Thursday, June 30, 2016

Everyone is Libertarian About What Threatens Them | Incentives Matter # 2

Now I am not some normie fag that thinks that men and women are the same or even equal, but when it comes to politics I think that most of the time both sexes are are basically motivated by rational self interest—except where Muslim rapugees are concerned.

But the point is this: everyone is libertarian about what threatens them. For example: black males are some of the most communistic people on Earth. But what is the one thing all black men are libertarian about? Police of course. Why? Because it threatens them.

They commit most of the crimes anyway. So this is completely fair.

Single women are all basically socialists. But what is the one issue on which most women are libertarian? abortion of course. Most women are pro choice. Most men are anti.

And what about white men? Witness that they are almost all libertarian or conservative.

This makes complete sense if you understand that redistribution threatens white males more than any other group. Everyone is libertarian about what threatens them and socialist about what benefits them. Let's compare a list of threats and benefits and then see how people vote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White Males, Threats to Them
The draft
Child support
Alimony
Bias of the family courts system against men
Ilegalization of prostitution (potentially threatens all races of men)
False rape accusations (all men, but mostly white ones)
Affirmative action
Stigma of existing
Being called racist for no reason

White Males, Benefits to Them
Having higher agency and earning more money as a result

How do white men vote? Exactly as you would expect them to. They vote Republican.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Males, Threats to Them
Child support
Alimony
Bias of the family courts system against men
Illegalization of prostitution (potentially threatens all races of men)
False rape accusations (all men, but mostly white ones)
Police profiling
Living among other black males who are violent

Black Males, Benefits to Them
Affirmative action

How do black men vote? Again, exactly as you would expect them tofor the Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latino Males, Threats to Them
Child support
Alimony
Bias of the family courts system against men
Illegalization of prostitution (potentially threatens all races of men)
False rape accusations (all men, but mostly white ones)
Police profiling
Living among other black males who are violent

Latino Males, Benefits to Them
Affirmative action
Immigration policies
Spanish language requirements

They vote for the Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women, all Races, Threats to Them
Male violence
Male abandonment

Women, all races, Government Benefits to Them
Child support
Community property requirements in marriage
Alimony
Bias of the family courts system against men
Illegalization of prostitution (raises price of sex)
False rape accusations (gives them power)
Affirmative consent laws
Lenient sentences for being female
No draft
Welfare (TANF)
WIC
Food Stamps (pays women with children more)
After school daycare
Domestic violence shelters
Affirmative action
Hiring bias in academia, bureaucracy, private sector that favors them


Women of all races vote for the Democrats.

Here is what I want you to chew on. It appears that half the population (women) only votes for the left because they are paid to. Many of the things on the benefits list for women are on the threats list for men. As for the other groups? Well the left has spent decades teaching everyone that white males themselves are a threat and the Republican party is filled with white males. They have created a false threat to drive people away.

The point is this: women could be made libertarian by making everything in the benefit column threatening. Of course this goes against my/our natural protective instincts, but if you want to move society left then changing incentives is the way to go. Culture is the effect of power. The anti white policies of the left are only sustainable on the current threat/benefit mixture. Indeed, the ideology itself is the outcome of it. Here is the benefit column for women inverted.

(Equal) child support quota
Community property requirements in marriage
(Equal) alimony quota
Bias of the family courts system against men
Requirement that family courts give men custody half the time
Illegalization of prostitution (raises price of sex)
Legalization of prostitution (lowers price of sex)
False rape accusations (gives them power)
Affirmative consent laws
Lenient sentences for being female
Equal sentences required
No draft women
Welfare (TANF) (equalized)
WIC, renamed the Guardian Infant Children Program (GIC)
Food Stamps altered to benefit single men as well
After school daycare, for fathers also
Domestic violence shelters for men
Affirmative action for men
Hiring bias in academia, bureaucracy, private sector that favors MEN
Equal rape prosecution quota (prosecute women for rape as often as men)

This is the kind of debased program you would have to pursue to work within the boundaries of a democracy in order to beat back the left. It requires the sick act of attacking them female sex politically. But "equality" can never be repealed in democracy. To work within democracy is to work with the vector of equality. Essentially, the only way to make women libertarian, (or any minority for that matter), is to attack them with equality. Their power is beaten back, they come to fear equality like white men do, but society moves farther along the insane vector of ever greater equality. In the end, everything that successfully fights tyranny in democracy, reinforces the greater tyranny of equality.






Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Incentives Created the Alt Right | Incentives Matter # 1

(1) Teaching everyone to hate whites in universities and promoting the notion that whiteness needs to be deconstructed creates a profound threat to white people. It stimulates their latent urge to self-preservation. This is an incentive.

(2) Bringing in Muslims also stimulates the urge to racial self-preservation. So does ISIS. These form a second incentive.

(3) Affirmative action discriminates against whites and Asians. This forms a third incentive.

(4) The hostility of Black Lives Matter is a fourth.

(5) The riots and hysteria of the various police shooting cases forms a fifth incentive.

(6) Obama's plan to colonize white suburban neighborhoods with hostile minorities form a sixth.

The entire alt right owes its existence to the incentives listed above. Humans obey incentives and the left has incentivized your existence.

In a democracy with redistribution there is an incentive to be a victim. Since ideology is the outcome of power, and since power obeys incentives, the existence of redistribution creates financial and power incentives to dehumanize the targeted group. Remember slavery? The targeted group (blacks) were ruthlessly dehumanized. 

Thus, as redistribution against whites increases so does the need to blame the white race. The sense of victimization RISES as the actual basis for historical grievance falls, because the historical grievance is not what is driving it--the need for justification for predation against whites is. Since white males are the primary target of redistribution the ideology also targets them primarily. 

Ideology is the whore/justification of power. As the abuse of power against whites increases so must the level of hysteria to cover its tracks. Your average minority feels guilty, and your average white liberal not only feels guilty about being white but also destroying america. It is the only explanation that makes sense.

Two sets of incentives are present here and locked into a causal feedback loop: (the left-wing incentive to justify abuse against whites), and (the 6 reactionary incentives listed above).

Possible outcome #1: the alt right will grow. The left will eventually take serious notice. They will conclude they are even more justified in demonizing us. It's growth will feed left-wing hysteria. Left-wing hysteria will feed the alt rights growth even more. 

Possible outcome #2: if it does not stop most people will be closet racists by, say, 2030.

Possible outcome #3: a Trump victory could act as a pressure release valve and prevent this from happening. Though the left will suffer Trump derangement syndrome, just like they suffered Bush derangement syndrome, his main function will be to make leftists adjust their game plan towards less outright anti-white rhetoric while duping the right into thinking they have the possibility of preserving civilization. In the end Trump will probably betray us. 

Possible outcome #4: more whites will leave the Democratic party, especially white males.

For an interesting case of what happens when racial polarization occurs look at this utterly disturbing case study of Brazil.



Saturday, June 25, 2016

Fundr: a Social Technology for Bankrupting Cathedral Media | Social Technology no. 1

Peter Thiel has pioneered a way to take down Cathedral media companies. His technique consists of bankrolling the lawsuits of people who have been victimized by mainstream media companies. Anyone who has ever been slandered by the left could potentially have a case against one of their media outlets. The effect is to suppress libel. 

WeSearchr is a company that crowdsources information on topics that could injure the mainstream media. Per its website:
"We post bounties on questions that drive public curiosity, and reward the people that deliver the answers. That's it.
WeSearchr has a select group of editors that we call "Askers" who watch the news cycle and figure out what people want to know.
If an Asker believes that there is enough interest in a question, they will create a Proposed Bounty to collect money to pay for the answer to the question.
Members of the public can browse the Bounties and donate money to fund a Bounty, as they might contribute to a campaign on any other crowdfunding site.
Once a Proposed Bounty reached its Minimum, it becomes an Active Bounty. The money can still rise, and the Asker will review any submitted Answers to the Bounty.
If the Asker feels that the Bounty has been successfully Answered, WeSearchr will review their choice of Answers.
If the Answer fulfills the terms of the Bounty, WeSearchr will release the information to the Asker and the Asker can publish the Answer in the outlet of their choice, or WeSearchr can help publish it."
An obvious possible social technology is to marry the two concepts into a single company. The board of Fundr surveys the public to determine what members of the Cathedral are the most hated, then a bounty is placed on the head of that member. If the minimum funding quota is met an offer to sue that person is made for anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate grievance against them. The offer stands forever. Payoffs from the lawsuit are split between the funders and the board.

Crowdsourcing could potentially take on more of these companies that a single billionaire if, and only if, the company can get enough billionaires as its crowd. Together they could pool their almost unlimited resources, making them completely unstoppable.

Categories: legal, potentially profitable, private sector, Cathedral media

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Responding to Chaos Patch # 116

Just free associating here.

Over at xenosystems Nick Land links to a Federalist article where he paraphrases, 'Blame the left for the Alt-Right. “It’s really concerning …”  ' To quote the article he references;
"Strikingly, this shift in rhetoric undermines what was once the core of anti-racist efforts. Treating people equally has given way to making all of us ambassadors for our race. This is a classic theme in critical race theory, that people of color carry a burden of representation that white people do not. But foisting the baggage of representation onto white people doesn’t solve that problem. It makes it worse.
White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.
A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched."
Ohhhh, the ONE grace of progressivism; that in their zeal to fix humanity they base their logic on the assumption that it even can be fixed. It can't of course. But, no leftist will ever agree. Indeed, rational argument could be made that Christianity, Islam, progressivism, communism, blah blah blah, etc., all represent attempts to fix humanity, and that in the act of "fixing it," they all made it quite a bit worse. Idiots never learn. . .

Perhaps this is because I am an INTJ, but it never ceases to amaze me that there are people in the world who are so utterly and completely flawed in their cognition. How can so many assholes be so stupid? Every INTJ knows instinctively that getting your premises correct is a crucial step, that the world is unlikely to provide accurate premises because of random chance, and that there is no way to rely on the values you are automatically given by society. Of course this is all arrogant but still utterly true.

Anyway, the saving grace is that the same blank-slatism  that guarantees the failure of the liberal program also guarantees that it will always fail in a predictable way—by generating its opposite. This is a saving grace because it could be much, much worse. Blank-slatism assumes that humans can be programmed by education, economic conditions, etc. In reality they always react AGAINST whatever they are indoctrinated and conditioned to believe. One of the fundamental realities is that people do have a basic nature, and that if you change conditions radically you do not abolish that nature, but instead create new conditions for its expression. Each iterative change simply brings about a new complexity, generating a new set of unforeseen problems, hence the complete futility of radical change. Any good INTJ political designer worth his salt would recognize this, and build on past (traditional) templates with known outcomes in order to reduce the sheer number of unknown side effects to a non-exponential and manageable level. After all, each new condition acts to exponentially increase complexity by multiplying its interactions with all the others. To even know what your design will achieve requires hewing very close to the present condition or to past systems of government—reform, not revolution.

Radical change simply creates a new radically unforeseen side effect that follow the exact same vector of inequality as the previous system since the underlying cause—human nature—can never change.

Exponential complexity is the enemy of good political design. All revolutions produce exponential complexities as their side effects. The American revolution only "worked" as well as it did, because it was built on a series of templates taken from other documents (1. 2. 3. 4.)—templates evolved slowly under systems of royalty.

Why the principal of exponential design complexity, would escape so many minds, is a source of endless amazement for me, though I accept the existence of cognitive misers as the ultimate reason. People don't think because they don't want to. But I still can't really get it. Perhaps the reason is that most humans acquire a nugget of meaning in life, and then defend it viciously against any and all challenges. Deep down they must know that they cannot think well, and believe that obsessively guarding their little bit of motivated cognition is the only way to keep meaning in their lives. It is probably a sanity protection mechanism, but still. . . Do they have to have power?

Any idiot with half a brain should realize that attacking a race or group (white men in this case), will produce its equal and opposite reaction. Marvel at the fact that we have tens of thousands of college professors—humans with degrees who are ostensibly intelligent, but who can't understand this basic fact and mindlessly undermine their own progressive agenda. But that's what the blank slate does, and could do nothing else. Humans with that premise could not help but fail to anticipate the equal and opposite reaction. Could they? Just like they thought communism would last forever.

The same flawed thing that causes X to think Y is even possible, will also cause X to fail to anticipate that the consequences of X will really be Z.

Transgenders in bathrooms and anti-white rhetoric presents an opportunity to co-opt women and liberal whites to our side, by egging the left on, until it has turned the weapon of equality against women. Upon which women will reject what threatens them—the left. Just a thought. See this as an example.

But how can we encourage their madness? Perhaps alt-right shit lords should go deep cover as leftists and champion the cause in the most outrageous, threatening, ham-fisted ways. Anyone with good observation skills knows that the fastest way to fascism/nationalism is through the communist black hole. Hit the accelerator and buckle up buckaroos.