Sunday, April 17, 2016

A controlled opposition is worse than nothing

The mainstream right performs a valuable function for the left. As a controlled opposition, it makes the left's ever increasing tyranny excusable. No monarch would dare impose gay marriage on an unwilling population. Nor would a one-party state like communist China. When commies take over they wind up owning the whole thing, and making them owners of an economy makes them behave responsibly toward their possessions. The level of madness of the politics of America is only made possible by a group of people who fight, and always lose. Even the process of compromise makes the left more radical. If one is to negotiate to a compromise, then he should start out with the most extreme position imaginable. That way, when compromise occurs, the resulting midway point will be what he actually, and secretly, desires. Under a one-party leftist state the people would feel the weight of all oppression acutely, forcing the regime to back off on its more radical ideas. "Compromise" with controlled opposition encourages insanity while one-party ownership suppresses it. Political parties have incentives to behave irrationally while state owners are incentivized to conserve their property and budgets. This is just the logical extension of some of the things Hans Hermann Hoppe has said.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

The consenting llama

Technology will destroy all morality. It has already created women's sexual liberation and massive promiscuity. It has enabled bad behavior with abortion. It is reducing the quality of social friendships and causing social alienation with transportation technologies.

Immanuel Kant glorified reason. Reason, of course, is the basis of our scientific technological revolution, since it is the basis of science itself. The glorification of "reason" is both a value system born of technological change, and the primary cause of that change. Kant wanted to recast Christianity as a secular ideology with the categorical imperative. During his time, new understandings of the world cast doubt as to the accuracy of the Bible. Before this, the Bible had been the infallible word of God. With things like the Heliocentric model of the universe being discovered this notion was being challenged. Kant's categorical imperative is an attempt to convert Biblical morality into secular ideology, and to do this, reason had to be celebrated above all else.

But reason is one evolved faculty of the human brain. So is emotion, instinct, feelings of disgust, xenophobia, fairness, and spirituality. Reason is one faculty among many, and Kant provided no reason, as to why reason was superior to the others, and it would not have occurred to him, to think of reason as being evolved. Kant died 5 years before Darwin was born. The theory of evolution had not yet been created. Evolution was not on his mind.

We are still dealing with Kant's bias towards reason and every moral theory is called to prove that it is logical. This notion will have to die if morality is to survive. But we need examples to know why.

Surgery has made, "becoming female" possible. Artificial uterus's will make women themselves redundant.

Mind reading devices will allow animals to literally "consent" to sex, expanding the definition of "consenting adult." Get this, there may actually be consenting sheep, and goats, in the future. Some hipster liberal degenerate will demand to marry his consenting llama.

DNA technology will render incest a moot point. It will be possible to ensure the health of babies conceived in incest by correcting genetic defects, destroying the one last basis for the incest taboo. Adult siblings will demand to get married. And society will let them. But what if they sexually abuse their children?

Memory alteration will make the harm caused by pedophilia undoable. It will be hard to argue against harming children when they can simply be implanted with happy memories. Imagine a world where children are sexually abused, then the harm erased with memory alteration—over, and over, and over, and over again.

You think this can't happen, but technology creeps up on us gradually. Material conditions program ideology. Ideology determines morals. Morals oppose solving problems. It's insidious and one technology (the pill) has already changed our attitudes towards sex by creating the sexual revolution. Then technology, having changed attitudes, makes it completely impossible to go back.

Want to ban abortion and outlaw promiscuity? That is fascist. Want to stop immigration? That is racist. Want to ban Facebook? Fascist. Outlaw putting sugar in food? Also fascist. Get rid of contraceptives? Fascist and sexist. Have a national holiday when Netflix is off? Authoritarian. Make people live near their families? Authoritarian. Force you to call your mother? Evil.

The pill created abortion. Cars and planes created mass immigration. Facebook and Netflix created themselves and their socially isolating effects. Cars caused people to atomize themselves away from their families. IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED SOCIETY, THE RESULTING CHANGED ATTITUDES HAVE MADE GOING BACK IMPOSSIBLE.

How can reason support morality in a future where immoral actions have no consequences? It can't. Technology destroys morality, self-discipline, and realism by removing the consequences that temper humans into rational creatures. It even undermines our ability to stay grounded to reality itself. It changes human cognition for the worse. The very existence of the left is the outcome of a deluded state, induced by prosperity, and prosperity caused by technology. Even some on the alt-right are being delusional. They call for the abolition of democracy while saying with a straight face that freedom will be preserved. It won't.

People must be compelled to live healthy lives with the threat of state violence. But of course democracy can't do that because it is relatively free, and if people are no longer grounded, who will define healthy?

Reason is a lie. Morality was always based in things like disgust, loyalty, care, mutual obligation, and fair dealings, and not reason itself. Morality is evolved. It is faulty to hold it accountable to reason since reason is just another evolved capacity. Cloaking morality in reason is also disingenuous. Morality doesn't need the justification of reason. It is its own justification. It is a sentiment, and that sentiment is enough. No progressive would demand love justify itself with reason, but somehow morality isn't treated with this generosity. Morality is defined by instinct, and ultimately, when we judge a moral code we use our instincts to do so. Reason then, was always a surface excuse for the deeper underling sentiment. But that was a mistake. It was the sentiment that created moral reason—not the other way around. Reason should justify itself to the sentiment, not the sentiment to reason.

Morality is lost the minute you try to justify it. Utilitarianism ends in getting a wire installed in your brain. Deontology doesn't care who dies as long as the moral imperative is followed. Equality is an envious substitute for fairness and destroys the great and good. Ultimately your instincts are better at morality than secular codes of conduct. After all, what judges those codes but instinct?

In other words, we can outlaw a thing because it disgusts us. No other reason is necessary. The insistence on excuses is itself the problem. Morality does not answer to you. You answer to it. One must not ever be called upon to justify revulsion, it is its own justification. If a large enough majority agree that a thing is wrong, then it is. Our will be done.

Technology will make "reason" an obsolete basis for morality. Disgust must become the basis of a new morality. Fuck reason. Either that, or on the basis of religious authority. After all, with genetic modification of humans it may one day be possible to alter people's notions of disgust. No doubt liberals will do just that in a crusade to make us a more "tolerant" species.


Or perhaps nothing can save us but religious authority. Or maybe it will all cancel out in the end when mind uploading abolishes sex drive altogether, and thus, all moral issues surrounding it.

In the future all morals will either be based in a secular fascism of the majority (our will be done) or a religious tyranny of theocracy, (divine will interpreted through men). When the consenting llamas arrive, all the Muslims who aren't dating their goats will freak the fuck out and go on a jihad rampage. And who can blame them? At the end of civilization morality will become the caliph pointing a gun at your head saying, "because I insist," in answer to all your moral questions. And consenting sex with adult human women? Yeah, that may be out too. If we can impose our will for this then we can probably impose it for any reason. Will itself becomes the moral criteria. This is all a disaster. Before humanity is abolished by AI, technology will abolish morality.

Isn't technology great? Enjoy the decline.