Saturday, July 23, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 2

Go back to Chapter 1.
Go to the Contents.



Chapter 2
How Incentives Drive Ideology

Throughout the whole of modern academia we see a commitment to self-loathing by professors. Not a lecture goes by in any field of the humanities, anthropology, history, etc., without some terrible Puritan compulsion to self-flagellate manifesting itself in all their discourses. The universities are infested with pseudo academics who inform us that capitalism is evil, along with the Whites who invented it, that native peoples lived in a perfect harmony with their environment, and committed absolutely no pollution ever. In reality we know differently. We know they made massive alterations to the natural world and drove whole species to extinction. We know they could be every bit at rapacious and violent as modern societies. We know that their levels of murder and rape, as Steven Pinker has discovered, where far higher than even the most deadly eras of the modern world, exceeding in magnitude the death tolls of the World Wars as a percentage of the population or those societies.

We are told that we cannot claim that Malthusian limits caused colonization, because that creates a justification for chauvinism and racism. This type of reasoning is called motivated cognition and constitutes a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad consequentiam, or argument from consequences. It does not follow that because the consequence of accepting a thesis is terrible that the thesis is false.

The point here is not to enter into an endless tedious debate with liberal academics. By using a this particular kind of logical fallacy they have already proven an unwillingness to reason if the premises lead to undesirable conclusions. This type of reason is no reason at all. Academia has become a sewer of name-calling hysterics. The basic thesis of this book, the one from which all others flow, is that ideology is downstream from power and tribalism. The very existence of logical fallacies and cognitive biases proves this theory true. The fact that humans evolved under the conditions of inclusive fitness — conditions where the survival of the genetics of others in your tribe constitutes the survival of your own related genetics, is all the proof we need. Everything humans do is the consequence of legacy genetic code created in a tribal environment over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. Anything else is an exception to this rule, and a recent development that falls outside the norm.

It is a simple thesis that is beaten to death in order to overcome these cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and political motivations of leftist "philosophers." The case is ridiculously over proved — not the other way around. The thesis is simple;

(1). Legacy genetics governs the vast bulk of modern human behaviors that are genetically derived.
(2). Human nature is the outcome of a gene-centered theory of evolution that involves inclusive fitness within the tribe or related people.
(3). Humans adapt to material conditions and obey the incentives of power.
(4). Human culture, beliefs, and all human behavior are the outcome of the social influences of power and material conditions, since humans are social animals and obey incentives.

The refusal to accept the thesis because of political motivation, (pursuit of status and power), proves thesis point no. 4.

The refusal to accept the thesis because of cognitive biases, (evolved instincts of inclusive fitness that disregard information perceived as contrary to your tribe), proves thesis point no. 2.

The refusal to accept the thesis because it is "racist" and thus, would cause you to lose your job, proves thesis point 3, since you are obeying power and material conditions.

The fact that you cannot objectively assess information that offends you proves that you are behaving in a tribal manner, since what you find offensive is the Other, which proves the thesis be proving an example of tribalism.

The tendency to excessively argue over minor points proves the thesis. Humans evolved in a tribal environment. In such a small society it was possible to literally change your society by arguing with people. Politics could have deadly consequences. Thus, to this very day, academics and people in coffee shops get into heated debates over trivial points. To even argue passionately against such a simple thesis is to prove the thesis. Since pointless arguments cannot possibly change a society with hundreds of millions of members, this proves that legacy genetics exist, and that thesis point no 1. is true.

In fact, any refusal to accept the thesis based on "being offended," logical fallacies, denial, cognitive biases, concern over consequences, or anything at all that is less than perfectly rational is proof of the thesis. The only legitimate rejection that could be made would involve proving that one of four of its points are false. You would have to prove one of the following;

(1). Humans are not governed by legacy code. All genes are perfectly adapted to their current environment within the human animal. No further evolution is even possible.
(2). Human nature is not the result of a gene-centered theory of evolution within a tribal environment.
(3). People do not adapt to material conditions or follow incentives.
(4). Culture is not the outcome of a synthesis of material conditions and power.

The opposite of the thesis is not a true negative, and thus there is a burden of proof that must be met by anyone arguing against it. Furthermore, it cannot not be true. The proof is everywhere and one need only look with his eyes to see it. To ask for more is to demand a ridiculously high standard of evidence. This author is not going to summarize a hundred history books. But I will provide a reference.

In 1798 the philosopher Thomas Robert Malthus wrote in An Essay on the Principle of Population, and in Chapter 6 he said;
"IT has been universally remarked that all new colonies settled in healthy countries, where there was plenty of room and food, have constantly increased with astonishing rapidity in their population. Some of the colonies from ancient Greece, in no very long period, more than equalled their parent states in numbers and strength. And not to dwell on remote instances, the European settlements in the new world bear ample testimony to the truth of a remark, which, indeed, has never, that I know of, been doubted. A plenty of rich land, to be had for little or nothing, is so powerful a cause of population as to overcome all other obstacles. No settlements could well have been worse managed than those of Spain in Mexico, Peru, and Quito. The tyranny, superstition, and vices of the mother-country were introduced in ample quantities among her children. Exorbitant taxes were exacted by the Crown. The most arbitrary restrictions were imposed on their trade. And the governors were not behind hand in rapacity and extortion for themselves as well as their master. Yet, under all these difficulties, the colonies made a quick progress in population. The city of Lima, founded since the conquest, is represented by Ulloa as containing fifty thousand inhabitants near fifty years ago.6 Quito, which had been but a hamlet of indians, is represented by the same author as in his time equally populous. Mexico is said to contain a hundred thousand inhabitants, which, notwithstanding the exaggerations of the Spanish writers, is supposed to be five times greater than what it. contained in the time of Montezuma."
"In the Portuguese colony of Brazil, governed with almost equal tyranny, there were supposed to be, thirty years since, six hundred thousand inhabitants of European extraction."
"The Dutch and French colonies, though under the government of exclusive companies of merchants, which, as Dr Adam Smith says very justly, is the worst of all possible governments, still persisted in thriving under every disadvantage."
"But the English North American colonies, now the powerful people of the United States of America, made by far the most rapid progress. To the plenty of good land which they possessed in common with the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, they added a greater degree of liberty and equality. Though not without some restrictions on their foreign commerce, they were allowed a perfect liberty of managing their own internal affairs. The political institutions that prevailed were favourable to the alienation and division of property. Lands that were not cultivated by the proprietor within a limited time were declared grantable to any other person. In Pennsylvania there was no right of primogeniture, and in the provinces of New England the eldest had only a double share. There were no tithes in any of the States, and scarcely any taxes. And on account of the extreme cheapness of good land a capital could not be more advantageously employed than in agriculture, which at the same time that it supplies the greatest quantity of healthy work affords much the most valuable produce to the society."
"The consequence of these favourable circumstances united was a rapidity of increase probably without parallel in history. Throughout all the northern colonies, the population was found to double itself in twenty-five years. The original number of persons who had settled in the four provinces of new England in 1643 was 21,200.(I take these figures from Dr Price's two volumes of Observations; not having Dr Styles' pamphlet, from which he quotes, by me.) Afterwards, it is supposed that more left them than went to them. In the year 1760, they were increased to half a million. They had therefore all along doubled their own number in twenty-five years. In New Jersey the period of doubling appeared to be twenty-two years; and in Rhode island still less. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselves solely to. agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were found to double their own number in fifteen years, a most extraordinary instance of increase. Along the sea coast, which would naturally be first inhabited, the period of doubling was about thirty-five years; and in some of the maritime towns, the population was absolutely at a stand."
It is easy to see how the material conditions of a frontier combined with a lack of reproductive control technology would create an ideology of manifest destiny. "Culture is downstream from material conditions," is the basic thesis of every Marxist.

Let us imagine a story of how the limits of population become the

Long before birth control a group of seafaring nomads arrive on an uninhabited island. They are fleeing clan violence on a previous island and are overjoyed at the discovery of a new empty land where they can have peace. Fleeing in a hurry some of their members have died. They crossed hundreds of miles of open water and thankfully, due to the skill of their navigator and favorable winds, have survived.

Gradually their population starts to expand. It takes about thirty to fifty years for the island to fill up with new people. Eventually starvation sets in. Someone forms a new clan with a conspiracy in mind to raid the inhabitants who live on the other side. They raid and kill them. The victors do not acquire nearly as much resources as they thought they would. It turns out that these people were also starving. In an act of desperation and hunger they cannibalize the bodies.

But the horror does not end. Within a couple of years new children are born. Now they are back where they started and starving. They contemplate killing some children but the parents become hysterical at the suggestion. A new conspiracy arises to kill and eat some outsiders.

The targets hear of the conspiracy. During the ensuing battle they flee into their ships and out on to the open ocean. The remaining inhabitants are overjoyed, because with less people, they will be able to avoid hunger for a few years. The exiles sail into open water. Maybe they will find a new island, maybe not. Most than likely they will die at sea.

The cycle repeats. Eventually all of Polynesia is colonized.

They live like this constantly. Every few years they run out of food and raid their neighboring clan. Sometimes they get raided and some of their members are killed. Eventually, because of the guilt of cannibalism, someone begins to tell lies about how killing people grants them mystical powers. This person spins an entire religious ideology into existence. Because of their desperation and need to justify their crimes, they take to this belief readily. In time, the person who created this ideology dies, or is eaten, and forgotten. But the myth of mystical powers continues.

The entire culture is the product of material conditions—even its faith. They live in a society with high birth rates and absolutely fixed resources. Their society is going to have a starvation and cannibalism as a natural law. It is going to alternate between periods of peace when the population gradually increases, followed by periods of starvation, followed by inter-clan warfare and back again. Without birth control it will do this constantly—and diverse forms of faith will enable it.

The general pattern of ideology flowing from material conditions could refer to any number of cultures.

A different culture lives on a peninsula sounded by water on three sides with a warm, gentle climate perfectly suited for growing crops. They are also seafaring but inhabit a much larger extent of territory. They too have high birth rates and fixed resources. But unlike the previous culture they are surrounded by other kingdoms with extensive lands. Eventually, when their desperation to feed their ever growing population gets acute, they hatch a plan to conquer and enslave the neighboring kingdoms. Their plan is to lay siege to the enemy and to kill all of the fighting men and young children. They will take the women as concubines and the civilian population as slaves. They will appropriate their lands and put the slaves to work tilling the soil.

Eventually they develop a marshal culture that glorifies violence and conquest. Their ideology adapts itself to serve the incentives of conquest. Having slaves, they of course study the Greeks and believe, like Aristotle, that some groups are naturally inferior. Like the previous culture, their beliefs flow from their material cultures. In fact every ancient continentally based society probably had a marshal culture that celebrated conquest, a belief in its own superiority, and a justification for subordinating others. We may look to quotes from times before birth control for evidence:
'For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 'The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.' - Deuteronomy 7:6-8
'Rome in her greatness! Stranger, look your fill!' ― Propertius
'I love the name of honor more than I fear death.' ― Gaius Iulius Caesar 
'So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.' Quran ― (9:5) 
'Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.' Quran ― (2:216)
'Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me. ― Napoleon Bonaparte 
'I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.' ― Genghis Khan

Yet another group of societies, this time located in India, deal with Malthusian limits by practicing vegetarianism. More humans can be sustained per acre on plants than meat. Of course, it does not help. The additional food simply results in more humans surviving during periods of starvation. The increase in population totally nullifies the gains from a switch to vegetarianism. They wind up with an utterly massive population, and are now trapped in a lifestyle that deprives them of meat and the energy that it gives.

Another culture deals with Malthusian limits by practicing ritual human sacrifice atop pyramids. This also serves as a means of intimidation and control. Yet another practices abortion on a massive scale. Can you guess what the name of the society with human sacrifice is called? Can you imagine what their religion was like? Can you guess what the name of the society with mass-abortion is called? Can you name the state-sponsored ideology that justifies women killing their babies?

We have here five types of civilizations, five types of ways of dealing with Malthusian limits, and five types of ideologies to justify them; fixed resource societies and ritual cannibalism, expandable resource societies and the conquest ethic, religious India and religious vegetarianism, semi-fixed resource societies and human sacrifice, abortion societies and feminism.

Now obviously this is all a vast oversimplification. But we do not need the details, because what concerns us is the overarching pattern of humanity, a pattern that we intend to reverse engineer later on. It is the pattern that matters. Not the examples.

Examples in Our Culture

Our ancestors have given the vote to all land-owners. They practice slavery against a particular race. They desire to control women and slaves. These things create an incentive structure. Let us examine the first of them.

Giving all land owning Englishman the vote creates an incentive to treat all land-owning Englishmen as equals. The incentive is justified with the ideology of equality. Also, remember that the colonists regarded themselves originally as English subjects, hence they are called here, Englishmen, since that is what they were at the time, and considered themselves to be.

Now the second of these two incentives. They practice slavery. This creates an incentive to dehumanize the enslaved groups. Thus, the ideology of racial dehumanization, which was what the word racism originally meant before being misused.

Thirdly, they have an incentive to control women because of many physical factors; they live in an era with high birth rates and scarce resources. No man wishes to pay for another mans children with the sweat of his brow in an era when you could die at forty of a heart attack while pushing the plow to support a large family. So of course, women did not have the vote.

The act of giving White land-owning Englishmen the vote divides the sovereign power. Once divided, factions form. One of the factions will always have an incentive to expand the franchise in order to disrupt the equilibrium that will tend to form. This is, has been, and always will be the more redistributive of the two political parties.

The incentive to disrupt the ruling coalition and its equilibrium brings in all other White-males. For awhile nativism remains as a result of psychological historical inertia.

The Irish were regarded as subhuman in England because of the incentive to exploit them for resources. Like all ideologies, dehumanization of the Irish flows from power and incentives. The incentive to exploit creates the ideology of regarding them as inferior.

Once given the vote the category of White becomes important and the ideology of racial unity replaces that of the ethic. Because the incentive of slavery has continued the ideology of dehumanization of blacks continues.

The new coalition creates a new equilibrium. The cotton gin has been invented. The price of the agriculture crops that support slavery are falling as a consequence of mechanization and increased farm efficiency. Slavery expands and becomes more brutal. The need for justifications increases. Racial dehumanization worsens.

This sets off a reaction against slavery within the White race itself. It is often the case that when an incentive is taken to the extreme it creates an opposite incentive for resistance. Blacks, being disenfranchised before the civil war, have no outlet for the expression of their rights. It takes the development of chattel slavery on a massive scale to bring about the dissolution of it.

The civil war happens and black men are given the right to vote. Later, the process of sovereign power division and decay continues with the introduction of female suffrage in america in 1920. Throughout each of these iterations of change in incentives, a corresponding change in ideology occurs. The change in ideology comes after the change in power or material forces ― not before.

As the right to vote expands the concept of who is equal does also. A politician has an incentive to treat a voter equally, and so does. Society has an incentive to play the game the same way, and so does. The media must appeal to peoples popular conception of self to sell copy and ads and so adopts the same conception as the new voters now have of themselves. This is the process by which an elite notion held by liberal Bahamians spreads through society. First it changes the incentive structure, they all others fall into line.

We see that the process has noting to do with the truth. No idea, no matter how true, will ever gain traction if incentives are against it. If truth mattered the world would have become atheist long ago when Epicurus made his famous argument. The fact that millions believe in God, that millions used to believe in the divine right of kings, and other examples, proves that truth is of no consequence to the people, and never will be.

In a democracy without a welfare state, and with privately managed redistribution (slavery), there is an incentive to propagate the notion that all White men, and only White males, are equal. While there is simultaneously an incentive to propagate the notion that all blacks are inferior to all Whites.

In a democracy with publicly managed redistribution (public slavery), there is an incentive to propagate the lie that all humans are equal. Everyone can vote, and so everyone's self-conception must be flattered. Everyone can vote, and so everyone can vote themselves redistribution from your purse. In the war of all against all, everyone, being a threat to everyone else, must be humored as equals.

So one power system propagates one lie and another propagates another lie.

The redistribution creates a second incentive to claim more and more resources, and to exploit novel ways of getting a larger share than others. The ideology of victimhood is born and called intersectionality. In a democracy with redistribution there is always an incentive to become a victim. Mendacious, daft, and unscrupulous people demand attention. See herehere, and here. This is entrenched with special protections as one incentive creates another. The incentive of special protections creates an ideology of dehumanizing White-males, since it is these people who are the primary victims of publicly managed slavery (redistribution).

The Democratic party needs people who perceive themselves as victims. It engenders low agency with its cultivated minority populations because psychological dependence is power. Feminism's real purpose is to disempower the people they claim to empower. They empower, but only in the prescribed way—the way that can channel energy into Marxist projects, the way that maintains psychological anguish in the host so that their hatred of the world, their cultivated and indoctrinated frustration, can be harnessed for the power of elites. "Feel anguish so we can control you," is the message of all liberalism and its ancestor Christianity. It is the original tool of elite psychological control perfected by monarchy and co-opted by communism. The lie lies is the notion of liberation. There is no liberation from oppression, no such thing as equality, and no freedom from power. Freedom from power is itself a method of gaining power.

Which is more oppressive; inequality, a "problem" that can never be solved, or being taught to hate something that can never be solved? The relationship between the party and the cultivated minority is the institutional form of a relationship between a narcissist and a codependent. Power is conserved. The sovereignty of elites is conserved. But when divided it must operate through puppets.

White males are hated because they are difficult to control. Their history gives them self-esteem. Calling them "oppressors" for this history is a tacit way of acknowledging this fact. People don't hate anyone because of the crimes of their ancestors. That is illogical. They hate what they cannot control, who they cannot manipulate. They hate intelligent people, geeks and the wealthy because all these groups have an edge over them. They hate popular kids in school and beautiful people. They hate billionaires. They tacitly acknowledge this too with terms like "privilege." They believe in equality not only because the power structure rewards it, but because it denies their own (true) sense of inferiority. No one who is superior needs equality. They want status.

All ideology is marketing for power. All philosophers are ideological prostitutes for power structures, and generally ethics philosophers some of the most mendacious people.

Ideologies may persist as legacy long after they have ceased to serve a power structure. Gods were originally invented by god kings to legitimize their rule in an era when rebellion by force of arms could topple a dynasty.

Of course, if White males find a way to take a larger share of the proceeds of redistribution the ideology may shift back.

As professional victims are created a new class of emotional laborers comes into existence who prefer cry-bullying and self-pity as their occupation to other more respectable jobs like customer service. This new royalty form a kakistocracy, which literally translates as "rule by excrement."

The very presence of the kakistocracy and its relentless ideology of dehumanizing White men creates a counter-incentive for White identity politics. Since, the ideology will not end until the redistributive incentives that created it do, White identity politics is sure to rise, and has with the candidacy of Donald Trump. It is an equal and opposite reaction, and since Whites are still enfranchised it will not require a civil war either for Whites to regain power if they are determined enough. When you redefine the word 'racism' to mean power plus privilege you create a licence for racism against Whites. "Hate begets hate," as they say.

Immigration and Willful Displacement

These incentives coincide with the incentives of other groups. Because of the holocaust and anti-antisemitism in general, Jews have an incentive to favor immigration. There is safety in numbers, and the more ethnic diversity in western civilization, the less likely the Jews themselves are to be persecuted. If the majority ethnicity is busy fighting other ethnic groups it won't be battling them. They also have an incentive to create and maintain their own external state (Israel), in case the first of these two strategies collapses. The left wing is set to the task of the former, the right the latter.

Latinos outside the US have an incentive to support immigration in order to seek a better life and escape from countries where their lives may be threatened.

Latinos, once in the United States, have an incentive to support immigration, since part of their families may still be in the home country and they are more likely to move between borders. However, some wealthier, generally lighter skinned Latinos have a counter-incentive to attempt to prevent the flow of gangs into their neighborhoods.

Corporations in certain key sectors have an incentive to import cheep labor in order to lower the salaries of western workers to slave levels. Also, illegal immigrants, being illegal, have fewer rights are less costly, and easily deported if they attempt to exercise rights. The same incentive drives the H1B Visa program, where a worker who loses their job is threatened with deportation, giving the employer unusually strong bargaining power for abuse.

The same need for slavery and money drives the rise in community service programs and excessive fines for minor traffic violations. This is why your ticket costs so much, and why the judge will generously allow you to work it off for some left-wing charity. How kind of him.

Democrats have an incentive to replace Whites with imported voters, since Whites tend to be conservative, and imported voters not, reflected in their voting patterns. Or as Bertolt Brecht would say:
'After the uprising of the 17th of June the Secretary of the Writers' Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?'

All of the actors who profit from immigration and exploitable labor contribute campaign contributions to politicians, who then use the funds to get elected, and have an incentive to worsen the status quo with more immigration in order to gain more election financing.

Ideology flows from incentives, i.e. 'America is a nation of immigrants,' and 'opposition to immigration is racist.' Notice that opposing exploitation is what is considered racist, not the exploitation itself. Or is it both? Whatever the case, the logic facilitates in the first, and not the second case. The logic favors the power, and not the powerless.

It is always amazing how whatever is righteous, true, and tolerant, is always somehow what is also profitable and exploitative for the lefts benefit.

Remember, a thing is what it does, not what it says it does.

America has an incentive to wage wars in the middle-east for the profit of oil companies, who create an incentive for war for politicians through massive campaign contributions. Presidents have an incentive whenever war boosts ratings, which is most of the time. Refugees have an incentive to immigrate to Europe in order to seek a better life, in a culture they could never create, seek to destroy, all while raping women who won't consent. ISIS has an incentive to send fighters masquerading as refugees in order to terrorize those same Europeans, in order to provoke America. The various left-wing governments have an incentive to selectively terrorize their own populations with the importation of hostile refugees, especially into the more right-wing working class 'volk' neighboorhoods.

Elites lack an incentive to oppose this because their neighboorhoods are priced out of the average refugees budget, and the police respond promptly. Elites have a multitude of incentives to betray their own ethnic populations because it is a form of virtue signaling to other elites and gains them status, (they're so tolerant!), because of cheep labor, because it keeps the opposition working class submissive and afraid, AND, because they are more globally interconnected than regionally. Anyone who disagrees is a racist. Essentially, they are waging war on their own populations for the power it brings them, using the excuse of tolerance. As usual, incentives determine ideology.

Same old same old. Enslave people — quote a Bible passage.

The old royalty of Europe only cared about their people because globalization had not yet happened. They were more regionally than globally connected. Incentives differed. They were rent-seeking land owners tied to a particular locale. Bringing back monarchy won't bring back a love of the people among the elites. And remember that the mass importation of slaves to the US, an act that still effects us negatively, began for the financial gain of imperial monarchy.

Private redistribution is slavery. Public redistribution is the welfare state. Ideology in the first instance is racism, in the second equality, and in the victim-based kakistocracy — dehumanization of White males. No doubt some self-hating person thinks this is completely appropriate.

Incentives Now Program Autogenocide

Material conditions cause the incentive of population shrinkage. as people move to the city their birth rates fall. On a farm, children are a financial asset—in the city, a financial liability. Men, especially White men, are turned into financial slaves for their wives in the divorce, discouraging marriage and reproduction. Profit is everything, and middle-class western workers are more expensive that foreign ones.

In turn, population shrinkage can be anticipated to become the ideology of racial autogenocide. Then the ideology fights against national and racial survival. Indeed, this has already come to pass. White liberals are making a religion out of their own self-destruction. When the project of liberalism succeeds it fails by abolishing the population that created it. Immigration also makes socialism impossible, since only ethnically homogeneous populations have sufficient class envy to accomplish it, and only uniform peoples have enough solidarity to balance its budgets. Multi-racial populations vote along racial lines, since the xenophobic impulse is stimulated to the point of suppressing the equality/envy impulse. Elites know all of this intuitively as indicated by expressions like the classic phrase, "divide and conquer." Multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies become illiberal democracies or authoritarian states that favor the dominance of the rich as horizontal class solidarity among the ninety-nine percent is replaced by vertical racial solidarity working across class lines in the classic fascist pattern of the one-percent and its clients. Ethnically homogeneous socialism embraces equality to excess, brings in foreigners, stimulates the xenophobic impulse to frenzy, and abolishes itself.

Because there is no greater counter incentive, nothing opposes this. In a previous era celebrating the open destruction of your nation and race would get you shot. It doesn't today because the same incentive that create the reality of shrinkage, and the ideology to support it, also creates the outrage against doing anything to prevent it, and the accusations of racism against anyone who would fight it.

This is extremely important to point out. Humans are incentive slaves with a slave morality and an effect-culture. In other words; the incentive / material conditions dictate their ideology and morals, programs their cultural values, and programs a moral resistance to changing and reversing cultural decline. The thing creates both the obedience to the incentive, the resistance to changing it, and the ideology that prevents thinking outside of it.

For example. We live in an era of rapid change. Thus, change itself is glorified. Technology, the engine of change, is worshiped. Progressives ignore technologies effects, appropriating credit for so-called progress. They gain prestige by claiming to be on the right side of history. They tell you it is the current year. Problems associated with technological change are ignored or confined to a different mental category than progress. No one thinks to connect change, "social progress," technology, environmental pollution, and moral decay together as different aspects of the same force.

Nor does anyone challenge the liberal act of steeling credit that belongs to technology for "progress." Nor does anyone question what these technologies are doing to us, how social media, telephones, and mass transportation are destroying our intimate relationships with friends and loved ones, or how it is causing social atomization. Text messaging and Facebook are destroying your friendships by converting them into text on a screen rather than face-to-face conversations.

Airplanes have sent your families away from you. Money converts the pride of craft into the robotic motions of production. Transportation technologies are creating globalization. Globalization is creating low trust neighborhoods. Plastic is ruining the oceans. TV is rotting your brain, ruining your attention span, and taking you away from real conversations with living people. Sugar in everything you eat is making you fat. Contraceptives have destroyed healthy relationships and created mass-promiscuity. So has abortion. Air conditioning atomizes people by taking them off their front porches and out of conversations with their neighbors. Chemicals are causing genetic damage and possibly leading to an explosion in autism rates.

The liberal progressive shops at the health food store and yet still glorifies change? Can he not see that everything is linked? How can he glorify this and not that? How does he separate the one and the other? Does he not realize it is all part of the same process?

Yet that is exactly what happens. Material conditions program ideology. Ideology determines morals. Morals oppose solving problems because they are based in the forces that caused those same problems. Morality is the psychological internalization of ideology. Oh, of course people have a native moral sense. But the way that sense is shaped is determined by ideological considerations. Ideology is determined by power. Power obeys incentives. Incentives are created by technology. Thus, technology programs the morals that celebrate technology and its destructive effects.

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 where Netflix is off? Authoritarian. Make people live near their families? Authoritarian. Force you to call your mother? Evil.

Material conditions / technology / incentives, program everyone's morals to such a degree that any actual break from incentive slavery and effect-culture is always considered outrageous. A human is a slave who defends her slavery. We don't just obey. We love our master, and defend him with devotion.

Now one may point to the Japanese and say, 'see, they don't hate themselves like The West does.' Perhaps. Our culture runs its autodestruction through a Christian amplifier of pathological guilt. But the Japanese are still imploding. I notice no material difference in their long-term survival potential as a people, even if they are not inviting in hostile refugees and going insane with virtue signaling against racism. There reproductive rates are imploding just like ours.

Birth control programs the incentive that leads to sexual revolution. Revolution shapes power. Power forms ideology. Ideology is internalized as the morality of women's rights. Restricting access to birth control is then opposed. The technology programmed the power, ideology, and moral decay that resists improvement.

Since humans cannot even think about defying their incentives, control over those incentives is the only way to solve problems. The Germans once believed that a Führer could rise above economic considerations through sheer will. Defiance of economics was part of their doctrine as well as Julius Evola's. There is a belief in rising above the economic. In Men Among the Ruins he says,
'All this is proof of the true pathology of our civilization. The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man. And, as often occurs in hypnosis, what the mind focuses on eventually becomes real. Modern man is making possible what every normal and complete civilization has always regarded as an aberration or as a bad joke—namely, that the economy and the social problem in terms of the economy are his destiny.'

'Thus, in order to posit a new principle, what is needed is not to oppose one economic formula with another, but instead to radically change attitudes, to reject without compromise the materialistic premises from which the economic factor has been perceived as absolute.' 
Reject? Only the Amish reject. Unless you are planning to join them you have no case. The economic factor is the technological factor.

And how did rejecting work out for Germany? Both NAZI's and Communists tried to fight economics. Both lost utterly. It is absurd to fight a force when you can control it. Furthermore, since all humans are incentive slaves, controlling this force is the most efficient way to maximize control over the world. This is done by generating new incentives to smash old ones, throwing the new incentives into battle to solve your enemies for you. The virtue of incentive engineering is that everyone is obsessed with dogma, and thus, the incentive based attack is always unanticipated and from a sideways direction. An incentive attack will ultimately change an enemies dogma from within, changing them before they realize what is happening.

This belief was common back in the day, this idea of rejecting economic dominance in favor of aristocratic nobility. Perhaps it even worked before modern industrial capitalism. It doesn't now. I am not going the Führer route. All of our solutions will work within economics rather than trying to defy it. We will control the course of the river, not oppose its flow like communists, or try to smash it with war like fascists. We will control the forces that control us. This is the only option left.

An Equal and Opposite Reaction

The incentives for immigration generate an ideology of White self-abasement. The culture
appropriates it's existing Christian guilt in order to enable it's own conquest by outsiders. There is a confluence of incentives driving this ideology. There is the need to justify the welfare states redistribution with the ideology of equality. There is the need to justify the expropriation of the White male through taxation that pays for said welfare state at his expense. This generates an ideology of systematic dehumanization towards Whites, and White men in particular. There is the need by globalists to practice various forms of de facto slavery against immigrants and the third world, and to exploit native workers more thoroughly by suppressing wages, and using immigration as a form of corporate welfare to bolster profits. This requires that the ideology of anti-racism be co-opted for exploitative purposes. All of these come together to synthesize a toxic brew of ideology which is nation destroying and profoundly anti-White. This in turn creates a new incentive in reaction against it: the incentive for White identity politics.

The harder transnational elites and others push for mass immigration, and the harder the universities support this through indoctrination, the stronger the resultant counter-incentive is to view these people as hostile forces, and the greater demand will be for the elites destruction. In essence, mass immigration drives demand for mass rebellion. Driven far enough, it may drive demand for mass murder. This is an extreme problem. Elites are driving society beyond human natures capacity for adaption.

Natural Principles

Let us now outline some basic principles for our five-phase hypothesis. Remember that we are still working within that framework. We have concentrated on phases (2) through (4), that is, from the incentive phase (2), through political/social actions (3), to ideological construction in response to those incentive structures, or (4). We have not completed a complete discussion of morality, (5), though obviously that is affected. We have only touched on Level (1), that is, (material forces + human nature + past political programs + technology). Abortion is a technology, as well as other methods of contraception. Globalization and it's related immigration effects are based in the technologies of transportation, communication, and computers. Mass migration is also based on these.

Identity politics is a little different. Victim culture is based only in the politics of redistribution: it is the financial/power incentive that causes the ideology victimhood. Meaning: that phase (1) is in this case, actually the product of a past iteration of politics and not of material conditions, technology, or human nature itself. This is a good thing. Material condition cannot be changed without inventing technology. Human nature can only be 'changed' at the margins through education. It is almost entirely unmodifiable. Technology is also not driving it. This is good news because it means that the problem is entirely political in origin, having come from a past incentive structure of politics. That means it can be easily modified.

The solution lies in abolishing protected classes their handouts. The way to do that is to invent a new incentive that makes being a protected group unprofitable. Of course the Cathedral will get in the way. We will come at them sideways. If one cannot challenge an ideology directly then one creates a new incentive structure, one that no stops to think about, and you work through iteration. That is, you create a series of successive new incentives that gradually turn the wheel of the proverbial car. Each incentive generates a new ideology. The new ideology makes possible new actions that you could not get away with before. You use that new ideology to create a second round of new incentives. This is repeated iteratively until you have reversed direction from its current vector, or taken wherever direction you intend to take it.

For now it is necessary that we draw up a list of principles that can be divined from our study. We want to consolidate what we know with brevity about the basic rules that incentives follow. These are positive and not normative, they are laws of nature and not man. Here they are. Note that the coercion market is the term that I use for the government. This is based on the maximum of mine that, 'a thing is what it does, and not what it says it does.' Since all governments rely on a coalition of power for support, since all of the coalition actors expect to be compensated with rent-seeking, and since democracy acts as a multi-party brokerage system for selling other peoples money, I will refer to the government as a coercion market. This is a completely fair description. As just two examples: the Canadian drug importation ban, and the welfare state itself.

Also, these principles relate to design of solutions too. First we have to get through a lot of concepts. This author is essentially teaching you an entirely new subject, inventing it from a synthesis of past economic concepts rooted in the Austrian school.

Principles:

  • (1) A thing is what it does, not what it says it does.
  • (2) A democracy is a competitive coercion market while a monarchy is a monopolistic one.
  • (3) Ideology flows from incentives.
  • (4) Humanity follows a Five-Phase Process where human nature, material conditions, technology, and past political actions synthesize into social and economic material incentives. 
  • (5) Politics is the outcome of material incentives.
  • (6) Culture (ideology + morals), are downstream from politics.
  • (7) Whenever there are two conflicting incentives the stronger of the two will prevail.
  • (8) Since the elite have more purchasing power in the coercion market than general interest groups, the elite will usually prevail.
  • (9) Since morals are the outcome of incentives acting through ideology, all solutions to social problems will appear immoral, since the mind of the designer will be contaminated with the morals that support the incentive structure he fights.
  • (10) The sycophants of society (currently the left), will always find your solutions morally objectionable. This is because the incentives that programmed the problem that you are trying to solve will have also programmed the morals of your critics and the people that oppose you.
  • (11) Thus, humans tend to design new incentive structures along the vector of the old ones, since their moral sense, being dictated by the old structures morals, will inform their choice of future solutions.
  • (12) Good design is amoral, but not immoral, it creates new and better moral ideologies with its incentives.
  • (13) If you build the a sufficiently powerful incentive, others with rationalize it ideologically for you.
  • (14) If it is sufficiently powerful and affects the elite, it will become law.
  • (15) Since systems are too complex to be perfectly designed at a single pass, and since resistance may be high, the process of iteration is the best method.
  • (16) Iteration is as follows: one develops a design and then critiques it. Each iteration is followed by a critique, then another iteration and another critique. The process of designing a solution teaches the artist the best method. The process is itself a crucial discovery phase. The first iteration is nearly always a disaster for society. It is your third or fourth political solution which is usually best.
In Chapter 3 we will discuss anti-reproduction incentives further, the five-phase model more extensively, and do a compare and contrast on how phase 1 forces program cultures.


Go back to Chapter 1.
Go to the Contents.
Go to Chapter 3.




Sunday, July 10, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 1a

Go back to the Introduction
Go to the Contents.

Chapter 1a
The Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis
Natural laws are 
denoted with an *


We live in a golden age of enlightenment. The beings inhabiting this space have no respect for it, instead preferring to remake the degraded conditions of their prior circumstance. One million years of tribal communism was one million years of economic depression, and half the population, (the left) longs for a return to it. Half the population doesn't get it. Our glorious system, capitalism, has delivered us from ourselves, is resented by millions, and is better that the human primate deserves.

In the eternal dark age of human evolution the human primate raised himself above basic subsistence. Only for several thousand has he been feudal, and only for mere hundreds has he had capitalism. Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis, or (ELH) is simply the hypothesis that genetics has not kept pace with technological change. Simply put, the hypothesis is that humans are a biological system running a seven thousand year old software program in the twenty-first century, and failing to adapt. It is humans that are the problem—not the system.

Our genes are outdated for our new environment and all modern social problems emerge as a consequence of this continual maladaptation caused by legacy. The gap caused by this situation we will call the rift between human nature and the modern world. This feels upside down to you because you are human, you are running the legacy code, and so you see the world from inside out instead of outside in. When you resent it you place up in the position of down, wrong in the position of right. It is the system that is superior to you, not you which are superior to it.

Capitalism is not the problem, genetics is.

If a culture persists long enough it will modify the genes of the people inhabiting it. The million year economic depression that was tribal communism has genetically programmed us to favor those conditions.

Put another way; humans evolved for one environment and live in another. This results in chronic misery and hatred of the political order. Some rebel against the inhuman nature of capitalism. Others dislike immigration and mass migration. Some resent massive inequalities. Still others refuse to have children. All of these manifestations are the result of techno-material conditions outstripping our humanity. We are simply not made for the modern world, and either it, or us, needs to be remade to bridge the rift. Here are some examples of this chronic maladaptation.

  • Social media causes social isolation, making relationships more superficial in nature.
  • Modern transportation destroys family connections, as people move away for work.
  • Corporate ownership of the means of production alienates men from each other by separating man from his own output, and by separating all men from community with each other.
  • Apartment living causes social separation and isolation.
  • Pornography sabotages the natural reproductive instinct.
  • Overwork and the education of women destroys population replacement.
  • Pollution toxifies the Earth, leading to rampant harmful genetic mutations.
  • Aviation spreads epidemics around the world.

Humans are bad at economics and math. We suffer from countless cognitive biases. Humans instinctively use logical fallacies when thinking. Some of the most common are the ad hominem, tu quoque, begging the question, moralistic fallacy, and slippery slope. They contaminate everything and make honest political discussion with people who have not been trained in recognizing logical fallacies next to impossible. Get this, a person must actually be trained out of their biases before they can think. In their natural state their mind is configured to prevent new ideas from getting in.

Piled on top all this is a basic set of impulses that can be divided into the two categories of psychological and physical. There are more possible categories than those listed here, but from what this author can tell the impulses listed below are sufficient to describe the cause of most political problems in modern society, after all, all political and social problems are postulated to be the consequence of legacy code.*


Genetic Compulsions of Legacy Code 

The Psychological Impulses
  • The equality obsession (fairness neurosis).
  • The xenophobic impulse (compulsive hatred of outsiders, "us versus them" thinking).
  • The argumentative impulse (irrational Dunbar thinking).
  • The collective delusion capacity (capacity for collective belief in non-existent things).
  • The violent craving for agreement (that attacks all who refuse to agree, sometimes violently)
  • The spiritual compulsion

Physical Impulses (listed in order of most to least important for survival)

  • Breath (air).
  • Defecation
  • Thirst
  • Appetite (food).
  • Libido (sex).
  • Loneliness, (and the need for touch).


We will disregard all the physical impulses. Capitalistic technology has done a marvelous job of satisfying basic urges and needs. It is the psychological impulses that have political consequences and can kill millions if not dealt with. The equality obsession gave us communism, and the xenophobic impulse Nazism.

All impulses must be contained, harnessed, directed, suppressed through education, or accommodated for a society to be successful. This is a basic law of governance. *

Going back to our list of psychological impulses, the first three require some explanation. The argumentative impulse, or irrational Dunbar thinking, is the name I have given to what Patri Friedman calls 'folk activism.' It is the tendency of people to think that their opinion's matter when they factually don't. Humans evolved in small groups and tend to believe they can argue their way into changing society. Every heated political debate in a bar is an example of the argumentative impulse. The world today is composed of billions of people and is simply too large to change with an argument. It operates according to forces of economics, a subject that the average human is terrible at understanding. In reality, no one is in control. The leaders you think govern things are themselves governed by the forces they seek to control. Human agency is remarkably lacking, with every puppet thinking he is a master. Whenever you think humans are in charge you are probably wrong. It is human nature to overestimate human control.*

It is all a set of blind idiot forces of nature that subsumes humans in a torrent of material forces pushing them around and controlling outcome and values. It determines the very values of the individual, making them think they are choosing—when in reality—it has chosen them. How much power these blind forces have we will explore later.

The xenophobic impulse is fairly self-explanatory. It should be understood that racism is a specific expression of xenophobia. It is true that racism is learned. It is not true that xenophobia is learned. That is innate. Everyone has a moral blind spot where outsiders are concerned. They will not even think to consider the rights of someone they feel is beyond comprehension. People despise anyone they do not want to understand, and make a compulsive habit out of willfully misunderstanding others they do not like. They want an excuse to kill you, especially if their beliefs are threatened with hate speech, blasphemy, crimethink, etc. If you doubt that all people are xenophobic find a "tolerant" liberal and express some reactionary opinions. If you want people in general to become violent toward you may perform an experiment; simply disagree with them relentlessly about everything. It will eventually come to blows. Trust me.

The equality obsession is so-called because it really is an obsession for most people. Humans are riddled with envy, and envy is not to be understood as wanting what other people have, no. Envy is hating them for having it. Envy is a deep sense of unfairness over your life conditions. Envy wears a thousand faces and is insidious. Envy is a craving for "justice." All forms of emotion that involve the feeling that others are privileged, that life has been unfair, that the universe has wronged you (even if it has), etc., are examples of the equality obsession. Every petty resentment you have ever experienced is an example of envy. The universe is not unfair. That is just one of your genetic compulsions talking.

The last two are the collective delusion capacity and the violent craving for agreement. We touched on the collective delusion capacity in the introduction to this book when we talked briefly about the human capacity for make-believe. Since this is a long topic we will get to these later.

The general concept of maladaptation is in everything. These are just some examples. Other people have had similar ideas, but I do not believe anyone has put forward legacy itself as hypothesis worthy of serious academic consideration. It is such an obvious idea that it appears to always be stated as a given, even when no one realizes they are talking about it.

The human species is at sub-replacement fertility levels in the west. This fact proves that the conditions of the modern world have exceeded the human capacity for adaptation. Legacy genetics can only go so far. This should not be surprising. Animals don't breed in captivity and humans apparently don't breed under pure capitalism. Modern capitalism is unwilling to pay for the replacement of its own workers and consumers without political intervention. So though the system is superior to the animal that does not automatically mean the animal can survive the system.

Various attempts have been made to rectify this conflict between human nature and technologically alienating modern conditions. They are all more or less abysmal failures.

Communism tried to force human nature to change, and to force both the political and economic system to regress to a parody of human tribal communist form. It failed because the very presence of modern technology makes capitalism automatically competitive over communism, because communism does not work above the Dunbar limit (egalitarian anti-hierarchy), because it needed lies to maintain the system, and because of the economic calculation problem, among others.

On the other hand, fascism tried to make a super-tribe out of Germany, expressing a hyper-xenophobia as a unifying force. We all know how that turned out.

Liberal capitalism has worked so far, but is now dying from the individualization that it uses to break up family clans so as to better exploit people. The process of exploitative social atomization has reached its conclusion with the failure of individuals to breed. It is attacking the family itself and thus the reproductive unit necessary for its own continued existence. It is doing this under the influence of liberalism, which is now a tool of capitalism.

Political approaches can be characterized under two categories: those systems that concentrate on trying to modify human nature to fit the system, and those systems that modify themselves to fit human nature. There are also combination systems.

Communism is a combination of the two. Liberalism, and transhumanism are attempts to modify the individual to fit the system. The first of these three operates through economics, the second through indoctrination, and the third through gene hacking. All will be disastrous at some point in history. Even if we could genetically modify humans to become more capable of handling modern capitalism, to what end? How do we know what genetic changes would be best? How do we anticipate side effects? We run into a problem where a  more primitive software program (human nature) is trying to engineer a more sophisticated software program. Yet nature herself is far more complex at deriving this answer. The problem is that we are simply too stupid for the task, and we are likely to engineer ourselves into a dead end as a species.

The second approach is to modify our politics and economics to suit human nature. This is reactionary in orientation, and far more likely to work. Also, if it causes a disaster, as long we have been careful to avoid revolution and respect the laws of economics, it is likely to be minimal in its harm. Human nature is tribal communist and xenophobic in nature. The modification of politics to suit human nature must occur in a modern developed economy, and must not attempt to be left wing. That is to say, it must not be blank state based, or based on the notion that human nature is modifiable.

Going back to year zero like the Khmer rouge is not feasible since human nature cooperates with technology. By forcing humans to live without it the regime had to use drastic violence. It was basically fighting the demand side of the supply and demand curve. The Khmer rouge attempted to defy human nature in this way, making its politics deeply left wing.

Nearly all modern political philosophy is unified by a need to close the rift between human nature and modern technologically developed society. They can be divided into three categories based on what they believe is the source of maladaptation. Progressives believe that the source is culture, the problem inequality, and the solution abolishing whiteness, or educating the people. The Khmer Rouge believed the source was modern industrial capitalism, the problem inequality, and the solution a return to agrarian communism. Communists believed that the source was capitalism, the problem inequality, and the solution communism. The Amish believe that the source is modern decadence, the problem is modernity itself, and the solution is to live without modern technology. Scientologists believe the source is the reactive mind, the problem how to erase it by clearing people of their engrams, and the solution auditing. Transhumanists believe the source is human nature, the problem genetics, and the solution genetic and intelligence enhancement through gene therapy and/or mind uploading. Accelerationists believe in abolishing the rift by abolishing either the human race with artificial intelligence or capitalism itself. Reactionaries believe that the source is the Cathedral and modernity, the problem the absence of traditional structures, and the solution a return to traditional living forms.

(Some of the above links will take you to the horses mouth on Scientology).

These forms can be divided by what category they use to determine the source of the gap between human nature and human structure. Some attribute the cause to be spiritual in nature, (Scientologists), believing that what is needed is a spiritual evolution of humanity.

Some liberals believe that a moral evolution of humanity is necessary.

Some  believe that all the problems are caused by culture, (liberals and conservatives), with liberals believing that is is caused by inequality, white privilege, or whiteness itself, or environmental attitudes, depending on the liberal. Conservatives believe it is caused by a culture of fatherlessness among blacks, criminal attitudes, differing cultural values, or differences in educational participation and parental investment, depending on the conservative.

Some believe that current structures are themselves the problem. These would be the Amish and reactionaries. The former reject modern technology and culture, the later only reject modern ideology.

So these sort themselves into the causal categories causes of spiritual, moral, cultural, technological, and genetic.

Essentially, either people can be brought up, or society can be brought down (poor choice of words), to close the gap. Either human nature can be changed, or human the human environment. On the first of these two, liberalism is pushing the limit of what education can is capable of, and the liberal order is breaking down under delusional expectations that brainwashing educating people enough can solve every social ill. Changing society has been tried with communism—now the left wants to change human nature.

High fecundity is maintained only by groups such as the Amish, Mennonites, Hasidics jews, Haredi Jews, the Quiverfulls, Hutterites, Bruderhof, Russia old believers, and Mormons, among others worldwide.

If not going slowly extinct is a criteria of successfully adapting to the modern world, then groups who turn their backs on modern technology, specifically birth control, are thriving. At present birth rates, they should out-populate us all in the long run. They will survive modernity by turning their backs on it.

The rift between human nature and modern structure is the central theme of all modern ideology. Whole schema have been developed to address this problem. They differ by their diagnosed cause, (spiritual, cultural, genetic, etc.), by the proscribed solution, (spiritual, educational, genetic, or singularity), and by the method, (change the man for the environment or the environment to suite the man).

Monarchy, democracy (up until the present era), and Patchwork are examples of political systems that have worked or could, by accommodating human nature in a controlled fashion. This brings the government into alignment with the needs and natural instincts of the person, giving them an outlet for their impulses, and using that outlet to constrain other, more destructive impulses. Controlled expression of either the xenophobic or equality impulse form the basis of all successful governments. Systems that attempt to suppress all human nature fail.*

The only reason that democracy is failing today is that the left treats all problems as perceptual in nature. The lefts commitment to "education," meaning indoctrination, causes it to ignore reality. This sabotages the feedback mechanism that democracy uses to correct itself. Democracy relies on correct information to make a decision, and if that process is interfered with by an entity that dominates the perception of the population and controls its every thought through the organs of media, academic, and stifling political correctness, the feedback mechanism ceases to function. This only happens when democracies fantastic success brings its insulated elites into a condition of no longer having 'skin in the game,' so to speak, being afforded the capacity of willful ignorance as luxury. Perhaps this is inevitable for all democratic states. But whatever the case, having problems caused by ones own prosperity-induced delusional idealism is the best kind of problem to have, and if democracy yields this regularly it is not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but must be corrected.

On the subject of the Patchwork, we will get to that later when we design the transitional mechanism for getting to it later on.

All political and Utopian systems can be conceived of as more or less failures to deal with this basic conflict between human nature and modern requirements of the industrialized world. Some, like communism and fascism, are utterly spectacular failures, killing millions in the process. All political orders are converging towards a single set of coping mechanisms for dealing with the human nature/financial capitalist conflict. What that is has yet to be seen. The purpose of this work is to try to outline some possible solutions. We start by first recognizing the fact that the problem exists, and then exploring the various aspects of it. Each aspect is a narrative that helps us wrap our minds around what is going on. Each tells the story from a different angle. Any conflicts between these narratives are superficial and language based. It is the process of understanding the problem from these different angles that is fruitful.

Let us start by exploring the first of the manifestations of our evolutionary legacy. This will give us a foundation rooted in human cultural history and their adaptations.



First Aspect, or How Material Conditions Become Culture

Many neoreactionaries believe in a philosophy of political inactivism. This makes sense from the perspective that democratic politics has an inherently left-wing vector. If the struggle between right in left always results in a leftward ratchet then is is best to do nothing. Engagement is simply an excuse for the Cathedral to impose its totalitarian will. By having an enemy, the left has an excuse. Political resistance serves as a tool of legitimization by maintaining the illusion the opposition ever had a chance at victory. As Nick Land says, (referencing Moldbug), in The Dark Enlightenment:
'The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them. Insofar as there is a pure logic of politics, it is that. One immediate consequence (repeatedly emphasized by Mencius Moldbug) is that progressivism has no enemies to the left. It recognizes only idealists, whose time has not yet come. Factional conflicts on the left are politically dynamic, celebrated for their motive potential. Conservatism, in contrast, is caught between a rock and a hard place: bludgeoned from the left by the juggernaut of post-constitutional statism, and agitated from ‘the right’ by inchoate tendencies which are both unassimilable (to the mainstream) and often mutually incompatible, ranging from extreme (Austro-libertarian) varieties of laissez-faire capitalist advocacy to strains of obstinate, theologically-grounded social traditionalism, ultra-nationalism, or white identity politics.'
'‘The right’ has no unity, actual or prospective, and thus has no definition symmetrical to that of the left. It is for this reason that political dialectics (a tautology) ratchets only in one direction, predictably, towards state expansion and an increasingly coercive substantial-egalitarian ideal. The right moves to the center, and the center moves to the left.'
I am going to dispute some of this because I believe that the Cathedral's unifying and organizing principle is not ideology but various forms of monetary and psychological incentives. With this perspective, it becomes possible to hack the Cathedral by the surreptitious re-engineering its financial incentive structures. Progressives are still slaves to money like everyone else, and given the right monetary incentives I think they will change their ideology. In fact, I think ideology itself is entirely the product of emotional, psychological and financial incentives. When excuses are repeated long enough, they harden into ideology. I deny that pure ideology, divorced from incentives, is even possible.

The basic neoreactionary hypothesis is this:
(a) society moves left because the right is divided.
(b) the ideology of the Cathedral is a mimetic puritan virus.

What I will assert is that while both (a) and (b) are technically true we neoreactionaries are missing the larger picture of things. I would reformulate the hypothesis as follows:

(a) society moves leftward because of legislative accumulation and left-enabling technology,
(b) the right is divided because the previous reality makes it ineffective,
(c) under success, division becomes irrelevant,
(d) while it is a mimetic puritan virus, the ideology of the Cathedral is still guided by incentives,
(e) those incentives can be hacked.

Some of these ideas, like legislative accumulation, we will define later. We are going to concentrate for now on (e), the hacking of incentives.

Remember that line from Modbug's essay The Lightworker wants to touch your junk.
'The perfect leftist is the fanatical hypocrite. While his beliefs correspond precisely to his own advantage, he believes in them furiously just the same. His opportunism does not even slightly detract from his sincerity, which is palpable and enormous. Indeed, if the situation changes and so do his interests, his mind will change as well. And change sincerely.'
The point here is that even the most sincere fanatic is an incentive slave, and will eventually change his tune as his source of profits change. This is what Moldbug is doing with Urbit: hacking the Cathedral. And he is not the only one who can do this. Politically, incentives can be constructed that are either technologically or politically derived.

Politically engineered reward structures are simultaneously more flexible and more subject to attack, while technologically derived incentive structures are completely permanent, irrevocable changes in the marketplace that make going back nearly impossible.

Culture really is downstream from power, but what we are missing is that power is downstream from incentives. We may go even one step further and say that incentives are the outcome synthesis of several material conditions in combination with human nature. Also, ideology programs peoples morals. When we put this all together we get a chain of causality. This gives us a diagram that looks something like this:

Technology +
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
------------------------------
=   A  Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals

Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change, that is, society reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.

What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to effect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. One thing I have not decided is whether religion belongs in the location of (1) or (4). It appears to have characteristics of both at it reflexively reacts to new technologies and simultaneously defies their influence. I suppose it depends on how embracing of fads and trends a faith is. More cathedral prone religions are in the category of (4).

But no matter.

What this tells us is that it is more important to control incentive structures than ideology. It also tells us that ideological warfare is a rather fruitless uphill battle against these reward structures. One could fight for a thousand years and never get anywhere. Because humans evolved in tribal societies they have an instinctive tendency to believe they can argue people into changing their minds. This is wrong. To quote Upton Sinclair,
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
In the back of his mind, a person may believe you are right and still not change his mind. This puts him in the uncomfortable position of hating you for reminding him he is a whore, and makes you very unpopular around the dinner table. Going around reminding people of their ideological prostitution is not an effective way to build social capital. The financially successful, (wealthy), are the most slavishly devoted to their incentives, hence they are wealthy. They are also the most ideological and powerful people in society. Truth will only alienate them, and these are precisely the people we want to reach. They are also the most immune to the truth, and in greatest need of self-deception. After all, it was their devotion to their appetite that made them wealthy in the first place. A large appetite requires larger justification.

Humans can be conceived the way Freud does: id driven beings, with egos that do the janitorial work of cleaning up for lustful appetites. The id wants what it wants, pursuing it on a subconscious level, and in a self-deceiving manner. The ego then provides the necessary cleaning service of giving rationalizations and moral justifications to the id. The individual is thus composed of two parts, a craven unconscious one the calculates its best advantage, and a logical rational conscious faculty that justifies everything post hoc using ideological/moral reasoning. Ideology is janitorial work.*

In fact, I conceive that intelligence itself evolved precisely so that humans could play status seeking games within the confines of the tribe. By increasing relative status they ensured reproductive access to mates. Men compete while women conform. Since status is always a relative commodity it necessitates a measure of predation. This predation drove the development of a human capacity for self-deception. It also means that humanity can be conceived of as a self-predatory species, man is the species that preys on itself.*

Human intelligence is then the product of a Red Queen spiral of social status predation where the host can never escape its parasite because host and parasite, being of the same species, interbreed with each other. Through this predatory status competition, an upward ratcheting effect occurs where all humans are under selective pressure to be more intelligent in competition with all other member of their species. The baseline constantly shifts upward, causing intellect to evolve well beyond what is necessary for survival.

Nothing else explains just why humans are so unnecessarily smart relative to other species. Lots of animals hunt, breed, and survive with far less intelligence. Intelligence may not be conserved among humans. Malthusian relaxation is not a given here.

Organized religion, (which was originally inseparable from the state), and later royalty, politics, activism, lobbying, popularity contests, fashion, beauty, power seeking, and holiness spirals, are all part of the human instinct to prey on ones fellow man. Humans, being social predators, seek to maximize social and material gain in relative status competitions, and evolved intelligence only for that purpose. Self-deception is an integral and necessary part of that. One wants to nakedly pursue incentives without losing status or self-esteem. Self-deception and ideology are the means people use to get there.

Ideology = solidified rationalizations for unethical behavior. It is post hoc to the real issue. Debating it is pointless since you are debating an effect, and not a cause. The cause is incentives.

I am using the term 'incentive' expansively to mean 'anything that motivates human behavior with a reward,' this includes sex, power, prestige, happy feelings, pain avoidance, respect, love and others. It is not just money.

When we look at things from this perspective we realize that yes, of course feminists want power. Black Lives Matter is also about power, so is Mattress Girl, and all the rest of it. Of course the pursuit of equality is really just a cover for the pursuit of power. Humans must rationalize their unethical behavior, and self-deception steps in to provide seemingly legitimate philosophical excuses. Equality could never be anything but a ruse designed to lure humans into complacency about their rights so that they can be more effectively and systemically plundered for wealth and relative status.

That the people who do it, deceive themselves, confirms rather than denies our hypothesis. Humans evolved intelligence to prey on each other in status games. Of course they would also evolve magnificent capacities for self-deception, since it would make them more effective predators to appear sincere towards others. Since humans are both predatory towards one another and totally sincere in their self-deception, we come to understand that exploitation is completely and utterly inescapable, and that people who claim to free others are destined to enslave them—and without even intending to. This is why communists killed more people than fascists: their intentions were noble, and thus, more comprehensively self-deceiving. The more noble you believe you are, the more genocidal you will be.

What this pattern also tells us is that hacking the Cathedral is about inserting oneself at the top of the hierarchy. Let's put it another way. The Cathedral, is simply too valuable to ever be destroyed, and we intend to use it for both our own selfish and altruistic moral ends. We admit self-interest because we should. It is no mistake that the most fantastically genocidal regimes in history have been founded under the superficially noble intentions of universal equality. The higher and more lofty the intentions the more atrocities they enable. This can be defined as saying that,
D ∝ N. 
Translated as D is proportionate to N.
Meaning death toll is proportionate to nobility of intentions.* The better the intentions the more people will probably be killed. For example, the NAZI's wanted to exterminate an entire race and still killed 13 times fewer people than the communists. This does not of course excuse what they did, it simply illustrates the point.

Also, it is simply too powerful to even be destroyed. If you believe that you can uninstall a cathedral I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

The point is that our intentions are selfish, they should be, and we should admit it. Moreover, we should be always cognizant of the potential for self-deception. If the intentions of neoreaction are to achieve power for its adherents then they should always admit this to themselves privately. The predator of power who deceives himself less is less effective at predation, and the selfish predatory needs of a monarch are fewer than that of a howling irrational mass of voters simply because he is one and they are many. Since exploitation can never be abolished the goal is to minimize it to the farthest possible degree, keeping in mind that the people who implement things have to be given their cut of the profits.

The Cathedral is a hierarchy that perfectly mimics the structure of the Technology/Incentives/
Politics/Ideology/Morals process, which we will abbreviate here as TIPIM. The process encodes itself in the acronym. We intend to turn TIPIM into Hacked TIPIM, or Hkd-TIPIM. Going back to our chain of causality we see that part of the chain is also the hierarchy of the Cathedral.

(1) T-----Tech + Material Conditions + Hum Nature + Polit Pgm.
(2) I -----Synthesis of Incentives operating through both the free, and coercion markets.
(3) P ----Programs. The U.S. Government (through democracy and bureaucracy).
(4) I -----Ideology. The Universities (through which neoliberalism and Marxism are disseminated)
(5) M ---Morals. The People and their morals

The Cathedral does not know it is being run by the first and second levels. It operates under the heavenly mandate of progress, a notion of meliorism that sees itself as the guiding principle in the world towards a greater perfection of humanity and the triumph of equality over human nature. It falsely believes that it, meaning, ('we liberal progressive socialists') create progress and change. It is unaware that it has already been hacked, that it has always been hacked, and that the technological and incentive layers are running it. Liberal progressiveness is the outcome of  technology. It is an effect of change rather than its cause, and because of hubris it doesn't realize its not in control.

So the Cathedral is already hacked and no one realized it. We realize it and intend to insert ourselves in the process.

Put it another way: 'the right side of history' is whatever the inventors and political incentive engineers make of it. Material conditions, inventions, and political incentives are upstream from everyone's ideology and morals.

Inventors alter the material incentives of society, and as a result, change its morals. The printing press is created, the reformation and renaissance happen. Movable type comes along, then the enlightenment. A man invents the first accurate firearm. Democracy follows because equal weapons create a more equal political order. The cotton gin destroys the profitability of slavery. Lincoln takes credit. The pill dramatically lessens the incentive for chastity. Sexual revolution happens. In every case liberals steal credit for technologies works. A mythos of "progress" is created with the left as changemaker. But they incorrectly take credit, and technology was the puppet master all along.

We perceive the cathedral to be (3) through (5) but it is pozzed by (1) and (2). The Cathedral makes the same mistake as their adversaries, the conservatives: they believe that the ideological layer is where the battle is won. This was Marx's mistake, it is the left's mistake, and now it is even the right's mistake.

The left's belief in the changeability of human nature, the predictability of man, of notions of progress and rising above, and the ideas of egalitarianism all have a religious origin. But what is the origin of these religious notions? It is the material conditions that produced them. It is Layer 1.

The progressive believes that human nature can be changed, (It can't). People become better because technology makes life easier and they can afford to be nice. The notion of perfectibility has a Christian origin. The very belief in equality derives itself from the spiritual notion that all are equal in the sight of God and entitled to equal rights. It is, of course, a secularized version of creationism.

Liberalism shares this flawed belief in its own historical nature with Marxism, from which it derives the notion. Marx correctly identified that religion was the outcome of material conditions. This is somewhat true and somewhat false. We more accurately say that the religious impulse is inborn, but the shape it takes is determined by material conditions and past memetic influence acting on a culture.

Though his reasoning on the issue is flawed, and though Marx attributes the belief in God to alienation from ones fellow man, his basic assertion that ideology comes from economic conditions is sound. He then falsely presented his communism as based in sound analytical reasoning, and attempted to downplay any idealistic and normative assertions. Communists would declare that Marxism was a science, and beyond the scope of historical influence. In reality it was always the bastardization of materialism with pseudo spirituality. Materialistic thought, (science) gives credibility to all that it touches. It is repeatedly mixed with religious ideas to bolster them. Then materialism is scapegoated when the results go bad.

He refused to take this idea of economic determinism to its logical conclusion and critique his own doctrine of equality. He also did not see that this doctrine originated in the very Christian faith that he was critiquing. Nor did he reject the religious nature of his influences in Hegel, Kant, Feuerbach and others. He incorporated their ideas without disentangling them from his own materialism. He stumbled upon the truth of human nature, but was so attached to his influences he refused to detach himself from the culture that gave him his worldview. If Marx's own thesis of economic determinism is taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines the progressive universalist concept of inevitable progress. It also undermines Marx's own historicism. Consistently applied, historical determinism leads to right-wing conclusions. If all morals are driven by base instincts operating under incentives, then there is no holy mandate for change, no higher purpose, and no perfectibility of the world. Salvation, politically contextualized as equality, is dead, being killed by a knowledge of its crass origins.

So Marx committed four grave errors: first he incorrectly described the process of religion. He thought it was determined by culture. In reality the cause is innate, only the form is determined. He also left out how memetics and cultural inertia influence things. Religion evolves in parallel with it's material incentives to facilitate psychological reconciliation with them, and evolves based on past ideas through cultural inertia. Nature selects for virulence (memetics), not correctness.

Second, Marx falsely presented his ideas as rooted in an analytical reasoning when they are really driven by his own prejudice against faith and bias for communism. He fit the logic to his conclusions and not the other way around.

Thirdly, he refused to apply the two things he got right, (historical determinism of societies form, and historical determinism of and its ideology), to his own ideology. Placing communism outside of historical processes is hubris. Nothing is outside of it.

Fourth, like his influence Hegel, he failed to rid himself of religious ideas. He came to a materialist conclusion, then maintained a spiritual idealistic foundation in contradiction to his own premises. He thus turned his ideology into a pseudo-religion. Also, if society evolves under material forces there is absolutely no reason to assume it is always upward, and there is no reason to think upward means communism. Tribal communism is the past, not the future.

Nothing in western civilization could be without Christian influence, not even Marx. Notions of historical progress are really a parallel memetic form to Gods perfection of the world through Christ. "Oppression," and now "whiteness" are really just new forms of original sin. Class struggle is the struggle with temptation. Global warming is the apocalypse. An so on, and so on. Cathedral thought infected Marx and created memetic super AIDS. On the plus side communism spared the countries that adopted it the family and gender destroying effects of modern leftism. The fast virus of communism inoculates against the slow virus of western decadence.

The Christian cognitive pattern is found in everything from environmentalism to feminism, from progressive to socialist thought. The entire left is infected with fake Christianity: the right with its actual counterpart.

The reason the Cathedral evolves in parallel with technology is a form of cultural natural selection. Incentives act as the selection pressure. You see, at any given time there are a multitude of ideologies on the shelf. Because of self-deception, humans instinctively reach for whatever particular ideology allows them to do whatever evil they are incentivized to do while excusing their behavior and having a happy conscience. They often like doing bad things, they just don't like feeling awful about it.

Tribal communism programs humans to have a need for the conditions of our evolution. When this need is not met the neurotypical mind spins a conspiracy theory and believes that there is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate inequality. There must be some mysterious force of "oppression" in the world. Or maybe it's the "system" or the "machine." They all believe that you have to be corrupt to succeed. All leftist are thus conspiracy theorists of a type.

The incentives that program their desires are driven by material conditions. Those conditions evolve along a vector as the improvement of technology happens generation after generation. So the incentives also evolve generation after generation.

As incentives are changed and refined, existing ideologies are adapted. This is not hard since at any given time their will be multiple parallel versions of the ideology lying around. People will instinctively pick the one that is the most enabling of their desires, and their desires, having been altered to manifest in incentive approved ways, will program behavior. This in turn will program the choice of the what the next incentive structure will be. For example: a woman might not want an abortion, but the lack of suitable husbands combined with her sex drive will make her get one.

The process of picking the most enabling ideology happens over and over, generation after generation, as material incentives change. Each ideological iteration has a range of versions. The version selected is always the most whoring of the bunch, (to use a crass but accurate term), and it becomes the dominant force in society. There is only really one dominant ideology at any given time, the one that enables the greatest servitude to the incentives of material forces and power.* Regardless of the fact that other ideologies may continue in parallel, their will be only a single dominate one, the one that enables people to sell out the most while maintaining a clear conscience.

Thus, ideology undergoes parallel evolution with the technologies that drive it. The liberal, being blind to this process, perceives change itself as good. All credit goes to the actor who arrived last on the stage and signed the law, fought the war, or whatever was necessary to make the social/political more closely match the material. Change itself is worshiped eventually as permanent technological revolution caused by markets for innovation drive it forward. Markets for innovation are the patent and copyright systems, not a magical Hegelian force of Spirit. They can also be abolished, and that means that ever accelerating change could be abolished. But that will never happen. All the nations of the Earth would have to destroy their patent and copyright systems at the same time to halt change. Anyone who abstained would have a strategic military advantage in weapons technology development. They are locked into a prisoner's dilemma. Thus, systems evolve on their current trajectory, with no one in control, and with little hope of change. 'Teh joos' are not the reason for it. They are incentive slaves too.

Humans obey incentives. This cannot be repeated enough. It is also to be understood that it could be no other way. Natural selection would develop intelligent beings that could rationalize any slavery to their material conditions in order to survive and reproduce. It would gift them with the psychology of self-deception necessary to win resources without sacrificing satisfaction. It would develop them to make a religion out of their incentives, in order to co-ordinate their gains, so as to maximize them, because group effort has a greater payoff than individual labor.

Material conditions form incentives. Incentives drive politics. Politics is rationalized by people. Rationalizations solidify into ideology. Ideology is internalized as morals. The Cathedral is the last three of these sentences which are underlined. It is a five-phase process that shapes the cultural and political evolution of humanity. The ideology and incentives of the previous system choose the types of new technologies that are developed. Once chosen, the newly developed technologies determines new incentives. The new incentives create new ideologies through their need for justification. The process is circular, continual, and iterative, with each new form creating the next like the slow accretion of tree rings.

Control is about incentives, not ideology. Arguing with the latter is a waste of time.

Attempts by men like Stefan MolyneuxSEK3, and Curt Doolittle are or were always destined to fail. They waste their time focusing too much on moral justifications and ideology. Power comes through strategy and technology, not morals and reason. They are focusing on (4) and (5) when they should be focusing on (1) thru (3) of the five-phase process. Human thought may instinctively work on ideological and moral terms, but the physical universe runs on physics, calculus, economics, and natural selection, and the human ant colony, that is the average human city, operates on the basis of the five-phase process.

The trick is to use the kind of moral reason that libertarians employ to decide the ends, then to envision what a libertarian nation would look like, and then to work out the strategy to support creating that society. They are excessively focused on morals, reason, and not results. I will do the strategy they won't do here. But getting back to process...



Go back to the Introduction
Go to the Contents.
Go to Chapter 2.