Go to the Contents.
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, and 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 at 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.
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.
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). People adapt to material conditions and obey the incentives of power.
(4). 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.
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 here, here, 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.'Reject? Only the Amish reject. Unless you are planning to join them you have no case. The economic factor is the technological factor.
'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.'
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.
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.
- (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.