, 2018

The Exemption Hypothesis




Feminism makes a fundamental assertion, no matter what flavor of feminism you read, it is always asserted that

men are to blame because they do things.

The mirror image of this assertion is that

women are to blame because they don't do things.

When you are dealing with a series of unfalsifiable assertions, arguing facts is pointless. Nobody who builds an ideology on unprovable ideas gives a damn about truth, facts, or reason. They only want power. When you are dealing with an animal you have to house break it. You train a puppy not to crap on the floor by rubbing its noise in its own shit, and that is how you house break a feminist too.


When you insult a man you can call him by various different insults; douchebag, dumb-ass, idiot, coward, creep, weirdo, perv, fool, fag, etc. Each of these insults defines a standard that is implied to have been violated, and most are unique. "Douchebag" implies that a man is not supposed to be carelessly inconsiderate. "Dumb-ass" says that he should be smart. "Coward" asserts that masculinity should involve courage. "Creep" says that a man should be smoother with women. "Fag" requires that he be heterosexual.


The essential characteristic of masculine insults is their uniqueness; every insult implies a unique moral standard for the male sex. If you call a man a creepy, douchey, asshole faggot, you are implying that he is (a), not smooth with women (b), inconsiderate and self-centered (c), unjustly mean, and (d) takes it in the ass. You have insulted the man in 4 unique ways.


Women's insults are completely different. All insults for women imply that she is either insane or a whore; none of them are unique. If you say that a woman is a skanky, slutty, over-stuffed psycho-whore thundercunt, all you have done is use five terms to call her a whore and three terms to call her crazy.


Insults are gendered. You would never, for example, call a woman an asshole. Unless you are a misogynist, you would never call her a coward or a pussy, even though you can call men cowards, dicks, or assholes — or all three. Referring to men by their obscene body parts is fine, (dick, asshole) but referring to women by their body parts is verboten, (cunt, piece-of-ass) or simply not done (asshole).


A woman cannot be a creep, weirdo, asshole, fag, douchebag, or perv, even though in real life most women are assholes, and lots of women are will creep through your phone while you are in the shower, or have fag relationships with other women.


A man cannot be a cunt, (outside of the UK), but he can be a cunt in the UK, because the British.


The essential difference between male and female insults is that all insults for men imply accountability. Calling a woman insane is completely different. Madness implies exemption from moral accountability. That is why the insanity defense exists. To be insane is to be unaccountable. All of these insults for women imply madness and therefore exemption from moral responsibility. Women are exempt, and this causes countless harmful negative social effects.


Men are accountable.
Women are exempt.


If women are exempt they will be perceived as less competent than men, will be perceived as victims in cases when men are not perceived as victims, and society will be eager to convict men who commit crimes against women, and to acquit women who commit crimes against men.


If women are exempt, they will be perceived as less competent and reliable than men, and indeed, will psychologically internalize the standard of exemption and discount their own abilities. Their performance will suffer because they either don't think of themselves as being capable, because no one else thinks they are capable, or because the lower standard let them slack off, or all three. Women will rise to a standard, but because the standard is essentially non-existent for them they will rise to a lower standard and accomplish much less, if anything at all.


With no standard to live up to, women will be paid less, promoted less, will accomplish less, and will get away with more, be regarded as victims for trivial reasons, be treated like children, etc., etc., etc.


Basically all the phenomena you observe with the "double standard" in our society will occur. Society will precisely reflect the current order in every way.


Reality is recursive, and so the standard of exemption will both create all the behavior you see, and the interpretation of that behavior in the human mind.


Because women are exempt and men are accountable, women (and the entire society) will interpret all of the disparities and disadvantages women face through the lens of exemption, and will blame men for women's lack of progress. Women are exempt, remember? How can they be blamed for their own failures? If women are paid less it must be men's fault. If women perform less — men's fault. If women are promoted less, start businesses less, get loans less — men's fault.


Men will notice all of this, and a profound hatred and jealousy will develop in some men, especially men who are not sexually successful. These men pay all the costs of women's exemption and receive none of the benefits. This jealousy will be called "misogyny." Exempt women will enjoy rubbing their exemption in the faces of unsuccessful men by emasculating them, calling them "insecure."


Men want something that women have, something between every woman's legs, and are frequently willing to bend the rules in the hope that exempting women from moral responsibility will win them the favor of women, and give them the thing they desire. It doesn't work. Women just interpret lenience as low quality.


Since men are held accountable and women are not, men will be convicted at higher rates for identical crimes. Indeed, exemption will inform the very definition of rape. Which is;

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

The definition, of course, makes the male role in the sex act guilty. I say male role, not male sex. If a lesbian penetrates her girlfriend with a dildo she can also be found guilty under the law, if consent is not obtained or possible. Similarly, if two gay men have sex, only the penetrator can be found guilty. It is the masculine role that is guilty, though because women are exempt, lesbians generally won't even have the police called on them, and because prosecutors, juries, defense attorneys, cops, and judges are all believers of exemption at the unconscious level, in practice they will go easier on a butch women than a man in an equivalent position. This means that in practice only straight and gay men can be guilty of rape, and only the one who penetrates. Lesbians engaged in sex in the masculine role will not really be convicted most of the time.


So the law is not technically biased against the male sex, but it is biased against the male sexual role — against the male gender.


In such a monstrously unjust society man will naturally have anger issues, since exemption violates everyone's fundamental sense of fairness. Women who lack empathy will take pleasure in rubbing exemption in men's faces, and there will be lots of women who lack empathy, since they are exempt from having empathy towards the male sex, (but not the female sex). Exemption will also make many women hate their own sex, and prefer male bosses over female bosses. Who would you rather have as an employer? Someone you can hold accountable or someone you cannot?


The rage that exemption induces in the male sex will be labeled "toxic masculinity," as a way of shaming men for their natural reaction to injustice. Because society is used to holding men accountable it will have far less empathy toward men than women. Men will actually have more empathy towards women than reverse, but everyone will believe it is women who are the empathetic sex.


Society will let men die homeless in the gutter while fretting over the smallest sexual harassment towards women. In short, the whole society will have a backwards perception of reality. Their implicit belief in female exemption is creating all the phenomenon which they observe and compulsively misinterpret.


At one point there was a "double standard" for men and women. After birth control, the requirement that men be good providers and women be good mothers evaporates, and the double standard collapses. This is interpreted as a moral victory for women's rights, and not as a mere outcome of technological corruption. As usual, humans over-estimate their free will and capacity for controlling their circumstances. Exemption is the "single standard" for men only, that replaces the double standard that used to exist. Wait for sex robots to abolish the single standard. Then the idiots will interpret it as a moral victory for men's rights.





Sunday, May 27, 2018

Life at the center of every form of hate



If you don't like bitching then fuck off.


Sometimes I feel like my life is an endless waking nightmare. I am a bisexual, conservative /reactionary, former Scientologist, and atheist. There is literally no room in the world that I can walk into and not be hated. Survival means silence.


None of this is really chosen. We don't get to choose our beliefs, whether political or religious. And I was born into Scientology. I did not chose it — it chose me, and sexual orientation is not a choice either.


When I was in the Church of Scientology I knew that I would never pass muster. I knew gay men that Scientology had tried to cure, and their lives were an endless series of sessions with the Ethics Officer combined with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on auditing trying to get cured. I knew from the start I would never be cured of anything, and that it was all a waste of time, but I wound up in the Ethics Department anyway writing endless confessions under the threat of disconnection from my family — MY HOMOPHOBIC FAMILY. Yes, I stayed in a cult and subjected myself to forced confessions in order to maintain relationships with what little family I still have, family that hate everything I am, family that would reject me if they knew what I was, family that still don't know, family that forced me into Scientology to begin with, family that recruited my mother into Scientology, indirectly causing her nervous breakdown and descent into schizophrenia — the family that ruined my childhood.


Both Scientology and reactionaries say that gays subvert the family.


I want to be liberal, but it's hard.


Liberals hate me for being conservative. It is impossible to hide your politics in an era of mass virtue signaling. Keeping my mouth shut isn't enough. The left expects me to actively espouse insane ideas that destroy people like me;


  • like importing mass quantities of homophobic Muslims
  • supporting corporate globalist slavery
  • supporting wage competition from immigrants
  • getting sterilized in the name of changing my gender
  • the abortion genocide waged against liberals
  • supporting the censorship of my own free speech
  • opposing gun ownership to destroy my rights


Reactionaries hate me for being degenerate. One of them once said to me, to my face, that he would put my sister in a concentration camp for her past opioid addiction.


I am supposed to support the destruction of my rights because a few mega-corporations are on the side of LGBT rights?

"Excuse me, you need to surrender all your rights because WE, THE TOLERANT ONES, are fighting for social justice. Oh, and don't worry. We'll never turn against you after we have achieved absolute global hegemony. Go ahead, just hand over your guns. Would you like some hormone therapy? Your medical insurance will cover that. No, we are not trying to sterilize your whole phenotype. Don't be paranoid! It's just a medical choice!
"And don't mind our opposition to Elon Musk. It's not like we are trying to cut off the only route of escape to our new global totalitarian corporate order, no! Can't let those polluting rockets raise global temperatures! We need to spend those resources breeding violent homophobic nogs so that you can live in an even more hostile environment!
"Why should you support this new global tyranny? Base vengeance! That's why. You will finally get even with those vile straight white males who oppressed the gays who came before you. Want to force a bigot to suck trannie cock for a promotion while making him sincerely swear it's a woman? YOU CAN DO THAT. Want to make those same bigots walk on egg shells in fear of a false rape accusation? Yep. You can do that too. Never mind that most of the accusations have been against liberal men. It's not like we use rape accusations to maintain party discipline. For 12 easy payments of YOUR SOUL you can be a corporate overlord and rule a team of white cucks. Doesn't that appeal to you? Don't you like sadism? What are you, some sort of integrity-fag?"

Why do more people not see through this scam?


It's so convenient that the left also supports fascist policies. What an amazing coincidence. On one side we have reactionaries that hate democracy, and the other conservatives who want to bomb the world/bring the world, and a third of so-called "leftists" who believe in neoliberal corporate tyranny. Oh how wonderful. Tyranny on all sides. Why am I not surprised.

On the other side;
"You should support the Nationalist revolution/restoration of monarchy. Yeah, we will genocide your gay ass (and your sister) the instant we gain a permanent hold on power, but don't you hate the Jews? Monarchy and concentration camps, that's the way goy!"

Weird how there are alt-right Jews, but I guess no weirder that reactionary bisexuals.

On the conservative side;
"Let's bomb Muslims. Isn't that fun?! Don't you like killing Towel Heads? Endless war for corporate profit is the way man! No, we won't legalize weed! God forbids it! Did you hear the news? We love FAGS now! See, we can evolve. In a few years we will be just like liberals."

Here's a thought. Why don't you take your own side?


LGBT people know that right wingers secretly hate them. That is why they support the immigration of violent homophobic Muslims, abortion, and everything else. The same can be said of feminists.


Democracy forces you to accept a number of evils so you can vote for the one thing you care about. They care about not being hunted down by Christian terrorist militias. If you are a reactionary you cannot honestly say that you would not sanction the hunting of gays. I know what you guys say — I was there when you wrote it. I might have even written it myself. Your inability to control your own hate will guarantee that you always provide a tremendous incentive for women, gays, and minorities to oppose you. They have to police you with virtue signaling. They have to oppress you with political correctness. The torch rally proves you are all a bunch of psychos who have to be kept down so that everyone you hate can survive. You simply have no ability to just leave people the fuck alone. Your commitment to the non-aggression principle is only millimeters deep, and will evaporate as soon as you have any measurable and unchallenged power. Even when you just FEEL powerful at a goddamn tiki torch rally you show your Golem face. Everyone knows it, and sees it, even if you can't because you are literally wearing your own face.


This is who you really are.




Reactionaries have this weird perception of themselves. They all believe themselves to be these deeply moral, erudite, and excessively rational intellectuals. But you meet them in person as a group, and you find out that many have criminal records, use racial epithets carelessly, hate women, hate gays, and have fashy haircuts. It's one thing to read someone use the term "degenerate" on a screen — quite another to hear it spoken aloud. Meeting reactionaries in person was hugely eye opening, and held a mirror up to myself I badly needed to see.


I needed to see what I looked like from the outside. I needed to see what my hateful opinions were doing to my face, how they were twisting my expressions and making me look like a complete troglodyte. After every reactionary meeting I left feeling vaguely terrified about what would happen if these people ever gained political power, and I learned that it was I who needed to change more than the world. Oh yes, the world was fucked up for sure. Pushing children to change their gender is an absolute wrong, but this was not about that. It was not about the objective fact of what the world was becoming, but the objective fact of what I was becoming in relation to the world. Everyone needs to see their own hate from the outside, and I saw it, regretted it, and decided that I needed to change myself.


Can you see now why I HATE?


I HATE, AND HATE, AND HATE. . . It is impossible not to hate when you have absorbed so much of it from others. I hate you all. I hate humanity. And you deserve it. Every last one of you.