Saturday, December 31, 2016

Quarantine the Philosophers?

This is an informal post written partially in jest.


Here's a new article;

"Man jailed for leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque is found dead in prison halfway through his 12-month sentence"

Long story short. A man puts a bacon sandwich outside the front door to a mosque. (Good for him). A sanctimonious British judge puts him prison for a "hate crime." In prison the man is murdered by Muslims. The prison murder is "under investigation," as if the authorities care, as if they don't already know who did it.

So basically a British judge put a man to death for a prank.

Here is what that sanctimonious judge said about the bacon sandwich;
It was "an attack on England."
Wow. Hysteria much?

Now I could talk about the evil of the Cathedral, or about how progressivism is a mental disorder or some such. But I am not going to. It goes much deeper than that. Because the problem is not really progressivism. The problem is conformity itself. And that means the problem is human neurotypicality itself. Yes, that's actually a word. And it's a problem.

Because neurotypicals get their sense of reality from conformity. And neurotypicals get their sense of morality from conformity. Basically, a normie can't think a thought without his friends telling him that it is right, true, and good. Without conformity — without the herd as a reference, he doesn't know right from wrong, up from down, truth from untruth, or real from unreal. He needs an externally validating agent to keep him grounded in reality — and to keep him moral. As Slavoj Zizek and Lacan would both say, he needs a "big Other." Yeah, and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

He shouldn't need a big Other. He should know what is right, true, and good independently of any kind of Other. He should simply know what is right, like me. And he should simply know what is real, like me.

(I say this with a tad bit of humor).

Unfortunately most people who are utterly certain of their own morality are either smug liberals like Pajama Boy or schizophrenics and shit. And pajama boy is a conformist.

So how do I know what is real without reference to the herd? Am I schizophrenic or something? (Maybe. I'll just have to let you decide.) But I like to think that I'm not. And I like to think that it comes down to this: I observe reality and they don't.

You see, there is this really neat trick to understand the universe. Just see what is in front of your noise. Someone told me to do this years ago back when I was a normie and I've been doing it ever since. Because a really, really smart person will be really, really dumb if he can't observe anything. There are tire mechanics with more common sense than geniuses. This is because they work with their hands and can observe their tools and machinery. Trust me, if you are bad at observation you will be a bad at fixing tires. I know. I used to be both. Then I got good at both.

So if you observe reality long enough you are bound to come up with a sense of what is true independently of others. And if you observe reality long enough you will probably develop a moral code something like, "things that don't work are evil" or some such.

If you've already done this congratulations. This article is not about you.

And that works just fine. And it doesn't depend on herds. And that's a good thing because they are all insane anyway. Next time someone dies ask yourself a question: if nobody conformed would this guy be dead? Then witness your horror as you slowly realize after hundreds of observations that all these dead people are only dead because of neurotypical conformity. Pretty soon you will say to yourself, "ah, another one dead from other people's conformity."

"Another miscarriage of justice from conformity."

"Another suicide bomb from conformity."

"Yet another war from conformity."

Then you will realize that it isn't really the Hitlers of the world that are the problem, but all the many sheep who pull the trigger. The true horror comes from realizing that it is the sheep who are malevolent, not der f├╝hrer. Then you realize all these sheep progressives constantly hate on poor Adolph because what they really fear is not the Man but themselves. Because sheep pull triggers and they're sheep. Hitlers only give orders. All poor ol' Adolph ever did was give a few speeches!

And if you are really smart you may realize that you are one of them — one of these trigger pulling normie sheep.

And if you think either one of us in't a trigger pulling sheep then you are deluding yourself.

Chew on that. I will gas you friendo.

It isn't "following orders" which is the problem. I goes much deeper than that. It goes to the very way men construct their morality to begin with. To say "I wouldn't follow orders" is deluded because if you are neurotypical then the very way you construct you moral code is dependent on the herd. When the herd goes insane so will you. You will then believe, sincerely, that you are doing the right thing. Moreover, when you are given that order you will believe that it is right, true, and good — that you are defending the fatherland! Heil! . . . um. Cough.

Would I put you in a gas chamber? Of course. And you would do the same to me. This is not a moral condemnation. I am not judging you. Though there is one crucial difference between us. I am enough of an outcast that if the day ever came I would be long gone from this country. So I would probably never be put in the position of being forced to make that kind of moral choice to begin with. My neuro-atypical ass would look around and say "the normies have finally really gone nutters," and I would be out of the country on the next jet. I predicted the elections of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. Do you really think I wouldn't see muther fucking Adolph coming? Figuring out how neurotypicals go insane is my lifelong hobby, like entomology. It's what I do. It's a survival skill everyone like me develops. We must predict the normies. They're dangerous to us.

A typical sperg has spent a lifetime being bullied. He can tell when the shit has hit the fan. You can't. You're one of them.

The greatest delusion of the normie mind is the false belief that when all others change that he won't change. Somehow, this man who always perfectly conforms to everything, who has spent a lifetime fitting in, he believes that he is somehow the exception to the rule. He genuinely believes that he thinks for himself. That he has his own unique opinion. Never mind that he thinks exactly the same things as what talk radio and his friends are telling him, (or NPR and the Daily Show for liberals). He will always labor under the delusion that yes, he really did formulate his own viewpoint. But get this. Most people can't think. And if we're honest, most people probably shouldn't think. They're libel to develop opinions that get them ostracized.

So the world is essentially divided into two groups. (1); a tiny minority that can think for themselves a little bit, and (2), all the millions of people they manipulate.

Even the smallest amount of original thought is grounds for influencing hundreds of millions of people. Even when those thoughts are wrong. Remember Ayn Rand? What was her original thought? Right. "Selfishness is a virtue." What about Judith Butler? "Gender is constructed." Or Herbert Marcuse? "Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance." Howard Zinn? "White people are evil." And Curtis Yarvin? "Democracy is a form of totalitarianism."

Yes, I know this contradicts my past statements in support of Yarvin's ideas.

One could easily see a vast herd of normies pulling triggers for any of these ideologies in the future.

If the world were either composed of all original thinkers or all conformists this would not be a problem. A world of all thinkers would never agree to kill anyone or do much of anything. A world of all conformists would never think. The disaster is that they inhabit the same space. As someone who fancies himself a thinker I like to think that being an idiot conformist is the problem. But thinkers are a tiny minority with a vast influence. The obvious solution: segregation.

If this is the way the world is to be; a vast herd following a tiny, mostly insane minority of ideologues, then the sensible solution is to quarantine the philosophers in their own republic. Let them live. Give them a garden paradise even. No need for it to be drab. But let them live apart. Because the neurotypicals are never going to stop obeying orders and the ideologues are never going to stop issuing them. Herds need the absolute absence of thought to function. They need ideological security. Thinkers need freedom.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought. It might as well guarantee freedom of manipulation. Freedom of thought is for the man who can think. Let there be a system within exitocracy for free thinkers. If a person wants to say whatever he likes he can emigrate there. The rest can have ideological security. Then, when the philosophers come up with something new it can be presented to a "board of ideological security" composed of various religious leaders. Only if they are unanimous is the idea allowed to escape the free republic.

What do you think. Good or bad idea? Totalitarian hell? New dark age? It would definitely make for a peaceful planet.




An Old April Fools Joke






Thursday, December 29, 2016

Aphorisms no. 25

In a universe of infinite facts there are an infinite number of ways to be right. The existence of an opposing viewpoint does not prove either of them are wrong. The reason we pay attention to some facts and not others is their emotional utility us to us; their meaning, value, purpose, and our friendships.

Nearly all lies come from omitting something. What are you omitting? What are they? Will it work?

Everyone on Earth interprets disagreement as a personal attack — whether they admit it or not. The facts they have paid attention to are only noticed by them because of their emotional utility. Invalidating those facts is subconsciously, always, an invalidation of them.

Facts contain within themselves normative assertions. The descriptive is never purely descriptive; the structure of a phrase embodies its normative implication.

"Rain falls on stone," implies that rain is doing something to the stone — that rain is at fault.
"Gravity causes rain to fall," implies that a third agent, called "gravity" is responsible. Responsibility is assigned to an object.
"The stone receives the rain," implies that the action of falling is received by the stone — that the stone is responsible.

So seemingly benign statements can contain assertions of causality and responsibility. Nothing is ever as factual / descriptive as it seems. Obviously, no one is literally saying in the example above that inanimate objects are responsible. It is simply a noncontroversial example given to point out the general pattern.

So there are an infinite number of ways to be right. Error is omission. And people embody their values in seemingly factual statements.




Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Had to Repost This







Open it in youtube for best viewing

New blogs added in the month of December

Added to the list.

Added 12/28/2016
The Dissenting Sociologist
Elfnonationalist
Quaslacrimas

Added 12/21/2016
Peppermint Frosted

Added on 12/19/2016
Atlantic Centurion
Historia Futura Praedicit
Men of the West
Nick Bostrom
Northern Dawn
The Other World

Added on 12/15/2016
Hobbesian Politics



A Just Civilizations Test


There are a handful of methods for getting human beings to work. Some of them are, in no particular order, the whip, the gulag, the opportunity for theft, the dollar, the elements of nature, and sex.

One might also add self-sufficiency. Which motivates some people.

All living things must work to live, but only man must pay to live on earth. Life works at labor because of entropy, a force that works to destroy all life. Entropy is the movement of energy from higher, ordered patterns to lower, disordered states. It is the second law of thermodynamics. Living things are energy patterns that hold their form and cheat entropy through cellular self-replication and whole-organism reproduction. They move energy from a disordered to ordered state using the action of entropy against itself. Since it takes a large amount of entropy to produce a small amount of contra-entropy (life), the process produces a large amount of waste. Though biological organisms are remarkably efficient at it.

But a pattern that is waste to one organism can be energy to another and so a circle of decomposers, producers, and consumers exists.

All civilizations use political methods to allocate entropy to their citizens. Tribes, which use the elements of nature themselves, are not classed as civilizations for the purposes of this article. Humans are up against the entropy of nature, against the elements, and the elements / bodily needs of the individual, (hot and cold, hunger, thirst, breath, need for medicine, need for care, defecation, companionship, and sex drive) form the basis of which kinds of entropy get delivered to the individual who must solve the problem through labor.

Bodily needs and pain are the evolutionary internalized genetic response to nature's entropy. Thus, pain and longing are a kind of information that tells you that you are doing something wrong.

Money is a much superior compulsion mechanism to whips or gulags. Theft is not sustainable for all. A civilization built on the direct allocation of sex as a reward to men would be hell for women. Only the elements may be a preferable master to money, though modern humans lack the survival skills to deal with them.

Money is simply one of six ways to ration and deliver entropy. Every dollar you have is a vote. More dollars = more votes. Obviously, since dollars can be accumulated, this is not an equitable system, and offends evolved genetic legacy sensibilities.

So this is not a test of equity, or so called "fairness." This article is only about a test of minimum justice, and the test is this; would a man prefer the elements as his master instead of money? If we give him a choice to go to a national park and live off the land — to banish himself from civilization with no possibility of return for medical care or provisions, or, to stay in the city (polis) and work for money under law and order, which will he voluntarily choose? If given free exit, will he choose our system? Remember, the natural world is a place where simple and easily treated medical problems can kill you. You can't go back for a lighter or a match. You don't get to keep your car. You have to live off the land completely. You must cut all connections to modern technology. There is no return if you forget something.

Only if he would choose us of his own free will can we claim our society is just. Any civilization where the majority of men would choose permanent exile to the forest over the polis is a slave society. This gives you a just civilization test. And who fails the test? Even better, who passes? Does anyone? Certainly civilizations have in the past.





Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Aphorisms no. 24

Male dominated societies have higher than break-even replacement level birth rates while all others have sub-replacement fertility levels. All equal societies are annihilated by male dominated ones. That is why the world is patriarchal.

But all societies are only in conflict with each other because they are male dominated.

Therefore;

War is a prisoner's dilemma.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Radical Reform Ideas

Voucherization of Campaign Contributions

Tax all campaign contributions at 80%. Then provide campaign contribution vouchers to "Voucher Holders." These are people who are required to pass a series of exams on the subject of economics. There are about 20 million of them nationwide. Each county is responsible for their training. They are put though both an introduction to microeconomics and macroeconomics course. They must also study the US Constitution.

Turn the Senate into a House of Repeal

Since legislative accumulation is the basis for the leftward movement of society, stopping legislative accumulation is of paramount importance. Convert the Senate into a House of Repeal. This means that it will no longer participate in the process of making laws. Instead, it will only be allowed to repeal them. Repeal does not require the Presidents permission, only a majority vote of the Senate.

Remainder Method + Prediction Market

Laws are now only being made by the House of Representatives. Use the remainder method. Basically, that means that a prediction market is asked a simple question about all proposed legislation. The question is; "what percentage of the population will be helped by this bill at some point in their lives if it is made into law?" The prediction market comes up with, say, the answer "thirty-seven percent." 37 % is subtracted from 100 % to give a remainder of 63 %. That is the minimum percentage necessary to pass the bill and make it into law. Similarly, if only 1% of the population is helped then 99% of the House is required for approval. If only 10% are helped then 90% is required, etc. The minimum for all laws is a 50 % majority.

Party Term Limits

"Any party that occupies more than 200 seats in the House of Representatives for more than 5 years shall not be allowed to occupy more that 100 seats in the subsequent 5 years." So political parties are term limited.

Well-being Market

Tax media news companies every time they profit from a race riot. Hell, tax them at a high rate for everything since they profit from attacking social stability. Then give them a series of derivatives that only pay out a profit when society as a whole is getting better. If a media company is nationwide then its derivatives pay out when the whole country gets better. If its broadcasting covers only a local area then its derivatives pay out only when the local area gets better. "Gets better" is measured statistically; less crime, fewer race riots, etc. Now all media companies have a financial incentive to look after the best interests of their communities. This is the opposite of their prior incentive; to stir up trouble in order to drive up ratings.

Media companies are only liberal because they PROFIT FROM CHAOS. The left is better at delivering chaos that the right. By harmonizing the media's financial incentives with the nation you make it right wing instead of left wing (or at least not right wing.) The media will now have a bias in favor of order. That may not make it exclusively right wing but it will stop it from undermining civilization.

They get to keep their independence and "free speech" but now they are biased in favor of order.




Saturday, December 24, 2016

What do you think about a podcast?

Some of my articles can be rather long. What about a podcast? Would you be more or less likely to listen to that? Do you prefer to read or listen?

AMK

Friday, December 23, 2016

A Brief Summary of Exitocracy


In the book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty by Albert O. Hirschman, he defines a conceptual framework where a person, when confronted with declining quality of performance from an organization, can choose one of the methods listed in the book title for dealing with the situation; they can exit (leave the organization), attempt to voice their concerns, or remain loyal.

Mencius Moldbug draws from this work.

In Patchwork: a positive vision, Moldbug, aka Curtis Yarvin, delineates a hypothetical society where sovereignty is carved up into patches, (city states) and where each person is free to move between them but no one votes within them. In Moldbug's vision, each state is a corporation which owns a territory. It is a system of all exit and no voice. This is precisely the opposite of; a system of all voice and no exit. Moldbug views democracy as a soft variant of communism (like some of the ancient philosophers), and therefore he considers America a communist country. This is what is meant by the neoreactionary phrase "America is a communist country."

There is a long chain of reasoning that leads Moldbug to the conclusion that the exercise of political voice is the enemy of freedom. After all, lots of city states have no voice and plenty of freedom, (like Singapore or Dubai). Since Moldbug was originally a libertarian he views political voice as meaningless. Why do you need voice when your rights are respected? He says. This attitude is summarized by the statement that "the only morality is civilization," (also the motto of the Hestia Society). Ultimately, in his view, order is a precondition for liberty and well-ordered states are necessarily free as a consequence. Humans do best when revealed preferences are the basis for political decisions rather than voting. This is because of the rational ignorance problem of voting; which says that it is individually rational for a voter to be ignorant even if it is collectively detrimental to the nation. Additionally, there are endless public choice problems associated with democracy, and ultimately, democracies are run by the civil service and various client special interest groups. Moreover, constitutions do not form a successful barrier to state religion. All religion does is metaphorically mutate around the Separation of Church and State in order to exercise control over the government. It becomes secular in nature, dropping the worship of God and converting into political correctness. Religion always influences the state and in the presence of Separation of Church and State people simply sublimate religious impulses into secular doctrine. This process is what Moldbug calls the Cathedral and political correctness.

Since this is a neoreactionary inspired blog much of the ideas for exitocracy come from patchwork. The essential difference is that within exitocracy, the population gets to vote for their system of government. Patchwork doesn't do that. In exitocracy, systems themselves are run by corporations, non profits, political parties, etc., with no internal control over the state by the people. In other words, the people choose which government, and not it's leaders or policies.

Since a conventional election where the majority wins would produce only two major systems competing in every district election, the election is a multi-part election instead. It works like a decision tree. In the first round the people in a territory choose between left or right-wing. then in the second round they choose what type of left or right-wing system they want to govern them. Only voters who voted for the right are allowed to choose which system is adopted if the right has the majority in the first round, and conversely, only the voters who voted for the left choose the system if the left wins in the first round. The result is a minimum of 4 possible political systems competing on the ballot in each election. An additional level may be added to increase that number to eight systems competing with each other.

Not just anyone can create a system: there are strict licencing and capital requirements to limit the potential for failure. Basic services like police and fire departments continue to be provided by conventional government to minimize risk. Systems only control the welfare state, domestic law making, and social services. The effect is the creation of a governance marketplace where society operates on three levels; the first level is the federal state, the second is the governance marketplace (competing systems), and the third is the free market.

Exitocracy basically creates an agorist or anarcho capitalist governance marketplace contained within a federal government that controls a national territory. This solves many flaws in Moldbug's design, not the least of which is the potential for war between patches. With the federal government watching over the systems contained within it's territory and with the systems being banned from having militaries the potential for violence is eliminated. The US Federal government is the big thumb that keeps all the little systems peaceful. All domestic legislation is essentially delegated to the systems, (within reason). The federal government concentrates on national deference and foreign affairs matters.

Each system is about the size of a county. Ideally the borders of election districts perfectly overlap the borders of counties so there are about 3,100 of them.

Systems control immigration within the United States to their districts. That's right, even internal immigration is controlled. Since everyone has the right to exit, but no one has the right to enter, a testing service is provided to match people with systems that accommodate their political preferences and resolve this conflict. It is now possible to create foolproof tests for people's attitudes. One method already developed is the IAT, which uses a technique that measures implicit attitudes. The same technique could be applied to other subjects, like attitudes towards taxation, free speech, welfare benefits, etc. Essentially, a person goes to a testing center and completes a series of exams that measure implicit values — the sort of thing you cannot fake. Then they are matched with all the systems that have similar values to their own. They receive a list of invitations. Thus, a person's right of exit is accommodated without violating anyone else's right to be left alone. For example, a communist may receive an invitation to live in a socialist system. But he will never receive one for a libertarian system, and vice versa. This for example, prevents a million Californians from moving to your state and importing their failed political attitudes to it.

As a result, most people can live anywhere, but only if they genuinely change their values first.

Exitocracy solves a huge number of social problems. It creates a guaranteed check on the power of the state. Right now the US Supreme Court can destroy your rights with a pen stroke. The Supreme Court still exists in exitocracy, but will any system enforce its dictates? All systems must compete for both residents and business capital. Systems that fail to compete die and are replaced in bankruptcy court, and lose their slot on the ballot.

Exitocracy also provides humans with a tribe; something that is fundamentally lost in the modern world. Observe that all of the most popular television shows and movies are about tribes of people; The Big Bang Theory, Star Trek, Lost, The Walking Dead, The Expanse, Star Wars, etc. Time and time again, there is a small cast of people that do something together. They could go their separate ways but do not. Instead they maintain lifelong friendships. This is completely opposite to how the modern world actually works — a place where even families become estranged. Portrayals of tribalism, or shall I say band level civilization, work because they appeal to instinctive human needs. We need life-long friends who never leave. Period. That is something the modern world does not provide, and 94 million communists have died trying to create. Though exitocracy is nearly the opposite of communism, it does a better job of creating tribal solidarity than communists could do, and this means it squashes the ever persistent craving for communism among the population. That's it's second purpose.

There are three ways to settle political disputes: "compromise," which is really just any system that tricks people into accepting the jackboot, the jackboot itself (authority), and "menu." Menu is just exactly what it sounds like. There are a variety of different political systems. You get to choose which one you prefer. Democracy is compromise. Authoritarian systems are authority. Exitocracy is menu.

So there is your summary. I hope you enjoyed it.





Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Three Crazies in a Week, I Must Be Doing Something Right (or Wrong)

The fist one insulted me by insinuating in front of David Friedman that my blog wasn't worth reading. Well then why are you reading it? Lol. Blocked. He won't be reading it anymore.

The second one wrote a screed on "we wuz kangz!" and claimed that white people were literally leprosy. Literally. She then quoted a Bible passage, as if an atheist would care about the Bible.

A third one went on a hyper-deranged 1488 rant about how I must be a fat incel curly haired Jew, how I needed to have my head smashed in by a 2 ton block, etc. How he wished horrible things on me and how if I didn't take down chapter 2 of my "long winded shit post" by the end of the week he would hunt me down and kill me.

Blocked.

This is what you get when you go against human tribalism. Or maybe it's just because I have reached 2 to 400 daily readers, put my blog on Reddit, and promoted to non neoreactionary sources. That's right, going outside NRx has brought psychos to my blog. Sort of shoots to hell any notion that we are the problem and not the normies of the world.

I define normie as NOT having Aspergers, not being an INTJ, or not an INTP. I'm sure all of the people that are screaming at me are crazy and therefore not "normie" in the urban dictionary sense of the word. Urban dictionary defines non normies as mentally ill people.

So how to reach more spergs? I need sperg readers. If you know any send them my way...

PS. I have installed tracking software so I can find people who threaten me and report them to the police.


Sexual Liberation Through Rules,

with Notes on Tastemaking




A truly hedonistic society makes marriage for reproduction only. Since edginess lies on the other side of transgression, wherever the line is between acceptable and unacceptable, defines what is cool on the other side of that line. Things directly on the other side are fashionable. Things far on the other side are criminal. Moving the line to a more permissive place simply reduces the number of things that are transgressive, and thus, excessively pleasureful, while increasing the pointless "masturbatory" nature of the act. Acceptance of everything destroys its fun.

If the line is a standard that says that sex is for reproduction only then a couple may transgress that line by secretly doing it while the religious authorities are kept in the dark. Marital sex then becomes cool. Imagine that.

If the line is premarital sex then that becomes cool. (Like in the 1950's).

If the line is lesbianism then that becomes cool. (Like in the 1990's).

Additionally, as the line moves more acts become bourgeoisie, boring, and normalized. These newly boring acts are now meaningless and masturbatory. Repression enhances pleasure. Acceptance ends it. And thus we see that the modern liberal puritan is vastly more puritan than her predecessor. It is precisely as things have been normalized that sexual enjoyment has been destroyed. The leftist puritan accomplishes the destruction of pleasure far more effectively than her ancestor, and she does it through the perversity of "tolerance" and "acceptance." She may practice a perverse sexual act — not to enjoy it, but to annihilate it's meaning and fun. This is beyond frigidity. Seen in this light, false rape accusations follow a perverse kind of logic. It is sexual conquest through sexual annihilation. It is the inversion of a thing into its opposite. It creates no life, enjoys nothing, persecutes everything, and wastes all. It's perversion is not enjoyment but both castration of the falsely accused male and self-castration. The "pervert" (normal heterosexual white male) is really the healthy one here and the "healthy feminist woman" (probably a closet pederast or asexual) is really the pervert, since she can enjoy nothing but power. She is a power freak, and the worst kind of prude. Her only gratification is the sadism of envy. The males crime is enjoying her sexually; something that she cannot reciprocate, and her violent hatred of him for having what she cannot have his her motivate for persecuting him.

Traditional moral limitations are not limitations but liberations. They enhance women's and men's pleasure by getting betrothal over with so they can get on with sexually enjoying each other. In a world of millions of potential partners, a woman's hypergamy will simply run on overdrive until she wastes her entire fertile years pursuing the small group of "worthy" males who she can never trap with commitment. This is the reproductive equivalence of choice paralysis.

The Indian caste system restricts female hypergamy by confining women to selecting a mate within a small group. The western political prohibition of premarital sex forces people into committed relationships so they can achieve enjoyment. The Middle Eastern burka reduces sexual competition among women, and between men over women, by removing the display of the female body from public view. This opens up the environment for greater commitment between the sexes and pleasure. Tribes and small towns restrict sexual competition through population size limitations. Anabaptists restrict choice through a rural lifestyle. Other groups restrict competitive choice through arranged marriages, bride buying, or matchmaking with a chaperone. Even Scientology has a process for restricting sexual competition between its members.

The woman who bans the burka creates one type of freedom and destroys another. She creates the freedom to be sexual in public and destroys the freedom to not be objectified — not at least, if she wants to attract the attentions of a male. Since she is in "skin competition" with other women to display her body in order to attract attention, if she dresses modestly she does not attract attention. And so by eliminating the burka she has forced herself to show her body for male attention. It is an example of stupidity that feminists then complain about objectification of the female body while advocating for the policies that lead to it.

This is why there is no one "right" way. In the end what is right must be discovered by having multiple competing societies (systems) within exitocracy and then measuring levels of happiness. Then, the proven systems of greatest flourishing should out-compete the less successful ones. But there is a shortcut; traditions have already arrived it a multitude of right ways through historical trial and error.

Due to the xenophobic tribal natures of homo sapiens the human brain is "sticky," and gets stuck defending one way over others; the way of ones own tribe. Humans compulsively find groups to tribe together in. They then use their evolved cognitive biases and logical fallacies, (especially the genetic fallacy), to engage in motivated cognition for their tribe. In fact probably all fallacies serve some tribal function. Straw man arguments misrepresent the Other. Genetic fallacies disregard the Other. Red Herrings distract the Other. No true Scotsman affirm one's own tribe no matter what. Appeal to threat silences the Other. The fallacy of taking offence defines the speaker as Other. Censorship silences the Other. Calling someone "racist" is the biggest genetic fallacy of our era and exclused the Other. Virtue signaling affirms tribal membership and signals fitness and worth. Calling someone a "white male" is a dehumanizing exclusion of the Other.

Is there any cognitive process not bound in some way to tribalism?

The puritan liberal opposes sexual restrictions precisely because she opposes enjoyment. Never forget that the worship of equality is the worship of envy, and that envy is NOT wanting what other people have, oh no. Envy is hating them for having it — and wanting to destroy them for it. So the feminist is seeking the destruction of pleasure through the ideology of equality.

Rules and rituals give prediction to peoples lives, opening those lives up for pleasure and meaning. As already stated, the celebration of choice is paradoxically about denying pleasure through choice paralysis.

Married people have more sex than single ones. "Freedom of choice" is about denial of pleasure for others. It is motivated by envy. It's effect is to reduce rates of marriage — and of other peoples pleasure.

One woman's heaven is another women's hell. "Freedom of choice" is slavery to sexual objectification, abortion, and birth control. It's effect is to make commitment impossible — to reduce the happiness of other women.

There is a structural component here — a prisoner's dilemma. Birth control makes premarital sex something that women can do without guaranteed pregnancy. Since every woman can give it up without demanding marriage first, every woman is expected to. The ones who refuse simply receive no commitment at all. The ones who provide premarital sex are often used up by the experience and become jaded. They seek self-castration to remove the pain. This self-castration (and castration of men) is the true origin of modern feminism and its nonsense ideas of "liberation," — which is really just an abject submission and slavery to the material forces of birth control. Every woman is enslaved to promiscuity and this is branded as female sexual freedom; a precise negation of reality as a psychological coping mechanism. The total absence of choice to marry become the perverse celebration of "choice" as an absolute ideal. No woman really chooses to have an abortion or get thrown away like trash.

The technology changes the landscape. The very existence of birth control and abortion creates an environment of mass promiscuity where birth control and abortion are mandatory. This is called "choice."

The name for this is false consciousness, or alternately, adaptive preference formation. It's cause is the cognitive dissonance of environmental conditions at odds with human needs.

In a society where pornography, birth control, abortion, and premarital sex are all illegal people are forced into monogamy. Paradoxically this frees them sexually.

Since one woman's heaven is another woman's hell, whatever the majority does imposes itself on the minority as decreased life options. If everyone is married there are decreased options for promiscuity. Conversely, if everyone is promiscuous there are decreased options for marriage. The majorities behavior is an imposition. One cannot really avoid sexual usury in this society. This is behind the drive to criminalize anything that does not please a woman as "rape;" a misguided and destructive reaction to mass promiscuity. No, the threat of a false rape accusation will not inspire men to marry you, especially now that feminism has made marital rape illegal, and the same potential for false accusation exists within marriage as without. Why would he sign up for that?

She cannot force men into liking her with the threat of false rape accusations. Force breeds resentment.

Freedom is never really "freedom." It is not that simple. Freedom, as the term is used in vernacular conversation, really just means the absence of impositions by human external agency on a persons life. But this misses the boat because there is never simply an absence of impositions. Just because you are not being imposed on by human will does not mean you are not being imposed on. We are surrounded by technology, and it affects every aspect of our lives — including, yes, our sex lives.

Freedom, in the libertarian sense, simply means the relaxation of social standards to the lowest technologically obedient equilibrium. It means "the technology of birth control will determine our sex lives." Similarly, if one allows one's children the "freedom" to do what they want then one is simply saying "the technology of addictive screens (TV, internet, smart phones) will determine how our family spends it's time." This is not really freedom. The technology of screens has the side-effect of destroying the time families spend together. It is today completely possible to not even know ones own children as much as the internet does — for a family of strangers to grow up in the same house. A family raised on the internet is not really a family. Children do not know their parents. The alienation this can produce in a young mind is substantial and horrible for psychological well-being.

In the modern world there is no absence of imposition, no condition of "freedom." If humans refuse to define rules for their existence they simply relinquish the territory to technological determinism. This can have a truly drastic cost, as we see with birth control whose negative effects on society include;
1. Compelling women who would not otherwise be promiscuous into that lifestyle.
2. Warping female consciousness into the self-deception of celebrating ones sexual enslavement as a "choice."
3. Making a "virtue" out of racial extinction.
4. Producing mass abortion.
5. Causing female hypergamy to go on overdrive into choice paralysis.
6. Creating men who enable all of this, and who use women habitually.
7. Producing millions of "cucked" "beta" males.
8. Creating massive economic demand for pornography by said males.
9. Destroying the marriage rate.
10. Causing epidemic levels of single motherhood.
11. Warping the will of the people, such that the people are unwilling to save themselves from technology's negative effects because it has irrevocably ruined their morals for the worse.
12. Producing a philosophy of anti-values in the form of feminism that represents the psychological internalization of insane material conditions as an insane ideology.
13. Causing feminist philosophy, as a secondary effect, to produce a worsening of sexual and marriage conditions beyond the simple first-order material conditions caused by birth control itself.
14. Causing feminism to oppose any attempt at genuine reform or society since feminist women have been driven insane by the corruption of morals that material conditions have produced.

For thousands of years women reproduced themselves on the virtual motto of "if I must do something then I will trick myself into enjoying it." This is how she could adapt herself to being kidnapped and enslaved (sexually) by the barbarian enemy tribe. Feminist "choice" is nothing but the continuance of this pattern of psychologically internalizing conditions. In the modern world she must ride a pile of cock, so she deceives herself into enjoying it. Then she celebrates "choice." But women have never had a choice, and choice presumes the existence of a moral agency to begin with — something women are notoriously bad at.

Women are the ultimate conformists. Jim thinks that they actually like ridding the "cock carousel." Me thinks that he is assigning too much agency to the female sex. He should take his own premises to heart and realize that women are too low agency to even know what they want in the first place. The female sexual mandate is "adapt to conditions." Whatever condition men create through rules and technology is ultimately what women will conform to. That is, whatever the strongest masculine incentive is, constitutes what women will follow. If commanded to fuck some ugly slob she will obey, provided that everyone around her thinks it is right and virtuous, or at least politically advantageous, and most importantly, her friends approve of it. She will desire whatever society celebrates as the "best" male, whatever is portrayed as the highest kind of man she can get, whatever is fashionable.

Technology corrupts the morals of the people. And then the people, having their morals corrupted, cannot envision a better way and cannot accept limitations placed on their behavior. So focused on short-termism are they that they cannot envision the long-term benefit of rules that control their sexual behavior. They cannot even see that married people have more sex than single ones, and that embracing a legal prohibition on premarital sex would in fact increase the frequency of their sexual encounters (within marriage).

Or as the Prophet of the Technological Singularity would say;
"Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
And understand what I mean when I say that women obey what they are commanded to fuck. I do not mean that women obey orders. I mean that they obey fashion. Women absolutely do "choose" in a sense. Here is how female choice has worked throughout the ages;

1930's Germany says, "The Nazi is cool. German mothers are awesome. Fuck the Nazi. Have lots of blonde German babies. The Nazi is a glamorous leader of the Reich. He is the hero of the nation."

1930's German woman says, "Nazis are glamorous. I CHOOSE to fuck the Nazi."

1950's Hollywood soap opera says, "your husband is boring and dull. He lacks adventure. Have an adventure! Buy our soap and fuck the handyman while your husband is at work."

1950's American homemaker says, "The handyman is rugged and hot, I CHOOSE to fuck the handyman while my husband is at work."

2000's Hollywood America says; "lesbians are edgy. You know you really want to lick some pussy. Experiment with your sexuality. Men think its hot! Go ahead, kiss a girl!"

2000's American Woman says, "female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. It's my body and I'll do what I want. I CHOOSE to be bisexual."

2010's American Society says; "abortion is cool. Sleep around and have an abortion.

2010's American women says; "I wish I had an abortion."

Funny how only 20 years earlier nearly all American women thought lesbians were repulsive and abortion was evil. Today they say that women's sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. But this is inaccurate. It is simply more conformist. Women have sex with what is glamours; that is, whatever their friends approve of. Glamour controls female sexuality. And men will follow any movement that promises them women. Put all of these facts together and you have a political strategy for neoreaction;

Men follow any political movement that brings women as a sexual advantage.
Women choose whatever man they think their friends will approve of.
Their friends approve of whatever the culture glamorizes.
Neoreaction will control what the culture glamorizes.

Besides demotism, the difference between fascism and aristocracy is that fascism only achieves true sophistication after ascending to power (a much more difficult and violent path), while aristocracy is fashionable from the beginning. Fascism is simply too proletariat to appeal to hypergamous expectations. The path of our NRx movement is through taste making. Seize the means of glamorization. Control all outlets of humor, satire, irony, fashion, entertainment, literature, and movies. Control a nations taste and you will control its women. After that recruiting men is easy. Imagine a cultural revolution to restore the power of white males that also attracts female support.

Memes are the best way to refine irony. The internet channels that they spread through contain an inborn mechanism for selecting the most virulent satire. Never do forced memes. Get into a position of power in a tastemaking industry and hire your fellow reactionaries into it. Set up a pipe line of recruitment into institutions of power and cultural control. Go work for a liberal foundation. Seriously. Do not challenge its agenda at first. Instead, hire as many of your fellow reactionaries until you have achieved a secret cabal within the organization that is strong enough to purge the remaining progressives. Then turn the foundation into a reactionary cultural force. Practice relentless institutional conquest — from the inside out.

And control of what is considered sexually fashionable is not just about control of female sexuality. That is just a means to an end. It is about the continuation of white civilization. It is about not having to bow to beings that are your moral inferiors. It is about the dignity of white men and the freedom to live without groveling to an affirmative action board of parasites for the right to earn a living to support your family. Indeed, it is about the right of whites to even have families. And it is about women not being pressured to "experiment" with their sexuality as a condition of life in Weimerica. It is about free speech and freedom of association. It is not just about freedom from technologically-induced moral decay, but from the leftists who celebrate it, push it forward, exacerbate its effects, and block the path to going back to traditional values. It's about not having a public school threaten to take away custody of your 11 year old son when you oppose their attempt to castrate him and turn him into a "womyn." In short, it is about freedom in the most basic sense from utter totalitarian slavery.

Yes, we want to use authoritarian methods. But consider that authoritarianism is far less evil than totalitarianism. Order is a precondition for liberty. They are not opposites. It is often said that "he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither," but this is a false dichotomy. Franklin never actually said it this way, and the quote makes no sense. Order is a precondition for liberty. The alternative in anarcho tyranny. Without freedom from the private tyranny and crime of others one cannot be free. Oder is the first precondition of liberty.

The left has violated the Separation of Church and State. That means that we are now less free than before the abolishment of the official church in America. This represents the first shot fired in a civil war that was in recess for over two hundred years. Our taxes are higher than before the revolution. We face more censorship than we did back then. Imagine writing the human biodiversity equivalent of Common Sense today and handing it out on street corners. The mob itself would kill you; if you didn't lose your job first and become permanently unemployable. Moreover, Common Sense made the argument that taxes would go down in a republic! Ha ha.

The modern totalitarian state exerts a level of power over the individual that no central authority could ever have dreamed of. No king would have dared to indoctrinate your children to castrate themselves, practice lesbianism, get abortions, and participate is mob riots. But the current regime does. Differentiating between public and private is spurious. Power is power. That foundations fund indoctrination into sexual perversion, abortion, and riots, has nothing to do with their public or private status. What the state allows the state supports. If a gang or private entity is allowed to terrorize you then the formal government wanted it to.

A King is a feature and not a bug precisely because he suppresses competing power centers. Would King William IV execute George Soros on the scaffold? Of course. And that is a good thing. That's the point.

The only path toward liberty is through authority. Order creates freedom; in human sexuality, in pleasure, in political liberty, in safety. The freedom that true libertarians desire lies naturally on the other side of order. A robbery is still a violation of your rights. A mob is still a threat to ones liberty. All competing power centers must be destroyed for libertarian freedom to prevail. Libertarianism is a thing defined by it's absence; by the total absence of force in violation of the non aggression principle. This is a state of affairs that can only come about when all power vacuums have been filled by sovereignty. It is arrived at through total order, not through total anarchy.

Sovereignty is established through rules and property rights. Period. There may be a variety of systems under exitocracy. But they all impose order and sovereignty if they want to be successful.

In Summary 

Feminism seeks castration and has been driven insane by material conditions. Birth control has had a series of disastrous effects. The effects can only be controlled by rules. Rules liberate human sexuality. One woman's heaven is another woman's hell. Freedom isn't freedom sexually; it is total subservience to technology's totalitarian effects. Only once truly liberated by rules can human sexuality express itself in an uncorrupted and pure form. Only under traditional rules made by human agents can the people truly be free of technological and left-wing totalitarianism. This is not done to suppress human sexuality, oh no. It is our desire to free its expression through monogamous commitment. Rules and ritual engender the predictability needed for trust, mating, and pleasure to occur. When correctly done they reduce to a minimum the personality warping effects of adaptive preference formation. Good rules are designed with psychology in mind to maximize the eudaimonic sexual happiness of people by proscribing ritual that gives performative predictability to their sex lives. Have some rules, gain some trust, and open up the space for sexual enjoyment within conservative and traditional structures. Humans conform, an thus, they conform to the totalitarianism of technology and the degenerate leftists that exacerbate it's effects. Feminism, because it is insane, celebrates its' own enslavement to totalitarian effects.

Female sexual choice is an illusion. Women only chose what is fashionable. This is an exploit for hacking cultural control. The path to rule leads at least partially through fashionability. Reactionaries should engage in institutional conquest with particular attention paid to organs of tastemaking and the federal bureaucracy. Employment pipelines should be set up in secret to recruit on a massive scale members of the reactionary and alt-right communities into these institutions of power.

Authoritarianism is superior to totalitarianism. Private power is even more corrosive than central monarchical power. The elimination of competing private power centers is a feature and not a bug. The only path to liberty is through authority and order. For libertarianism to succeed, all power vacuums must be filled by sovereignty.




AMK




For further reading on the subject of birth control, read 



Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Conversations

1st conversation

Liberalism; "white supremacy must be destroyed."

Social Justice Warrior; "western civilization is built on white supremacy."

Conservative; "so you're the reason America is being destroyed!"

Liberalism; "noticing is racist."

Neoreaction; "civilization is good. The only morality is civilization."

Alt-right; "civilization equals white supremacy."

1488; "white supremacy is good."

NRx; "now let's not be hasty."


2nd Conversation

Liberalism; "everyone who isn't liberal is Hitler."

1488; "everyone who isn't liberal should be Hitler."

NRx; "Hitler was left-wing."

Conservatism; "agreed. Let's punch 1488."

NRx; "no punching right."

Conservatism; "but you said that 1488 isn't right-wing!"

NRx; "uh, um, Hitler wasn't absolutist. And you're punching to YOUR right."

Conservatism; "damn. I just want Megyn Kelly to like me."

NRx; "no women."

Alt-lite; "NRx is sexist."

NRx; "and your point?"





Tuesday, December 13, 2016

On Replicator Barter



In the television show Star Trek the Next Generation, and all the Trek series shows that take place after the awful Enterprise TV series, (after in terms of the in-universe timeline of Trek), humans have replicators, an absurd device that can synthesize anything by converting energy into matter. I say absurd because such a device would have to contain the explosive force of an atomic bomb every time it replicated anything at all under the E = MC Squared formula. (Technically it would be an implosion). So every time Jean Luc said "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot" the ready room would blow up, or rather, atomically implode.

"Tea, Earl Grey, Boom!"


















Fortunately, we humans in the current year have much better options.

Because you see, right now humanity could actually create something very similar to a Star Trek replicator, and without having to improve our technology all that much. It all revolves around multi-material 3D printers.

These aren't regular 3D printers, oh no. They are MULTI-MATERIAL, in case you didn't catch that. Meaning, they must have the ability to print multiple layers of materials together simultaneously without having to change nozzles or anything else.

Conventional 3D printers can only print one material at a time; say PLA plastic, wood composite, or metal. Makerbot has a whole series of materials for it's 3D printer that you can use. But you have to change out filaments each time your want to use a different one. A real Multi-material device would use something like vapor deposition in combination with a multiple nozzle system to lay down materials in a way similar to a dot matrix printer. Or it might use a single material that changes properties when exposed to different frequencies of light, sound, or whatever.

Then you would have a whole series of these machines that can print different types of objects. Say one type of machine can only print a combination of metal, glass, and plastic. Another type of machine can only print silicon, plastic, and wire. A third type of machine can only print metal parts. A fourth type of machine can only print food. A fifth can only print synthetic meats, etc. You have multiple machines, (say a few hundred different types), and each can only do one single type of thing.

A person only has to buy one machine and put it in his garage. Then he goes online and signs a replicator barter contract, or RBC. In this contract he agrees to provide a certain number of printed items to the community of producers by a certain date.

On that date he shows up at the barter site with a pile of objects in his arms made from the digital files he was given by the community. He stands in line to deliver his objects. When he gets to the front of the line a broker goes down a checklist and checks off all the things he owes the community. Then he sits down.

Once all objects are turned in the reverse process occurs. The community lines up and the broker dispenses all the objects to the members using a different check list of what is owed, and to whom. The man receives all the objects he is owed and then goes home. He turns in a narrow range of objects defined by a certain type. Let us say his 3D printer only makes cell phones. So he brings 57 cell phones of various different makes and models to the community. In exchange he receives synthetic meats, food that has been organically grown, tools, furniture, paper, art, music, biodiesel, pharmaceuticals (produced by a drug 3D printer), and a hundred different little things that he needs. He submits a monotony of electronic objects but receives in return a diversity of all the things he needs for a months supply of living.

Now some people will flake out. No problem. Everyone submits a deposit. If you flake out and fail to submit your required supplies then you forfeit your deposit. The deposit is then used to purchase the object that you owed from a backup supplier and to give that object to the person who is owed that item.

Second, there is a reputation system in place. This is not quite a credit score system. It is a simple "reliability score." Did you submit what you owe? Is it in working condition? Is it new like promised?

If you have a low level of reliability this is not a problem. You will be matched with other people who are as reliable as you, (or unreliable as you). Don't flake out. Otherwise you will be stuck with bartering with people as unreliable as you. Maintaining a high reliability score lets you barter in more reliable groups, keeps the cost of your deposits down, and saves your money, time and hassle. If reliability gets low enough the value of replicator barter evaporates. Below a certain point it is more hassle that it is worth.

Additionally, insurance may be purchased that guarantees the delivery of products according to your specifications in the advent that a provider is unreliable. Darknets may be used to circumvent paying taxes to the authorities. The group doesn't need to know your identity. A reliability score can be assigned to a number.

All of this is done using a blockchain-based smart contract system. Files for printing are open source and freely available on the internet. Your only master is your reliability score. The material you use to print is free and produced by the synthetic bacterium that you grow in your greenhouse. The food for these synthetic bacterial colonies is dirt and water. You are completely self-sufficient, have no boss, pay no taxes, and answer to no one. And all of these technologies are possible with improvements to what we already have. We can realize all of this with our existing scientific knowledge.

Oh, and I should repeat, there are no taxes paid.

Because every time I hear liberals talk about progress I want to remind them that all social "progress" is a byproduct of technology. The printing press created the enlightenment. Guns created democracy. Birth control created the sexual revolution. It has to be pointed out that "progress" comes from the barrel of an inventor, and that all of today's inventors are right-wing shit lords / anarcho capitalists / libertarians who don't care at all about identity politics, social justice, or "muh feels." Bitcoin is radical right wing philosophy made concrete. We just want to be free. And is there any modern technology that isn't a giant fuck you to the state?

You like progress?

"Progress this!"
















Though the makers of Makerbot were a bunch of leftards their machine is far more likely to be put to use by the "extreme" right to abolish taxes and make anarcho capitalism (in it's purest form) the real, tangible reality of planet three. Cody Wilson already used their device to make a gun. What's next?

Replicator barter of course. And this forms the basis of a whole new economic system that no one can control.





Saturday, December 10, 2016

Everything is Tribal


Most people are egalitarians — they believe in equality. A tiny few are racial nationalists.

Of the second type, all of them, whether black nationalist, white nationalist, or Zionist, believe in the same thing; a homeland for their particular type of human primate. They all want an ethnic nation where others are excluded.

Now theoretically a pure egalitarian hates all racial nationalists equally and wants them to be quiet, go away, die, or whatever.

So you hate racists and racists hate you, right? One would expect a perfectly rational human being to assess this situation logically and conclude, like I did, that the optimum solution is simply to separate them; "a big nation for you  (egalitarians), and a bunch of small little nations for you guys (various ethnic nationalists)." Or, as I once wrote, "a box for every monkey and every monkey in his box." After all, if these people hate each other then the calm, rational, and intelligent thing to do is have them shake hands like gentleman and agree to live separately. It's logical, like Spock. Just live in separate societies, right?

But this is abhorrent to egalitarians. It's evil. It's racist!

Why?

Because they are tribalists too. Everyone is. Tribalism infects everything once you realize you should look for it. From the Trump victory, to the left's foaming at the mouth hatred of him, everything is tribal all the time everywhere. It complicates all straight rational calculations. It is why things like private government and libertarianism aren't working. There are others of course, but this is the major barrier.

Once you realize that humans are xenophobic tribal communist primates you cannot unsee this fact. We despise outsiders and are egalitarian towards insiders. What varies is only who is considered in which category. To the left, all right-wingers are another species unworthy of rights, while all liberals are allies. It does not abolish "othering." It moves it's border so that the right-wing now occupies the place of excluded other that was formally reserved for other races by the right. Perhaps this is justice, but it makes all racists the outcast "race" in a kind of perverse twist. What bothers me about this is not the action of doing it, but the self-deception of believing you aren't.

There is always an outside that a person considers unworthy of life. This is in no way positive. Xenophobia does not manifest as what you think; there is no xenophobic emotion. The feeling is rather a sensation of profound moral superiority. It is emotional, not logical. The individual progressive or racist may never say that the outside is unworthy of rights, but they feel it. This is what is meant by that line from Inglorious Bastards when the character of Lt. Aldo Raine says; the "Nazi ain't got no humanity. They're the foot soldiers of a jew-hating, mass-murdering maniac and they need to be de-stroyed!"

Here we have a thirst to destroy the perceived inferior, except instead of a racist seeking the end of Jews it is the progressive liberal seeking the genocide of racists.

That's irony.

And understand what is happening here. Aldo Raine is really a proxy for Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino is the one speaking, not Brad Pitt. The man is very left-wing and he wrote the script. That move is essentially an exposition of the directors politics.

It is the tribal thirst that makes all these moral disputes matter. It is only tribalism that makes politics so heated. Until this blog, no one on planet Earth outside of a few agorists ever thought that systems of government should be a choice of individual preference. Moldbug wanted patchwork but he imposed neocameralism on everyone. SEK3 saw fit to privatize government but forced everyone to live under libertarian rule. David Friedman makes the same mistake. If I make a socialist live in a libertarian society, have I really obeyed the non aggression principal? I think not. Even communists have a right to a society, and even if it fails.

Few humans have thought to simply give everyone what they want in separate spaces. Segregation is not exitocracy; it imposes violence on the marginalized races. Ethnostates are not exitocracy; they impose racism on lovers of equality. Equality is not exitocracy; equal states force integration on ethno nationalists and violate their own promise of freedom of association. Anarcho capitalists and agorists are not exitocracy; they impose tyrannical capitalism on socialists. Socialism is not exitocracy; they impose on capitalists. Statism is not exitocracy; it imposes violence on anarchists.

"National anarchists," (which I have just now become aware of), are not exitocracy. Everything they do is in service of racism, and exitocracy is not about that. It is both disturbing that so many racially obsessed people support patchwork governments, and also that the idea occurs to so few others. All I want is people to leave each other alone.

The only proper judge of a man or woman is Gnon. If thou conform with natures law then thou art correct — at least correct enough for survival, and survival is all that matters in the end.

Only exitocracy is a truly free society. Only exitocracy uses no force. Only exitocracy truly obeys the non aggression principal.

All other systems are garbage because they impose on others. The one impulse, the only impulse exitarianism does not sate, is the craven genocidal urge to stomp on the perceived morally inferior other.




Friday, December 2, 2016

The Horror of a Normie Mind

This post uses offensive language and is written in an informal style. If that bothers you please feel free to help yourself to another article.

There is an obscene term that I love from 4chan culture: "moralfag." It is a term of sublime beauty which precisely encapsulates the tendency of some people to place morality above reality in the classic Gnostic tradition. It is that peculiar thing, that asinine je ne sais quoi that only deontologists can do — the insufferable Kantian (pronounced cunt-ee-an) moral faggotry of virtue signaling which says, "fuck the world, all I care about is feeling good about myself."

Morally, I believe in my own invention that I call nested morality. It's a kind of system where those genetically and socially closest to you get priority over those more distant. Nick Land has misrepresented this as deontology. It's not, and the refusal to recognize it as a third moral code, is both a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. But whatever. Everyone wants to fit third moral codes into either the consequentialist or deontological box. That is not appropriate, and the two moralities of western civilization are insane and should be destroyed. Consequentialism leads to wire heading, while deontology lets the world burn. The dichotomy itself is the problem.

Anyway, I came across an article that illustrates perfectly this type of Kantian douchebaggery. Human primates always obsessively convert everything into a virtue signaling moral argument so they can posture and express their mating worth to one another. Morality is often just a lot of signaling for neurotypical primates. Watch them posture and chest thumb. Watch them show off their shiny coats and their moral virtue;
“The right-wing nationalism of the Trumps,” Barber said, “will become not so much toxic obstacles to history, but an increasingly obsolete expression.”
"Muh right side of history. Muh moral superiority."

Of course it never occurs to them that the countryside might need to be governed differently than the cities, and that compromise itself is wholly inappropriate between city and country — that even the act of compromise between the two is fundamentally bad management.

No. Tribal humans gonna tribe, and that means they will inappropriately govern like they are at Dunbar scales when they are several orders of magnitude above that. Every argument will be a moral argument is situations where only technical description is appropriate.

The whole article is about  how "cities are a bulwark against the tide of right-wing nationalism." It is standard virtue signaling journo-vomit. Like all other articles by all journalists everywhere it completely misses technical details. It's actual content is irrelevant. This could be about any article written by any normie leftist and the commentary I provide would be exactly the same.

Since people need points, I will provide one. The point is that this is always what humans do. Neurotypicals are not interested in truth, in solutions that work, or in factors common to different problems. We could talk endlessly about HBD and immigration, or about how xenophobic impulses undermine all multicultural societies. We could talk about how diversity undermines community trust since humans are not genetically programmed to get along with those who look different than themselves. We could talk about how it simply won't work well in the short-term, or work at all in the long-term. We could talk about the need to provide all human monkeys with a sense of tribe in order to increase their eudemonia, and how a patchwork is best for accomplishing that because of Dunbar scale limitations. We could describe the technical realities of how to "properly manage your human farm," (wonderful term) to maximize flourishing. And we could talk about how identity politics and leftist party tribalism are a piss-poor substitute for a location based tribal polity (patch). And we could talk about how human information processing limitations make central control of large-scale system beyond the capacity of our species, and about how only local governance works.

But they simply don't care.

The tendency of human beings to prefer monkey games like virtue signaling over flourishing, (or even their own survival!), is the essence of everything that is wrong with the species.

The normie brain says, "how can I use this to impress my friends?" Knowledge has no value in its own right to these people. It is currency for looking good, and if it cannot be used to posture it is forgettable. They will never learn. They can never learn anything they cannot use. All other knowledge is memorized only for the test. Let that sink in. Normies don't ever learn information purely for the sake of knowing it beyond Trivial Pursuit levels of factoid memorization for small talk. Their heads actually don't store complex, rich, and detailed knowledge. Everything they know must have a purpose; to impress friends, to have a career, to make small talk, to virtue signal. It is never for its own sake. They don't do that. They forget everything they cannot use for personal gain. And they only believe what they are told. Arguments that make the normie look good by agreeing with them will be accepted over those that don't. Arguments that sound good will be accepted over other, better ones. Arguments that feel good will be accepted over reality. In a way they are all children / Gnostics who believe whatever they want. What them to agree?

Make it sound good.
Construct the argument so agreement with you makes them look good.
Make it feel good to agree, then they will agree.

If an argument could persuade them to end the world while fulfilling all of these criteria it would be adopted immediately and without protest. They would push the button.



Thursday, December 1, 2016

Aphorisms no. 26


The more innocent a white man is of rape the more satisfying feminists will find condemning him. Actual rapists make them wet, and women vote to bring in these repugees by the millions.