Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 3

Go back to Chapter 2.
Go to Contents.


The Totalitarianism of Technology 
and the Low Fecundity Trap

As the phase 1 force of technology expands, its concomitant phase 2 incentives come to dominate every aspect of our lives. The farther back in the past we look, the more naturally aligned incentives become. A man's genetics — itself a consequence of eons of evolution, was perfectly aligned to the circumstances of the ancient world. As technology expands the extent of non-biological incentives does also, and artificiality along with it. It may be said that we live in the era of totalitarian technology, when the artificial nature of our means of production achieves a means/ends reversal such that the human becomes the effect, rather than the cause, of his tools. Technology expands to achieve a total influence over our lives. Only total technological rejection, genetic self-modification, or social technology provides for any escape from this new inhuman world.

The process of mending the rift between human nature and technology is convergence. But convergence can only ever be temporary. The nature of technology is to expand at a higher rate than genetic change. This results in an ever expanding rift, and thus human prospects for bridging the gap are Sisyphean—destined to fail after a few centuries. One may push the boulder to the top of the hill for awhile, but the hill only grows bigger, and the top shifts upward relentlessly. All it takes to undo a century of social technology is one new conventional technological development. And so one must either completely reject the technology of the modern world, build social technologies as fast as conventional ones are created, or self-modify ones genetics. In the end the only possible method for mending the rift is technology itself. Only when capitalism infiltrates the genetic code will the rift be closed.

The problem of rift is ultimately caused by the patent and trademarks systems — markets for new conventional technologies act as a accelerator. It is not the existence of this market which is the problem, but the lack of a corresponding accelerator for social technology. To achieve continual convergence requires that the two accelerationists projects, (conventional technology on the one hand, and social technology or genetic enhancement on the other), be brought into alignment and co-evolve in iterative succession rapidly. Human tech must keep pace with human tools. To overcome the lag we need markets for developing social technology. Concurrently, we also need several thousand new religions and forms of government.

This problem become especially acute when we examine the effects of modern technology on our reproductive lives. Two sets of technologies were created. One the one hand, population increasing tech like modern industrial farming, antibiotics, vaccines, and interstate highways allowed for the transportation and production of a vast amounts of food, and the creation of many human beings. On the other, the population reducing technologies of birth control, abortion, and other reproductive tech causes population to shrink. There was a gap of several decades between the development of these two technology sets, and that difference has created a global population bubble set to reach nine billion human beings. As technology moves geographically in to new areas of the globe the population bubble moves outward like a wave. This wave of growth is then followed by a wave of shrinkage. We are just now, today, in the west, beginning to experience population shrinkage, and the process of shrinkage will eventually reach every corner of the the planet. Nine billion humans is probably the most dramatic example of the total influence of technology in our lives.

As a side note, it should be understood that the coming failure of antibiotics may create an immigration and travel free world. This may be a desirable side effect that limits some of the more destructive effects of Cathedral overreach.

Artificial incentives now dominate our reproductive lives. Women can have abortions now. This removes the incentive for chastity outside marriage. Because of the high cost of raising a child, women have an incentive to seek a supportive partner within a monogamous relationship. The male libido is constrained by her willingness. He wants her. She wants him to a lesser degree, but she also wants reliability and support. When her biological disincentive against promiscuity is lessened, the male libido prevails. When this happens, women are both free to prefer the attractive male over the reliable one, and discouraged from monogamy by the surfeit of unreliable men. Urbanization adds a second incentive against reproduction. On farms children are an asset—in the city a financial liability.

Let us remember that incentives do not exist in a vacuum. An incentive produces a change in one person. This persons behavior, having changed, produces another incentive for the next, and so on.

If everyone is being monogamous, then the reality of that situation imposes itself on you. Conversely, if everyone is being promiscuous, that reality too imposes itself on you. Whatever the majority does, the minority sees its options reduced. Libertarian arguments about the right to choose ignore the fact that all choices of the herd impose themselves as reduced options on the person who does not conform. Even worse, the majority may only go along with something because everyone else does, with everyone else simply following destructive incentives. Choice becomes an illusion when everyone is stuck in a low level equilibrium trap that can only be overcome by forcing people to adopt the higher standard. Whatever "everyone" is doing will limit the options of the individual and family as a negative externality. Ones only choice then is to either conform, fight against the current of society, or change the forces that control societal flow—to control the forces that control you.

Immoral choices of the majority are a negative externality borne by the moral individual. There is actually no such thing as "choice" divorced from societal consequence. Everything effects everyone else. Thus, both libertarian and liberal platitudes about free will and right to choose are really just ways of concealing the exercise of private power in typically immoral ways. No action exists in a vacuum, and thus, agreements about "live and let live" are fallacious. No action can ever actually avoid impacting unwilling participants.

If a woman cannot find a reliable men she will prefer the attractive unreliable ones over the less attractive unreliable one. If she is paid for divorce she will be more likely to prefer any attractive unreliable man over any unattractive reliable one. She will also adopt promiscuity as a substitute method for fulfilling her needs. If average looking men cannot find wives, they will practice "game" or give up on monogamy, both exacerbating the lack of reliable men. The two sexes will now form a new stable lower level equilibrium of misery which is suboptimal for both.

This is because the two incentive sets reinforce each other in a circular configuration. This is the problem that the entire red pill movement is built on dealing with, and unwittingly exacerbating with seduction techniques.

One simple solution is to form a 'moral dating society' where anyone who sleeps with anyone before marriage is evicted from the group by an unwavering dictator matchmaker. The trick is to make no exceptions for the rule against premarital sex, and routinely polygraph the members about their sex lives. Only if one can detect people defecting from the standard can the standard be enforced. Second, always have lots of members of the same age range and a 50/50 gender ratio. More than that, marriage reform is needed to make the institution traditional again and abolish mandatory alimony and child support. No one should be rewarded for getting divorced.

Ideally this would be coupled with religion whose members believe their future in heaven is linked to producing children, like Mormons. Hopefully they would even have a religious quota: "only people with at least four children go to heaven."

Premarital sex, being prohibited by polygraph, forces the members to either leave the group or conform to the higher equilibrium level and get married. Since no one can cheat the polygraph reliably it serves as is a bar to entry for unserious people. Minor cheating of the device is no issue, the mere threat acts as deterrence. This is exactly how Scientology enforces monogamy among its Sea Organization members with near complete and total reliability. Only they use an even cruder device called an E-meter. The result is that nearly all young teenage Sea Org members get married.

As we already know, the absence of sexual rewards for less attractive men reduces their willingness to contribute to society. A single man is less productive than a married one and earns less money.

The availability of abortion creates the expectation for its use. Its legality normalizes promiscuity. Promiscuity reinforces the incentive by increasing demand for abortion services. The presence of other women who give it up for free puts pressure on all women to do the same. In game theory this is called a 'defect, defect' situation. It is a prisoner's dilemma. Any woman who has sex outside of marriage betrays all women seeking marriageable husbands to support them, trapping all non-promiscuous women in disposable relationships.

Since all women are sleeping around with little chance of finding reliable partners, and ideology springs up to justify this psychological adaptive preference formation. Women become men psychologically. The left celebrates strong women. Naturally, if a women is to be disposable she prefers the most attractive male she can find.

Because reliable and less attractive men are ignoring women, and women are ignoring less than perfectly attractive males, most of a women's sexual experiences will be with the small portion of men that treat her as disposable. She will then perceive all men as being this way, since that constitutes nearly all her experience with them. If twenty percent of the men get eighty percent of the women, and all those men are jerks, then eighty percent of women's experience will be with jerks.

This is psychologically damaging. She may respond by becoming abusive, feminist, and by turning into a "strong-willed" woman. More prostitution to incentives, and incentives making prostitutes. This damage lowers her sexual market value to the very men who could provide reliable marriage partners. She will incorrectly interpret all men as being unreliable cads since all her experiences are with them. Men in turn will see all women as manipulative and crazy, as this manipulation is the strategy used to 'keep' men—a strategy that ironically, drives away all the good ones.

A psychologically similar damage happens to men who are run down and drained by the experience one way or another, through either repeated failure at attracting a mate, or the vaguely soul destroying effects of being the player in multiple acts of usury.

They are all being ruined one way or another by the incentive set they live under.

And why would this be any other way? Evolution has designed humans to accommodate the material conditions in which they find themselves in order to survive and reproduce. Of course humans convert material conditions into ideology. It could be no other way. That is historically been the reproduction maximizing thing to do. Except this time the incentive is slow passive autogenocide through sub-replacement fertility levels. Pornography and birth control create the simulation of reproduction without its effect.

And ideologies will justify all of it. Rather than changing the incentives that trap them, people will adapt their whole civilization and thought process to suit their newly ruined lives. On the female end, concepts like third wave feminism, rape culture, pornography's relationship to power, patriarchy, male dominance, female empowerment and victimization, and a host of other ideas will inarticulate with endless words, what they cannot say, because they don't understand process, and wouldn't know what to say, or where to begin, or their asses from their elbows. Ideology is either a rage against incentives, or a deep mental prostitution to them, a human is a puppet dancing on the end of strings who does not know they are enslaved. Ideology is the incentive slave who does not know she is enslaved trying to argue, in favor of her master, without even knowing she has one. All modern ideology is prostitution to incentives since technologies effects are total.

On the male side concepts like MGTOW, Men's Rights, the Red Pill, Game, etc., will be the ideology that men attempt to use to make sense of the nasty incentives they face. Again, you are an incentive slave. All your ideology is master-justification. You love your master. Everything you do is your psyche being warped by perverse incentives to suit the conditions of your existence. Real manhood and power are found in commanding your environment, taking control of the incentives that enslave you and your woman, and conquering them. Freedom comes from controlling the incentives that control you and your enemies.*

Step one: map them. Step two: change them. Don't philosophize. Deeds, not words.

Obedience to material conditions causes survival—in the past. Ideology enables tribal coordination. Morality allows internalization. Rationalization, excuses, and self-deception allow living with the consequences. Nature is a reproduction maximizing algorithm. It does not care how you have to abase yourself to make yourself survive. It will program your genetics to incline you to do it anyway. This part is crucial. You are programmed to simply follow incentives. You are naturally disinclined to learn the lesson that the only true freedom comes from controlling the incentives that control you. You always want to pay attention to ideology. You always want to be reactive rather than seeing it all from the outside. Everything that you are naturally inclined to do is wrong. Control is achieved through controlling the big impersonal forces of society and not the individuals in in it. Control is achieved by understanding alien ways of thinking; like economics, physics, behavioral genetics, Darwinism, and the five-phase process. It is not achieved through debate and argument. It is not achieved through force and coercion, though those can help. After all, force is an incentive (phase 2). The higher the phase level of action the stronger the resulting impact will be.* Control is making the game rules—not playing chess against the enemy. We here at the Anti-Puritan are game designers—not chess players. Let them fight us according to our ever-shifting rules.

But I digress.

Monogamy is sexual socialism for the majority. If you are reading this, then the probability is eighty percent that you are a man in the bottom eighty percent of 'game' with women. That is, in a society where twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the sex, you have an eighty percent chance of not being a successful 'player.' So sexual socialism is for you, and also eighty percent of everyone else. It needs to be pointed out that most men lack 'game' simply because nine out of ten men are below being a 'perfect ten' in terms of looks. Put more bluntly, what is creepy for an ugly man to say to a woman might be downright endearing for a handsome one.

Most men don't lack game. They lack looks.

To female readers the same rule applies. You, female, are also likely in the bottom eighty percent of a eighty/twenty rule. You too are unlikely to get married before your eggs turn cold. The easy solution is a mass-shotgun wedding and the outlawing of premarital sex, but ideology (phase 4) gets in the way. This is of course the very ideology created by power, (phase 3), which in turn was created by incentives (phase 2), which in turn was caused by the particular material force of abortion (phase 1). Thus, phase 1 programs both the incentive for the thing and the ideological defense of the thing, and programs powers support for the ideology. So fighting it is swimming upstream against a river.

So the ideology created by power, created by incentives, created by abortion, defends the problem it created. This, is the same ideology that works to prevent outlawing abortion by celebrating it as a right. You want love and sex. He wants sex and love (or dinner). Shotgun wedding. Problem solved.

Ideally, your benevolent dictator would send you a summons in the mail forcing you to show up at the local high school gymnasium on the weekends. Don't worry, all workplaces will be closed that day so you will be able to make your appointment. If you don't show up we will come and get you. While there, you will be rated by a computer to determined how hot you are. Then you will be sent into a separate corner with the other "eights" (assuming you are an eight). Men will place marriage flowers at your feet with their name and picture cards attached. You must pick one. You have thirty minutes to decide. Chose fast or the man you want may be taken. Don't worry, if you refuse we will chose one for you.

If you are homosexual we will send you to a different ceremony. There you will chose from among your own sex. We're not monsters. We're fair. We respect diversity.

I say this all tongue in cheek. It is just a second way to break the low-level equilibrium trap.

As society undergoes this anti-reproductive trap the future of humanity becomes less certain. Today, the trap affects western civilization, but birth rates are also declining in all parts of the Islamic world that are not being bombed, as well in Japan and the far east, and are slowing in Latin America. Eventually the trap will consume all of humanity. Yes, even Africa will be effected. As already stated the effect is staggered globally, spreading outward from the societies that underwent the industrial revolution first.

This may be the resolution to the Fermi Paradox. This may be humanities Great Filter. Perhaps intelligent lifeforms that develop birth control go extinct from a lack of reproduction, while those that do not develop birth control go extinct from overpopulation. Those species that find a middle path have batshit insane religions like Islam and destroy themselves eventually anyway in a nuclear blaze of glory. After all, birth control selects most heavily against atheists. A society that only reproduces because of religiosity due to the filtering effect of birth control is being genetically selected for ever more intense levels of religiosity.

Democracy's strength is that it cannot use drastically coercive measures against a population. Because politicians can be voted out of office, measures like mass quantity shotgun weddings are impossible in all but one-party states. A new method accomplishing this or a new form of democracy is needed, one that allows for experimentation without loss of freedom.

Another solution is to create a wage matching subsidy that pays a stay-at-home parent a wage equal to their spouses, up to a certain limit. If they have children, they can stay home and take care of them. Charge a tax on all workers, (especially the single ones) to pay for it. It will vastly increase unemployment. That is the point. Half the workforce will leave to raise families. Wages will still go up as a result of decreased supply. The nuclear family will return. Because employees are forced to pay more for workers they will tend to higher more competent and productive employees, (who will tend to be White and Asian males) and discriminate against less competent and less productive employees (who will tend to be women and non-Asian minorities). That is also the point. Once again a man will be able to raise a family without a college degree. That means roughly half the jobs making twice the salary.

We now have a single breadwinner economy that heavily encourages marriage. Humans begin to reproduce again. The ideology of women liberation will mysteriously begin to change. Yes, it is true that the program is gender neutral, either marriage partner may stay at home and get the subsidy. But more women will prefer it than men. Feminism will initially resist and fight this program, but in time their ideology will adapt to conform to the incentive, as messages hostile to the incentive are ignored and their candidates voted out of office. People love free money. And feminism has already demonstrated that when two feminist factions fight with each other the faction that has incentives on its side prevails. This happened between anti-sex and pro-sex feminists. Pornography and prostitution is a multi-billion dollar industry. The pro-sex feminists won. Now feminists are saying that sex work is 'empowering.' You cannot make this stuff up. As usual, ideology follows from incentives.

Thus, the marriage destroying welfare state is converted into the family state. This is obviously a far preferable solution to population decline over forced mass marriage or mass immigration. And since it is gender neutral no one can legitimately accuse it of being bigoted, though they will anyway. Also, if this tax seems financially odious remember that workers compensation in the state of California already costs about one dollar for every dollar spent on wages, and a single breadwinner economy is equivalent to this in every way except not paying women directly. If the government is to be the new source of support, there is no reason it must work against, rather than for, the family. The welfare state can be replaced with the family state, where all benefits go to households rather than individuals.

Left-wing ideology will then change as a result, in the same way it has always changed to follow incentives. To the extent that the left destroys, it destroys because of a recursive process where the blind pursuit by power (phase 3), caused by one incentive (phase 2), gives birth to an ideology (phase 4), which then creates a political program (past political program phase 1b), which then gives birth to another incentive, and another pursuit by power, and another ideology, and so on. The recursive process does not know what it is doing or were it is going. We do. And we will control its flow. Trust me here. If you create an incentive for a family state you will get a pro family ideology—even in feminism.

Right now prostitution is "empowering" and marriage is "degrading." Flip the incentives and watch marriage become "empowering" and sex work become "degrading." It seems "empowering" means "whatever serves power." Of course it does. How could it be any other way?

Feminism supports family destroying policies because women, like all hu-mons, obey incentives, rather than possessing the creative thought necessary to think up new structures. Also like all pathetic hu-mons, they fight in favor of their slavery to those very incentives, resisting attempts to destroy their cultural morality by liberating them from those material conditions. In short, humans internalize the values that support their incentives, then fight against anyone who would change those values by changing their incentives. Even if it would make them happier and healthier. Pathetic.

Even worse, humans internalize the morality that incentives have given them, causing all solutions they think up to conform in the vector to the problems of the past. The previous paragraph may be misread as an affirmation of liberalism, but it is not, since liberalism conforms its morality on the same destructive vectors as the thing it seeks to transcend. Liberalism celebrates "change," but never really changes, since all its change is along the same path as all its past disastrous actions.

Thus, the ideology of the left serves as an adaptive preference formation that interferes with right-wing attempts to liberate society from degenerate moral conditions. The left fights for the status quo vector even as it thinks it fights against it. This is what is happening in the twin values of "progress" and "equality." As a moral value, worship of progress is just the worship of technologically-induced change. As for equality, "equality," as a moral value, is just the enabling ideology of the power structure of democracy. To worship change and equality is really just to worship technology and power.

A man arrives on a cannibal island. He proposes to get rid of cannibalism by introducing birth control pills. After all, the reason they practiced cannibalism originally was a scarcity of food due to chronic overpopulation. If this condition is alleviated then the material conditions motivating the act is eliminated. You can limit your numbers before, rather than after producing life! Yay!

They eat him for destroying their sacred ritual. They have made a religion out of their material conditions, and removing those conditions destroys their faith. So it is with the left.

A culture always resists the transvaluation of its values. This process we may call the effect-culture of a society, which we may define as follows:
effect-culture, definition: the process by which material conditions in combination with technology, past political conditions, and human nature are synthesized into incentives that determine power, ideology, belief, and ultimately morals through a five-phase process.
All or our deepest values are effect-culture. Every culture that has ever been was effect-culture. Your grandchildren will be of effect-culture. 
I do apologize if this is insulting. There is simply no way to wake a man up without disturbing his peaceful slumber. To understand exactly what it means for our deepest values to be derived from prostitution to material conditions and politics, the Hungarian writer Vaclav Havel can do a better job explaining it that me in his essay, The Power of the Powerless. He is referring to a post-totalitarian order, but could be referencing our society as well. He says,
'Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.'
Havel is writing about a totalitarian society. I am writing about the totalization of technology in our moral lives. George Orwell also touches on the same theme in 1984 with his definition of the word Doublethink.
'To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.'
In reality of course, no totalitarian society that edits the dictionary would ever allow such a word to exist, or to be so accurate. Effect-culture is NOT doublethink. The word doublethink implies that on some level you know you are deceiving yourself. Effect-culture means that you, and indeed everyone around you, is so totally inured, so completely submerged by the ideology of your society that you have incorporated it into your psyche—as your deepest moral values. You would fight to the death to defend the ideals of your civilization—and yet, those ideals are all the consequence of an automatic cultural prostitution to material conditions. Society has given you your morality, which it in turn derived from subservience to appetites.

Like every liberal, you even experience outrage when your morals are questioned. For example: effect-culture programs belief in equality. Yet to point out that incentives have programmed both the ideology of slave owning societies (racism), and the ideology of redistributional welfare states, (equality) is outrageous! How can you equate the two?

And how is this possible? Simple. A culture can be both a form of prostitution to material incentives and composed of completely sincere people. The values arrived at were the result of an iterative process of small changes occurring over many generations. As material conditions changed, so did their values. The people then subscribe to the resulting morals, and pass those morals to their children. Effect-culture is inherited and sincere. What is not sincere today will be sincere to the next generation. If a racist southern Democrat only mouths the words of equality, his children will believe in the fervently. The younger generation is never in on the joke.

The left is built on the denial of human nature and reality itself. In a previous paragraph I used the term 'our women,' knowing full well it would irritate left-wing feminist readers. There is no denying jealousy, no such thing as equality. There is no post-patriarchal condition of mankind.

Equality? Delusion. Open marriage without jealousy? Delusion. A society where men don't dominate? Impossible. Women won't reproduce under such conditions. All societies that educate women as equals are below replacement level birth rates. Women punish equality by keeping their legs shut. Women's own sexual preferences are for strong, tall, confident men. Every woman's individual choice for the dominant male becomes societies aggregate choice for male dominance. Woman creates patriarchy with her sexual choices—then abandons responsibility for it. Abolishing it is therefore incompatible with the exercise of her sexual rights. One part of the feminist program (choice), makes the other part, (equality) impossible.

For thousands of years patriarchy always has out-reproduced equal societies. Why else would it be everywhere?

Progress? Illusion created by technology. Right to choose? Effect-culture created by incentives. Democracy? Lie. Look up the 'iron law of oligarchy' and 'sovereignty is conserved.'  In reality the elite control things behind the scenes. Consent of the governed? Are you kidding? Freedom? How can you have freedom when you have never had an original thought in your life? Morals? What morals? All I see is the incentive slave rationalizing his choices. The only true freedom is to insert yourself into the recursive process—a self-directed evolution. One must control the forces that control him. As for morality, true morality requires an understanding of tradition. As for freedom, one is not truly free who is not moral, for he is not in control of himself. But one cannot be truly moral whose morality comes from obedience to incentives and power. Look to tradition and faith for true morality.

Let me show you a chart and refute your cultural vanity.

Incentive                                                      Justifying ideology                                                          
fixed island resources                                  religious ritual cannibalism
semi-fixed resources                                    cults of child/human sacrifice
expandable territory                                     Roman/Mongol conquest ethic/religion
protection of land                                         monarchy, doctrine of natural nobility
profits from slavery                                      racial dehumanization
the American frontier                                   rugged American/doctrine of self-sufficiency
profits from mass-redistribution                  lie of equality
abortion on demand                                     feminism/right to control ones own body
birth control                                                 cultural promiscuity/women's rights
birth control/population shrinkage              doctrine of immigration and autogenocide


This really is how the world works. Yours is just one culture with its peculiar morality unique to its place in history. Yours is not the greatest society, not the end of history, nor the final say on what is true, beautiful and pure. You are not, as leftist say, living in the final culmination of moral progress towards a perfectly equal society. Equality is just an ideology caused by the power structure of democracy. Meliorism is a lie. Have some humility. "But it's 2016!" You say. Yes, it's the current year. Next year it will also be the current year, and the year after.

And this is not to say that "all cultures are equal," or some other degenerate anti-logic. One culture practices farming. It needs to guard land to preserve its food supply. People, being tied to the land, cannot flee stationary bandits. Monarchy develops. A culture of honor follows to justify it.

Another culture has a frontier. Government services are absent. One must work hard or die. A culture of rugged independence and liberty develops. They glorify the self-made man, and women have something to look up to.

Yet another culture practices redistribution on a massive scale. It pays to be a victim in a redistributional democracy. A culture of professional victimhood develops. People debase themselves for attention and power, and to a lesser degree money. They praise the low and seek to destroy the high. Their's is a pure slave morality.

One of these things is not like the other. All cultures are effect-cultures, but not all effect-cultures are uplifting, noble, or self-esteem giving. Some are downright degrading. Put another way, all whore-cultures are effect-cultures, but not all effect-cultures are whore-cultures. What separates this from that, is that the incentives that encourage effect-morality are of a higher nature. The frontier culture of rugged self-sufficiency is obviously superior. John Wayne is a product of effect-culture, but John Wayne is not a whore.

None of this is denying the existence of a meme complex know as the Cathedral. But what force of nature do you think it answers to? It simply coevolves with the material forces that direct its evolution, enabling them and resisting reform against those forces. And it obeys the blind idiot god of Moloch, evolving recursively as power feeds back on itself through ideology. Left-wing ring of power politics; that is, Cthulhu, obeys the blind idiot god of market forces and recursive feedback, Moloch.

One could say that the only true values are those that transcend. Modern human morality has little worth to this author. To quote Nietzsche in his book The Anti-Christ:
'I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough, I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell from the first day of Christianity!  Why not rather from its last?  From today?  The transvaluation of all values!'
Nietzsche is talking about Christianity—the enabling culture of his era. He is objecting to the fact that the church has made a virtue out of humility and pity, which he sees as destructive to the spirit of man. Like his Overman, he worships all things hard and cold, and like him, we wish to transcend the brothel of our cultures anti-morality.

He is just ranting against the progressives of his era. What interests us here is this transvaluation of values. In his other writings he states that the Übermensch can rise above the values of the herd. He is contrasting master-morality with slave morality. Funny thing is, he believes that this transvaluation is actually possible. But is it? Without a working theory of how slave morality comes into existence, how? How do you transcend a thing when you are still operating on it vector? One will rebel, but rather than rebelling out of the thing one opposes, one will rebel into it. A revolutionary without a knowledge of the forces that control him is just rebelling into the status quo. The left even has prescribed forms of rebellion. "You must rebel! But only in the prescribed way!"

The value of our five-phase hypothesis is that it makes this question irrelevant while understanding that it was never the correct question to begin with. Moralities, (in the sense of codes of conduct), are the outcome of internalized ideology or internalized religious values that flow from power systems. That Christianity can prescribe a moral value system in opposition to the Cathedral is simply the fact that Christianity is a form of legacy. The monarchy that it served has ceased to exist, and with it, the power structure that commanded it, and supported it are gone. It is now a corporation subject to market forces. It must compete in a race to the bottom with other churches. This institution of the state may persist long after it has been discarded by power. Remember that all ancient religions originally started out unified with the states that supported them. Cultural inertia and the social services that churches produce keep them around. Religions are social technologies. But they decay in the absence of the power systems that created them. The sacred alter is replaced with the rock concert. As Mark Citadel notes, 'the monarchy is the male guardian of the Church. Her rape begins when his reign ends.'

Empathy and moral reasoning are themselves innate, but formed into codes by ideology. Morality, in the proper sense of the word: that well developed adult faculty of discernment judgement towards the just and true, can only ever be formed by religion, tradition, or both. There are only three possible sources of moral reasoning, and they are;
(a), material forces through the five phase process,
(b), religious and divine command,
(c), ancient traditions. 
Only (b) and (c) can be considered legitimate. To some atheists only (c).

Ideology is formed by power. Power obeys incentives, and incentives are created by the forces listed in phase 1. But when we say this we are referring only to the creation of so-called "morality" under the five-phase process of (a). The other two are not the effect of material forces in the present era. Any material forces that shaped them are mostly long since extinct in the world.

So why are these ancient moralities the true morality? Why this and not that? Because this is not mental prostitution.

Thus, one does not trasvalue values. There is no such thing, really. Transcendence of values is really just the re-engineering of all the levels above 5 to form the morals of level 5. Transcendence is also really just an escape into past moral forms. This is utterly deterministic. One does not choose his values. There is no auto-generation of new morality. One only chooses either to accept past moral values through tradition and/or faith, or one chooses to be a whore. Escape from the five-phase process is an illusion. The individual is not smart enough to pull it off. Even when they do invent "new morality," further inspection revels it to be in service to higher level forces. Attempts to break free become illusions that follow the same vector that was created by previous forces. One winds up rebelling into, rather than, out of it.

A woman burns her bra—then finds out that is exactly what patriarchy wanted her to do. A college student attends a struggle session—then discovers that global capitalism wants struggle sessions so that white people are too busy feeling guilty to protect their borders and interfere with obscene profits. A women claims sex work is empowering. A feminist destroys marriage only to discover that her action served the profit motive of capitalism. A feminist promotes a genderless world, only to discover, yet again, that capitalism needs gender to die so it can treat all humans as fungible units of profit. Cultural Marxism has been co-opted by capitalism through wealthy groups like the Ford foundation. The rebellion against, is actually a rebellion for, the thing fought. Sovereignty is conserved yet again.

Once we understand how we are being shaped by forces beyond our control we can begin to design ways of controlling them. Once we know how our morals are the result of ideological prostitution we can begin to develop a higher culture. We can control the forces that control us, and generate our cultures, and thus our, morality. Nothing is transcended, nothing is overcome, because nothing can be transcended. But we may direct the forces of our own evolution.

Nietzsche could only rebel. We may construct knowing the probable effects.

We can proceed on this project in the reverse order in which ideological construction occurs in nature. Like an engineer who designs a skyscraper from the top down because the weight calculations of the above floors must be supported by each one beneath it, we proceed in the reverse order from the order in which nature operates, where level (1) (the material forces + human nature + technology + past political conditions) programs incentives, incentives program politics, and politics then program the ideological culture and its morals. This takes the form of a series of very specific questions, all in reverse order of the five-phase process. Because we are going in reverse, we list our questions in reverse. They are;

(5) Now that we know all our morals are the outcome of incentives, if we could construct any moral code, what should it be? What would be a higher morality? And how can the past guide us? Do not fall into the trap of saying "more equality." You must break out of the morality you have been indoctrinated to believe. You will always habitually be inclined to return to the construct society has given you. You will have an unconscious tendency to do this. Be objective. Be practical. What morality is most uplifting to the human spirit? Look to the ancient past for guidance and wisdom. Human nature evolved on a linear scale while technology evolves on an exponential one. Thus, ancient wisdom is relevant since the genetics of humans does not differ significantly from the past. Our nature is always closer to the ancients than to our own modern technology.

(4) Morality is what happens when ideologies are internalized. What ideology, when internalized, will produce this simultaneously new and old morality? Construct an ideology, religion, or religious interpretation based on this understanding. Ruthlessly remove, without sentimental attachment to your present ideological biases all extraneous notions that detract from this understanding. The tendency is always to recuse back into the vector of society, so that your rebellion is a rebellion into, rather than out of, moral decay. You need to map your own preconceptions and ask; how do these contribute to decay? How are my own implicit biases, programmed by society, interfering with the project of improvement? You must construct without ideology reverting into any form of liberalism.

(3) Ideologies are the excuses of political systems. What political system would need to produce the ideology you have developed as its exact ideological justification? In other words, what kind of power system needs this ideology to survive? You want a power system whose survival depends on the ideology you have just constructed. This part is hard. Give it some time.

(2) Politics is the outcome of incentives. What incentives would create this politics? In other words; what incentives would produce this power structure?

(1) Incentives are the product of material conditions + technology + human nature + past political programs. Can any technology or new material condition produce this incentive? Can any political program produce this incentive?

When we rise above the whoring values of this era, let us understand that this is not a liberal project—we are not here to invent new values from scratch. There is no such thing. The world is too old and humans too stupid to be trusted or even capable of the auto-generation of values. Every value we adopt will be based on past analysis of what worked and produced the highest moral forms. Though this author is an atheist, we will not hesitate to adopt religious commandments if they are found to be the most effective at producing higher morality. Our project is to mix traditional ideas from a variety or sources according to practical reason. Wife burning? Out. Arranged marriage? Maybe. Patriarchy? In. Stoning? Out, etc. The only practical way to rise above values is to return to them. Rising above is itself a left-wing lie. Nothing truly rises above itself. The blank slate lie is constantly propagated. When it is backed into a corner it says, "we can rise above." Meaning, "we can rise above ourselves."  This is a moronic self-contradiction on the face of it. The disastrous results speak for themselves.

When we use this term we should understand that we mean to rise above this decadent culture—not ourselves. That is impossible. Our rise is a return.

Also, why bother to develop from scratch? The world is littered with the moral systems of past civilizations. World religions have given us entire templates of workable moral codes. We cook from a recipe book they have already given us. The results are far more predictable that way. Novelty in moral engineering is always an excuse for decadence.

One Last Note

Equality demands the low become high, and the high become low. The first rarely works, the second is evil. The net effect is downward. The first is equality-up, the second equality-down. Equality is unequally applied. Only equality-down is demanded. In a democracy with redistribution, no person is ever required to improve themselves to be worthy. Thus, the project is always a downward trap.

Equality constrains moral relativism. If you want to live in a gated community that only high IQ people may inhabit, equality files a lawsuit. If you want to evict the people who pee in the hallways of an affordable housing development, equality sues again. But equality will allow you to build the housing project to begin with. It just won't let it succeed. Equality continuously undermines even itself. Everything in this universe that works relies on some form of discrimination. At the most elementary level incarceration is a form of rule enforcement that discriminates against people with low impulse control. Success of any kind requires exclusion of someone. Wealthy countries are rich because they don't let everyone in. Nice parts of town are decent because of harassment of panhandlers, thugs and gangsters by the police. Drug addicts are driven out of neighborhoods. The insane are confined to institutions. The success of a civilization is proportionate to its level of discrimination, creating a higher life for people at the bottom to aspire to, and motivating them to work hard and contribute in order to achieve it.

It is a widespread accepted fact in urban planning that the more layers of defensible space a neighborhood has, the more prosperous it will be. Jane Jacobs wrote a whole book on this. Even the ability to control urban space and exclude hoodlums is necessary for safe neighborhoods. Perfect equality is a worldwide ghetto.

A group of women go to a festival, only to have their get together interrupted and dominated by trans-"women." So they cancel their festival. Equality undermines even itself.

Because what we call equality is only ever equality-down. Meaning, it is only of the downward vector. It would never, say, allow you to genetically enhance the poor. Despite the fact that this would would actually work. After all, it would produce a higher equilibrium level, a kind of equality-up. Making people better genetically might actually work, and thus, threaten to make the careers of government workers obsolete.

Government can never solve anything under divided sovereignty, because the mandate of competing power centers is to grow, and anything that solves a social problem makes the bureaucracy tasked with fixing it obsolete. The bureaucracy, to perpetuate itself, must undermine its own solutions. And thus, as Robert Conquest has said;
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. — Law 3.
And it must be, since only by undermining agency goals can it ensure its own existence

As a project, civilization depends on inequality for stability. Or, more specifically, it depends on having what we might call a "ladder of privileges."

This is a series of privileges that are earned by obeying the rules, working hard, contributing, fighting in a war, etc. Ideally, the ladder has as many "rungs" as possible. A rung is "do this, get that." for example;

First rung: obey the law, stay out of jail.
Second rung: work, and avoid being homeless.
Third rung: work hard, live a middle class lifestyle, and get a wife.
Fourth rung: start a business, get rich, and women will love you a lot.
Alternate fourth rung: serve in the Army, and women will also love you a lot.

More rungs is better. Rungs that are easier to achieve are better. Rungs that are more closely spaced: meaning, that it is easier to roll the achievements and capital of a previous rung into another, higher one on the ladder, are better. These "rungs" are really small barriers to entry that give a payoff for pro-social effort. Having many, small barriers to entry with many rewards keeps men moving forward on the promise that they will achieve more status, become more attractive to women, achieve more respect, etc. So hierarchy is the basis of stability.


Our Plan

In the next chapter we will begin to construct an alternate system. Some neoreactionaries have said that "systems" are what we are trying to escape. They have countered with the implicit assertion, as expressed by Moldbug himself, that monarchy is not a system in the proper understanding of the word. That is, that systems are what we are trying to avoid.

My contention is that there is no such thing. All governments are systems and even kings are pushed around by the five-phase process. Indeed, in the past, kingdoms themselves were the product of the five-phase process causing the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The feudal model was the explicit result of a failed adherence to capitalist economic governance. We may get to this later. The point is that systems are inescapable. Even cryptographic chain of command is really a type of system. It simply moves the system from a human-managed point to a software encoded form of law.

Of course, in a way, I am just nitpicking. What Moldbug really means to say with his rejection of systems is that we must get away from fractured power structures, and I totally agree. Divided power is evil.

We are going to design that "system" of consolidated patchworks under another structure. It won't quite resemble Moldbugs vision. It should be better. He was long on critique and short on details for how to construct his alternate form of governance.

Where we are going is The System of systems. We will also call it the Platform of Systems, or the Governance Marketplace. These words will be used interchangeable, though each have slightly different definitions. This is all closely related to anarcho-capitalistic ideas, but aren't anarchistic.

It will have three levels of governance. At the base, will be the federal state; a Fnargl-like creation that cares only about stability and rules the Federal government. It is the referee. On top of that is the governance marketplace; a systems of systems, that turns political ideology into a game of winning markets, (territories) and keeping them. On top of that is the free market, which runs on the domestic laws of the governance marketplace.

I will not bother creating a moral justification for what I am about to propose. That is a trap that deontological libertarians constantly fall into. With any successful system, the people who become dependent on it will auto-generate the excuses—excuses that solidify into ideological justifications with time. Since all ideologies are the effect-cultures of power structures, I will build, and others will justify my work.

I will simply describe the system. Then I will describe in rapid succession the problems or the current order and and how my system solves them. Its appeal will become self-evident. Its values will be described as the effect of itself. Also, what I am designing is both a possible political system in its own right, and a transitory phase to Patchwork. It is not Patchwork, but it is close, and designed to get us there if people in the future want to. It is the recursive political program that changes values of the phases underneath it. Once adopted, it become a "past political program" of phase one, and enables transition into Patchwork. In fact, when the System of systems implodes, when it destroys itself, when it is "corrupted," it becomes Patchwork.

There is value in a thing that destroys itself, if, when it destroy itself, it becomes what we desire. This is a transitory program, a scaffold and a bridge, that will get us from representative democracy under Cathedral control to privatized Patchwork.


Go back to Chapter 2.
Go to Contents.
Go to Chapter 4a.


No comments:

Post a Comment