Friday, December 29, 2017

Exam results and answer key

If you got a low score, don't worry. The average score was 57%. The purpose of the test was to measure what I need to talk more about. The test implicitly tests for whether or not you have read certain books, and it does this while minimizing the ability of the test taker to guess the correct answer, and without tipping off the taker to which books they need to read.

Here are the correct responses.

1. The nominal selectorate, the real selectorate, and winning coalition are the;
the named, the real players, and the rulers.
the ones who can chose, the ones who do chose, and the essentials. <--- Correct
the selected, the selectors, and the winners.
If you have read The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita you would get this one right. The third answer sounds correct until you realize that "the selected" cannot be a valid response.

2. Legislative accumulation is defined as________and occurs because________.
the tendency of law to increase over time, <--- Correct = 10 points
of the collective action problem.
the increase in backlog for legislative committees,
work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion.
state growth, <--- Partially Correct = 1 point
of rent seeking.
If your read this blog a lot, or read The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, by Mancur Olson, you got this answer correct.

3. Negative versus positive liberty consists of;
hate versus love.

harming others versus being protected.

rights to be left alone versus rights to resources. <--- Correct
If you had read Two Concepts of Liberty (pdf), by Isaiah Berlin you would get this one right.

4. Adaptive fictions are;
a type of literary style.

widespread societal beliefs that enable the power structure to reduce security costs. <--- Correct
fictions that facilitate adaptation to natural selection processes.
If you have read much of Mencius Moldbug, or his essay Democracy as Adaptive Fiction, then you got this question correct.

5. The collective action problem is;
related to the difficulty of organizing a labor union.

the greater ability of small groups to coordinate for power in politics. <--- Correct

the tendency of individuals to do actions that while individually rational are collectively destructive.
If you have read The Logic of Collective Action (pdf), Mancur Olson, then you got this right. Really any public choice theory would have gotten you there.

6. True or False? "a government can solve its way into crisis."
Because government solutions can create problems, and because those problems can be worse than the solutions, government may indeed make society worse by solving problems. Venezuela is an obvious example of people in power generating crisis by thinking they are solving problems. If you got this question wrong it is because you were too nitpicky about language, or you failed to read The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, by Mancur Olson.

7. Anarcho capitalism is;
an impossible system of government.

a functioning system of order. <--- Correct
What is anarcho capitalism?

If you have read Legal Systems Very Different than Ours, by David D. Friedman, you got this question correct.

Originally, the answers were were phrased as follows;
a delusional pipe dream.

a workable system of government. <--- Correct
What is anarcho capitalism? 

A test taker objected to this phraseology, claiming that it was biased. I can understand how it would seem biased, but consider that I was testing your bias. Anarcho capitalism exists right now in Somalia, and has existed in the past in Medieval Iceland. Can something that exists be a "delusional pipe dream"? It also works as a system of government, even though it is not technically a state. There is nothing technically inaccurate about the phraseology of the question. Even Scott Alexander over at Slate Star Codex admits that it is a functional system of government, and he is a liberal who is hostile to the idea.

If you had read the book and were unbiased then you got the answer correct, regardless of which version you were presented with.

8. The Chinese government consists of;

a combination of single party supervision and nested elections. <--- Correct

a dictatorship supervising all aspects of life.

a national democracy with balance of powers.
The second answer might be consider factually true, but it is not correct. Remember that this test says choose the most correct answer at the beginning. There is no written reference for this question. Any study of Chinese politics can point to the right answer.

9. How many branches of government are there in the US and what are their functions?

Five branches: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Control

Three branches: Presidential, Bureaucratic, and Congressional

Three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial <--- Correct

Two branches; Parliament and Lords

This is about the US system of government. The first answer is somewhat "truthy" for Taiwan (they have only 4 branches of government though these days instead of 5). The last answer is still false for the UK. Scholars disagree of whether the UK has any meaningful separation of powers, but the ones who say it does give the same number of branches as the US: 3, or Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. There is no such thing as the "bureaucratic branch," or the "congressional branch."

10. Why is the Westminster system more effective than the Presidential?

Because MPs have to face off in Parliment.

Because party discipline is enforce by control of the purse. <--- Correct.

Because the UK elects a slate of candidates and not the Prime Minister separately.

If you have read Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, by Francis Fukuyama, then you know that the reason US democracy is so much more ineffective than UK democracy is because budgets originate in congress rather than the bureaucracy itself. Prime Ministers can withhold funds from an MP's district to punish him for going against the party line. Thus there is a tight relationship between a PM and his party, so that he needs their votes and they need his funds.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

The pile

Are you afraid of the pile? Do your knees tremble when you think about it? Do you get hard, (if male) or wet, (if female). The pile is life, the pile is us, the pile is where you want to be. A thousand rhythmic bodies grinding in sexual ecstasy. The pile calls to you.

Are you listening?

The fascist fears the pile, its warmth, its penetrating power. He covers his butt hole nervously. His fascism is the insistence that he must always be the one to penetrate, and never be penetrated. Of course as a male it is his destiny to be the penetrator most of the time anyway, but he resists even the occasional bumping of someone else's junk against his body. Even a brush of another mans cock walking past scares him.

When all races blend into one there is the pile. When your Asian gf calls you to her tight pussy the pile is there. When you conform and have normie opinions the pile is wining. The pile is life, conformity, happiness, agreement — it is temptation itself. The pile is wet and sweaty, dirty and smelly. When you play in the mud that is pile. When you stand in a river the pile has you. When you don't bathe and don't care you are in the midst of pile. When you are popular you are the pile. When you live in a tiny house and smoke weed all day and hang out with dirty hippie girls and get laid you are living the pile life.

Each of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and 1,048,576, 17-times great-great grandparents. That's right: over a million people fucked so you could exist. Wrap your mind around that. You a a drop in an ocean of protoplasm, a small piece of a massive pile. The pile made you and you owe it, and that is why there can be no exit. Look man, the only exit is biological. If you can't separate your protoplasm from the pile of all humanity, if you initiate a speciation event, then you are bound to its fate. To exit is to betray your pile.

And why exit when you can *enter.* That's cuck logic. Why cede an ounce of pile to your enemies? Why the fuck should they have all the fun? The pile is yours broheim, along with all the women in it. DOMINATE. And if someone tries to put a dick in your ass then a knee to their groin will fix that. Don't be afraid of other men's junk. It's all good. The pile is yours for the taking. Stand up and defend your people, your race, and your culture. Your culture is your pile. Don't retreat from it.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Exam results will be posted after Christmas

Don't worry if you did bad. The average score was 52%. I made it deliberately hard!

The purpose of the test is to help me figure out what my readers know and don't know, so that I can focus more on the topics I have overlooked. The purpose is not to give people a fun quiz, though if you had fun that is great.

After Christmas I will post the correct answers and discuss why questions are phrased the way they are, and what exactly was being tested.

Question 7 (about anarcho capitalism) has been modified due to reader input. Some spelling has been cleaned up too.

Friday, December 22, 2017

Take the McKibbin Political Science Exam

I have decided to create a text for knowledge in the field of political science. This exam is not for the faint at heart. The first part in a series is out now and you can take it. Right now there is only part 1. But in the future there should be others. Test your knowledge. Do you know as much as me?

Click here to take the first part.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Responding to Imperial Energy, December 21st 2017


"On the subject of moral responsibility, what is your take on the argument made by Bruce Waller than since we do not have (libertarian) free will, moral responsibility must go by the board?"

The assertion is often made that because free will is a non-entity that moral accountability is wrong. This is paradox on multiple levels. First, how can moral accountability be "wrong" if "wrong" does not exist? This is like the liberal that says he has a right to advocate censorship. He believes that he has the right to use his freedom of speech to advocate against free speech. "You cannot censor me while I advocate censorship" is his essential assertion. Oh but we may, and the intelligent thing for a state to do is agree with the censor and kill him, (thus censoring him and giving him what he wants).

If a man is the sum of his genetics + environmental inputs then there is no rational claim that we cannot modify his inputs or even genetics. Saying "we should not hold people accountable because it is wrong," is using notions of right and wrong to support the abolishment of notions of right and wrong. It is akin to using the logic of monarchy to support democracy, so that the "divine right of kings" becomes the "equal rights of the people." It is using the logic of a prior system to support overthrowing that system, like how communists are all atheists and yet believe in the "salvation" of equality, and the "original sin" of inequality — thus practicing a kind of heretical secular crypto-Christianity, complete with notions of rapture in the form of historical destiny, while believing they are not.

If there is no free will, then we just wind up recreating all notions of accountability again as notions of inputs.

"Negative inputs" replaces "deterrence," as the logic that supports punishment. Even if the punishment does not work it is acceptable because without any system of right and wrong there is no reason NOT to give the victim, (or even the public) satisfaction, since this provides the public with positive inputs.

Similarly, we should not allow innocent people to be punished because that provides an incentive, (negative input) to disrespect the law, which generates social disorder. Thus we recreate the rule of law.

Without morality, might becomes right and the state's legitimacy goes from being one on the basis of religious logic such as divine right, or based on popular sovereignty, to one based on "because it has all the guns dummy."

Basically, we wind up doing everything we are already doing because what we are already doing works. All of the logic of "rights," "freedoms," "moral obligations," etc., simply gets recreated with pragmatism "because it works," or "because there is no moral reason not to because morality itself is a spook," or "because might makes right." The only thing that might change is that we would probably be much more willing to use genetic modification on prisoners, and eugenics in general. Bruce Waller's argument does not lead to where Bruce Waller wants it to go; it does not lead to a morally permissive utopia. It leads right back to the reality we already live in: to violence being the ultimate source of sovereignty, and to there being no reason not to.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Suggest a topic please

I am looking for suggestions for topics to write about. Leave your ideas in the comments section please.

I am considering writing about the moral exemption of women from responsibility. I have an entire counter-thesis worked out that explains everything feminism explains while placing the responsibility on women rather than men. Trouble is, the thesis takes equality as a given. The recommendation that comes out of it is holding women to a standard of extreme and radical accountability. It is called "the exemption hypothesis," and it explains everything from the wage gap, to the rape hoax epidemic, to feminism itself by positing that women are systematically held to be morally exempt from responsibility, and that this exemption is the source of ALL social ills. Basically, it is straight anti-feminism.

I have another potential topic that I am considering called the "tripartite system" that treats the trial by jury system, elections, and markets as three aspects of a single system characterized by (a) competition of elements, (b) a jury of judging function, and (c) a system of rules such as a constitution to govern it. It postulates that there is an historical process that brings the "tripartite" forward throughout history. It's kind of a "End of History and Last Man" thesis. It takes the idea of historical destiny and upholds markets as the ideal result of that process.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

The story of Elagabalus: perverted trannie emperor, and virtue signaling zealot

In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 6, Gibbon writes;

"To this temple, as to the common centre of religious worship, the Imperial fanatic attempted to remove the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred pledges of the faith of Numa. A crowd of inferior deities attended in various stations the majesty of the god of Emesa; but his court was still imperfect, till a female of distinguished rank was admitted to his bed. Pallas had been first chosen for his consort; but as it was dreaded lest her warlike terrors might affright the soft delicacy of a Syrian deity, the Moon, adorned by the Africans under the name of Astarte, was deemed a more suitable companion for the Sun. Her image, with the rich offerings of her temple as a marriage portion, was transported with solemn pomp from Carthage to Rome, and the day of these mystic nuptials was a general festival in the capital and throughout the empire.

"A rational voluptuary adheres with invariable respect to the temperate dictates of nature, and improves the gratifications of sense by social intercourse, endearing connections, and the soft coloring of taste and the imagination. But Elagabalus, (I speak of the emperor of that name,) corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitude and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronized by the monarch, signalized his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit of magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonored the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband.

"It may seem probable, the vices and follies of Elagabalus have been adorned by fancy, and blackened by prejudice. Yet, confining ourselves to the public scenes displayed before the Roman people, and attested by grave and contemporary historians, their inexpressible infamy surpasses that of any other age or country. The license of an eastern monarch is secluded from the eye of curiosity by the inaccessible walls of his seraglio. The sentiments of honor and gallantry have introduced a refinement of pleasure, a regard for decency, and a respect for the public opinion, into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and opulent nobles of Rome gratified every vice that could be collected from the mighty conflux of nations and manners. Secure of impunity, careless of censure, they lived without restraint in the patient and humble society of their slaves and parasites. The emperor, in his turn, viewing every rank of his subjects with the same contemptuous indifference, asserted without control his sovereign privilege of lust and luxury.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference of age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction. The licentious soldiers, who had raised to the throne the dissolute son of Caracalla, blushed at their ignominious choice, and turned with disgust from that monster, to contemplate with pleasure the opening virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The crafty Mæsa, sensible that her grandson Elagabalus must inevitably destroy himself by his own vices, had provided another and surer support of her family. Embracing a favorable moment of fondness and devotion, she had persuaded the young emperor to adopt Alexander, and to invest him with the title of Cæsar, that his own divine occupations might be no longer interrupted by the care of the earth. In the second rank that amiable prince soon acquired the affections of the public, and excited the tyrant's jealousy, who resolved to terminate the dangerous competition, either by corrupting the manners, or by taking away the life, of his rival. His arts proved unsuccessful; his vain designs were constantly discovered by his own loquacious folly, and disappointed by those virtuous and faithful servants whom the prudence of Mamæa had placed about the person of her son. In a hasty sally of passion, Elagabalus resolved to execute by force what he had been unable to compass by fraud, and by a despotic sentence degraded his cousin from the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was received in the senate with silence, and in the camp with fury. The Prætorian guards swore to protect Alexander, and to revenge the dishonored majesty of the throne. The tears and promises of the trembling Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life, and to leave him in the possession of his beloved Hierocles, diverted their just indignation; and they contented themselves with empowering their præfects to watch over the safety of Alexander, and the conduct of the emperor.

"It was impossible that such a reconciliation should last, or that even the mean soul of Elagabalus could hold an empire on such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon attempted, by a dangerous experiment, to try the temper of the soldiers. The report of the death of Alexander, and the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, inflamed their passions into fury, and the tempest of the camp could only be appeased by the presence and authority of the popular youth. Provoked at this new instance of their affection for his cousin, and their contempt for his person, the emperor ventured to punish some of the leaders of the mutiny. His unseasonable severity proved instantly fatal to his minions, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was massacred by the indignant Prætorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber. His memory was branded with eternal infamy by the senate; the justice of whose decree has been ratified by posterity.

"In the room of Elagabalus, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Prætorian guards. His relation to the family of Severus, whose name he assumed, was the same as that of his predecessor; his virtue and his danger had already endeared him to the Romans, and the eager liberality of the senate conferred upon him, in one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial dignity. But as Alexander was a modest and dutiful youth, of only seventeen years of age, the reins of government were in the hands of two women, of his mother, Mamæa, and of Mæsa, his grandmother. After the death of the latter, who survived but a short time the elevation of Alexander, Mamæa remained the sole regent of her son and of the empire.

From La Wik;

"Elagabalus /ˌɛləˈɡæbələs/, also known as Heliogabalus (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperorfrom 218 to 222. A member of the Severan dynasty, he was Syrian, the second son of Julia Soaemias and Sextus Varius Marcellus. In his early youth he served as a priest of the god Elagabalus in the hometown of his mother's family, Emesa. As a private citizen, he was probably named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus.[1] Upon becoming emperor he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. He was called Elagabalus only after his death.[2]

"In 217, the emperor Caracalla was assassinated and replaced by his Praetorian prefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. Caracalla's maternal aunt, Julia Maesa, successfully instigated a revolt among the Legio III Gallica to have her eldest grandson (and Caracalla's cousin), Elagabalus, declared emperor in his place. Macrinus was defeated on 8 June 218 at the Battle of Antioch. Elagabalus, barely 14 years old, became emperor, initiating a reign remembered mainly for sex scandals and religious controversy.

"Later historians suggest Elagabalus showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos. He replaced the traditional head of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, with the deity Elagabalus, of whom he had been high priest. He forced leading members of Rome's government to participate in religious rites celebrating this deity, over which he personally presided. Elagabalus was supposedly "married" as many as five times, lavishing favours on male courtiers popularly thought to have been his lovers,[3][4] and was reported to have prostituted himself in the imperial palace. His behavior estranged the Praetorian Guard, the Senate, and the common people alike. Amidst growing opposition, Elagabalus, just 18 years old, was assassinated and replaced by his much more favorable cousin Severus Alexander on 11 March 222, who ruled for 13 years before his own assassination which would mark the epoch event for the Crisis of the Third Century. The assassination plot against Elagabalus was devised by his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and carried out by disaffected members of the Praetorian Guard."

Sex/gender controversy

"The question of Elagabalus' sexual orientation is confused, owing to salacious and unreliable sources. Elagabalus married and divorced five women,[47] three of whom are known. His first wife was Julia Cornelia Paula;[45] the second was the Vestal Virgin Julia Aquilia Severa.[45][50]

"Within a year, he abandoned her and married Annia Aurelia Faustina,[45] a descendant of Marcus Aurelius and the widow of a man he had recently had executed. He had returned to his second wife Severa by the end of the year.[47] According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband.[38]

Elagabalus practiced ghey marriage

"The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[51] Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, depilate his body hair and wear wigs before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels,[52] and even in the imperial palace:

He was a "sex worker."

"Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by. There were, of course, men who had been specially instructed to play their part. For, as in other matters, so in this business, too, he had numerous agents who sought out those who could best please him by their foulness. He would collect money from his patrons and give himself airs over his gains; he would also dispute with his associates in this shameful occupation, claiming that he had more lovers than they and took in more money.[53]

"Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[45] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[39] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender.[54][55][56]"

And a trannie.

Back to the first part of the Wikipedia entry;

"Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence, and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and with writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury".[6] According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life".[7] His unstable reign has also been marked as a major point leading to the eventual Fall of the Western Roman Empire."

Monday, December 18, 2017

Only four problems?

There are only four problems in the world;

(1) People are cognitive misers. They cannot think, will not think, and desire to be told what to think. Propaganda/education works because there is a market for it.

(2) Humans ritualistically convert their incentives (typically created by power) into moral imperatives, reacting thoughtlessly, to comply or rebel. Weirdly, they consider anyone who wants to change their incentives, and therefore change their morals, a sociopath. They believe they have a moral imperative to obey incentives, and are outraged by anyone who doesn't.

(3) People are too stupid and emotionally volatile to control/change the incentives that control them. Their minds always exist within the system or framework that they find themselves; they never envision how new power structures could produce new morals, how incentives could be changed to generate moral codes different than the one they find themselves in. They instinctively react against all alternative social configurations with hostility, unless the alternative is totally delusional. They can only embrace impossible ideas of perfection. They refuse to fully understand the low origins of morality in power, to then anticipate how a power configuration would produce a moral configuration, and to step outside their own notions of the "sacred." When they do reject the sacred, (in this case equality), they go running to the profane, (in this case racism). Before, when they rejected the divine-right-monarch they went running to atheism. They never control the incentives that control them, and never step outside false dichotomies to reject both the sacred, and profane concepts of their era.

(4) They cannot transcend the Christian cultural template that finds its way into everything. In all Western thought there is a template composed of several identical elements, those being; original sin, Satan, apostle, and God. This template pollutes everything, becoming alternately inequality, The Bourgeois, the comrade, and historical destiny, (communism) or white privilege, Hitler, educator, and equality, (regressive liberalism) or, religion, Christianity, atheist educator, and equality, (militant atheism), etc. In Western civilization, no one can transcend the religion of transcendence. It's template shows up in everything. Like corn, it is in every molecule of your body.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Don't hang on my every word

More and more I am coming to terms with my own cognitive limitations. I am used to being the smartest person in the room, but since the general IQ of reactionaries is higher that is no longer the case. I have certain biases that I refuse to shake because of past epistemic lock-in and path dependence. In other words, my 18 year old socialist, former Scientologist, and (later) libertarian past inhibits my willingness to consider alternatives. No iron logical proof will ever make me a monarchist. I'm too biased.

The more I study the more I think the solution to everything that ails Western civilization is a religion. Progressivism infiltrates because it has a religious characteristic. Capitalism co-opts everything through getting people to adopt its immoral value system of use-value as a moral and religious code. Islam is a threat because of its religious nature. Everything threatening and dangerous is religious. From one perspective this is a reason to try to abolish religion. But then you realize that religion is an integral part of the human brain, that it is going nowhere, and that human nature will always produce an incentive to exploit the religious part of people's minds. Something has to occupy the religious position. Abdicating that responsibility will simply invite someone else to take up the position and use it against you.

Spandrell has said that we need a new religion. If you can do it then by all means go ahead. But in the mean time what we need is something far older than a religion; we need a living tradition of story telling, mythology, and philosophy. We need something constructed as a group so there is less chance of making a mistake. A decentralized body is also less prone to attack or cooptation by entryists. And we need modern versions of men like Thomas Aquinas to give us a theological reinterpretation of existing faith to accommodate the role of nature's laws and processes of natural selection. Modern Christianity is basically Thomas Aquinas's invention. He came in a provided the standardized interpretation of the Gospel that became what we know today as Christianity.

If you are not willing to build a new religion, if that would make you feel like a fraud, may I recommend theological reinterpretation? Perhaps you could take an existing religion like Christianity and strip it of its progressive heresy? Then start a reactionary Bible study groups focused on developing an interpretation of the Gospel congruent with Gnon and the harsh nature of reality. Focus on the role of self-improvement, tradition, morals, and good breeding. It is difficult for people to change their habits once grown up, unless they have a habit of self-improvement. Teaching a child to improve themselves and educate themselves are the two most crucial life skills. Some of the worlds strongest alpha male leaders are autodidacts. In fact, are there any who aren't? A religion of self-improvement could conquer the world. Scientology is a religion of self-improvement, and though it is a poor example with many flaws, it has a massive influence for a group with only about 30,000 estimated members. Your local credit union probably has more members than Scientology. A religion, or just a Church, that requires its member to set a goal — any goal — and work towards it, will automatically tend to have more productive and more powerful people. An internalized cultural virtue of self-improvement, taught from a young age, was what I was given. This was reinforced both by Scientology and by my families addiction to Star Trek.

Most people would interpret the clip below as a rant against capitalism, but what I internalized was the notion of improving yourself, since that was what my religion was all about. The key part happens around 2:48. The man says, "then what's the challenge?" Picard: the challenge is to improve yourself."

Julia Galef notices something interesting

From Twitter dot com.

A modified version of this thesis explains the entire behavior of women towards alpha males.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Hooting, prancing, cannibalism

"It is a structural inevitability that the libertarian voice is drowned out in democracy, and according to Lind it should be. Ever more libertarians are likely to agree. ‘Voice’ is democracy itself, in its historically dominant, Rousseauistic strain. It models the state as a representation of popular will, and making oneself heard means more politics. If voting as the mass self-expression of politically empowered peoples is a nightmare engulfing the world, adding to the hubbub doesn’t help. Even more than Equality-vs-Liberty, Voice-vs-Exit is the rising alternative, and libertarians are opting for voiceless flight. Patri Friedman remarks: “we think that free exit is so important that we’ve called it the only Universal Human Right.”

"For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption. The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten.

"Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites. It accepts that governments are made out of people, and that they will eat well. Setting its expectations as low as reasonably possible, it seeks only to spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauch. From Thomas Hobbes to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and beyond, it asks: How can the sovereign power be prevented – or at least dissuaded — from devouring society? It consistently finds democratic ‘solutions’ to this problem risible, at best."
The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land

Sunday, December 3, 2017

You can't respect Tara McCarthy, and that is why you will lose

It's all about incentives, bitch.

Democracy requires large coalitions to win anything. The larger the coalition the more political power you will command, and the more you can control things. Say what you like about tolerance, but enforced tolerance has the beneficial effect of creating an incentive for cooperative behavior. If people are forced to be nice to one another they will at least be able to cooperate to achieve power.

Everything the right does sabotages itself.

Supposedly there are "reasons" for hating Tara McCarthy. The reason being that she does not have a bunch of children, (yet). But Wife With a Purpose has lots of children and received plenty of hate from the right. The notion that women on the right "do" anything to deserve the hate they receive is laughable. The men on the right have plenty of flaws too; porn habits, homosexuality, Asian banging, etc. Even hating women is an indulgence in the sin of either wrath or gluttony: pick one.

You may not like liberals, but they are right about one thing; hate is anterior to the object that is hated. Conservatives, especially the alt-right types, just have free-floating "hate." The hate they feel needs an object to latch on to, and it will find some reason, any reason, to hate something. If there is nothing to hate it will hate boredom itself.

The Christian mental pattern can manifest in at least 3 ways; (1) pathological guilt, (2) pervasive political/religious anxiety, (3) all-consuming hatred. The pattern is always the same, and exists in the minds of all White Western people. It is the pattern made of concepts like transcendence, original sin, salvation, utopia, worship, and pervasive anxiety about some evil, hatred of some sin, or guilt over some imperfection in the self. Western people never escape it, never rise above it. There is no "transcendence" from the pattern itself. A person who loses their faith will simply go from being a raving lunatic about Christ to a raving lunatic about White privilege, or go from being a Progressive lunatic anxious about inequality to be a racist lunatic anxious about White genocide. In the end there is no escape; you will always come back to the thought pattern you know, and the version of the Christian madness that is obsessed with guilt, (liberalism) will only be opposed by the madness obsessed with hate (conservationism), or anxiety, (alt-rightism), such that the total inability of people to escape the Christian mental pattern enslaves them to the hate that fractures their political coalition and causes them to always lose.

Since none of you can step outside the pattern, and since the left occupies the thought territory composed of pathological guilt, it is your destiny to live immersed in the pattern of rage or anxiety; both of which are less popular and seen as less virtuous than guilt.

Hating any woman on the alt-right is just the manifestation of this.

The second habit of defeat on the right in the learned helplessness typified by Land and Xenosystems. Worshiping the process of technology itself so that any horror can be excused in the name of evolutionary progress. Mass extinction of Whites? No problem, the ones that survive will be more intelligent. Globalism sucks? That's just capital acceleration dude. Needless to say, if you worship the void your culture falls into you probably can't do anything about it. The right is inhibited by its love of capitalism.

And by its fear and disgust towards power. Any suggestion of getting power leads to some rightest saying, "what are you? A sociopath?" Getting power is a vile and disguising process that is totally corrupt, and morally bankrupt. Yet rightists seem to think moral power is possible. Nonsense.

Lastly, there is what we may call "the principle of ignorant salvation." Which is the principle that people will prefer totally disastrous plans for getting power as long as they are unwilling or unable to envision the side effects, over a plan that is more intelligent and less destructive but whose side effects are obvious. For example; futarchy is a far better idea than communism, but billions of humans the world over have heard of communism but not futarchy. The problem is that futarchy outlines its political program in concrete terms, and by doing so people can anticipate the potential negative consequences. No one who supports communism "anticipates" any negative consequences.  The program is always vague enough to gain political support, even though it has failed before.

"Ignorant Salvation," is always preferred over "Known Salvation." Neoreaction basically says, "we will put a king in charge and everything will work out." (Ignorant Salvation) While I say, "some form of licensed anarcho capitalism is preferable." (Known Salvation). Problem is, that anyone can examine the flaws of my program so they reject it. While the monarchy program will have far more flaws, will be a total disaster, will require civil war, etc., it will still be embraced. Despite the fact that it is a far worse idea to anoint a king, kings will be preferred because reactionaries can be vague on the details, and they have already created a sunk cost bias in their own mind by reading hundreds of pages in support of it. None of this is rational. A beta test is more rational than a restoration. A Known Salvation is more rational than an Ignorant Salvation.

In summary;

Hate will divide you, and drive away your allies.
Excuses for capitalism will make you worship the thing that destroys you.
Disgust towards realpolitik will inhibit you.
The cognitive bias of Ignorant Salvation will guarantee your political program is a catastrophe, if it ever happens.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Everywhere in the world equality is used to support slavery, and create greater inequalities

In the name of equality rent controls are imposed. If you know a little bit about economics you know that rent controls cause a rise in rents on all non-rent controlled units. By restricting profits from building housing the incentive to build new housing is reduced, causing a reduction in the supply of housing and a housing shortage. The resultant shortage raises rents on the remaining housing. Also, since housing is made artificially cheep on the rent controlled units, people rent larger spaces than they normally would have. Thus, rent control exacerbates inequality by raising rents on all apartments other than the rent controlled units.

All housing restrictions raise housing costs, and yet, the most fierce proponents of the restrictions are usually the very liberals who live in cities and are screwed over by them.

In the name of equality, college is subsidized. The subsidies increase the supply of professional workers relative to demand. The result is to lower their wages. Liberal college students vote for college subsidies and fail to realize that they are also voting to lower their own future wages. In societies that massively over-produce college graduates, like many European societies, there are so many graduates than the only way to find work is to have connections. Thus, college subsidies produce an even more discriminatory system.

In the name of equality, immigrants are brought in. These immigrants depress wages by increasing the supply of labor. They also act as a de facto slave labor force for corporations, and a supply of votes for the democratic party. Liberals who vote for immigration are voting, without realizing it usually, to suppress their own wages.

In the name of equality, women believe that they are empowered by going to work. In reality, by doubling the labor supply, they cut everyone's wages in half, so that for the same standard of living a couple must now work twice as hard.

In the name of equality the Democratic party destroyed segregation, which had the effect of forcing African Americans to spend money in their own communities, which created a local multiplier effect and created jobs for Blacks. By ending segregation the Black community destroyed its own economic independence and made itself dependent on Whites, since Whites will not shop in Black neighborhoods, and thus, will not return money to the Black community that they have taken out.

In the name of equality, socialist countries impose price controls. The result is shortages of basic goods, and hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a massive increase in the cost of goods, and hurts the poor most severely — the very people who voted for it. The result is Venezuelans eating out of the trash.

In the name of equality, people have installed the very communist governments that made them feudal slaves under a one-party tyranny. No one is harmed more by communists than the poor.

None of this is new. In the name of equality, kings destroyed the aristocracy and converted feudal society into capitalist society, kicking peasants off their land and making them wage slaves.

Civilization is a process where the doctrine of "equality" is used to generate economic rents. An alliance of the high with the low  against the middle pushes it forward. As the cost of economic rents increases, societies go from feudalism to monarchy, from monarchy to democracy, from democracy to socialism, from socialism to feudalism, in an endless cycle. In the final analysis, socialism is indistinguishable from feudalism, since the government owns the economy in both societies, and ultimately rules for the benefit of the elite. There is no "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat are proletariat precisely because they cannot see that equality is a weapon for slavery, that it is used in all eras of human history, and that it is always a ruse for more inequality.

The process by which one regime type, (democracy, monarchy, and feudalism), transform from one to the other is economic; when economic rents exceed the carrying capacity of the economy a political crisis occurs, forcing the elites to take ownership of the economy directly. That is how democracy becomes feudalism. Feudalism then concentrates power into fewer and fewer hands until monarchy results. Monarchy then accumulates rent-seekers until it is overthrown by democracy. The process is always upward; the king wants more power and wealth, and so produces capitalism out of feudalism. The bourgeois wants more power and wealth, and so produces democracy. The proletariat wants more power, cooperates in its own unwitting subversion, and produces socialism/feudalism. Through the three regime types, the engine of historical power moves down from the high caste to the low, but the low are too foolish to run themselves, and so make the process circular, delivering themselves into bondage.

What is needed to end this process is some sort of ultimate exit technology. Economic rents drive it forward, and these rents are only possible if government has a captive population base; that is, if one has to pay taxes. If money can be separated from the state, (like with Bitcoin), that is a start. If the state can be separated from the power to coerce, that is the end of the cycle. And in a world with nuclear weapons the cycle of revolution needs to end.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

The case for informalism

Formalism is the doctrine that everything should be out in the open, that all forms of power and influence should be converted to fungible shares of stock, and that the lines of communication, influence, and power of a government should be transparent. It really needs to be pointed out that this was a prescription Moldbug gave for attacking the Cathedral. It is a weapon against the Cathedral.

It is an idea for eliminating conflict by making the outcome of every fight known in advance. It is supposed to be a way of getting power to behave rationally. But applied to the right-wing, it is a way of making every single thing that you do traceable by your enemies. It empowers those who already have power. Used against you it empowers the left.

Moldbug thinks that if a ruler's power is absolute he will behave rationally. He therefore proscribes formalism in order to eliminate ambiguity about power. He thinks that if the left has absolute power it will behave rationally. He looks at the relatively responsible behavior of the Chinese Communist party for evidence of this. But the CCP is still preaching communism, and communism is to the right of social justice. A cultural Marxist "Social Justice party" would be ideologically frozen in the current year, and that means transgenderism would continue to be promoted. Communist victory stops left-ward movement, but does not necessarily reverse it.

We are in a state of cold war against the left. If a right-wing organization "formalizes" all of its power relationships, it hands a map to its enemies that shows how to destroy it. It says, "here are all of the lines of authority in our organization, the names of all of our members, corporate officers, tax records, financial weaknesses, financial sponsors, etc." You might as well hand your enemy a gun.

This is a huge flaw in Bitcoin, which is based on some liberal idea that transparency is good. Every transaction on the blockchain is potentially traceable. That is a huge mistake. Opacity is your friend. The assents nobody knows you have cannot be taxed, traced, or controlled. Italians understand this, and they use cash for almost all transactions, relentlessly evade their taxes, hire people through informal social networks, (guaranteeing that jobs go to family members and not immigrants), and pay protection rackets to kneecap threatening people. Even if the government lets refugees into the country there are no jobs for them because you cannot get a job in Italy without connections.

Hezbollah has "territory" in Lebanon. Being the wrong nationality and walking in the wrong neighborhood can get you killed.

Anglos are irrationally obsessed with having a rule for everything, and loudly announcing what those rules are under some false assumption that everyone is trustworthy, will follow the rules if they are told about them, and will not just subvert them. When you live in a multiracial empire you need to behave like a gang, you need to behave like the Italians and Hezbollah, and you need "informalism."

You need secret male-only fraternal organizations. You need totally informal ways of moving money around like Islamic Hawala banking. If you are using a cryptocurrency, you need everything to be totally untraceable from the ground up. The ideal is to even have a secret ledger that defines what territory is controlled by what reactionary/nationalist gang, for the gangs to know what territory is controlled, but no one outside the system. The ideal is to be able to even record titles to land and property whose ownership is enforced by the goddamn mafia, so that control of land is not even in the hands of the state, and the state's property ledger can "say one thing," while the fists of the Mafia say another, with the fist having more power to persuade than the state. The goal is to simply take all aspects of governance away from the government.

Accountability is evil. It just means accountability to strangers outside your community — to enemies. It just means you can be subverted. Everyone inside the clan knows the score, and that is all the accountability you need. In-group reputations provide the necessary regulation.

The alternative to Twitter, Gab, suffers from the flaw that it concentrates all of the alt-right in one place, slapping a sticker on every person that says, "look at me!"

The ideal informalist tech would combine a variety of different media types, such tweets, texts, phone calls, music downloads, movie downloads, webpages, and crypto transactions, in a vast sea of identical looking jumbled up encrypted data, so that reading a single tweet, or finding the owner of a single crypto transaction would involve decrypting hundreds of terabytes worth of data. Ideally it would also be used by billions on regular people, so that anti-Cathedral messaging would be hidden in plain sight. You want the act of tracking one individual to involve a Herculean effort of enormous cost and time, and everything should automatically self-delete after a fixed period of time, with crucial transaction records getting copied into new code in a different place in the jumble of automatically generated code.

Ghost gunner has value because it produces untraceable weapons. It is opaque. The degree to which Bitcoin has value is the degree of its opacity. The right accomplishes more online than in person because of anonymity, because of opacity. Torrents are opaque. VPNs are opaque. Secret societies are opaque. Grapevines are opaque. Nested cells are opaque. Leaving the cell phone at home and meeting face-to-face in private is opaque. Cash is opaque. Good ol' boy hiring networks are opaque. Wheat pasting counter-propaganda at night is opaque. Putting a reactionary book on the library shelves, if there are no cameras, is opaque. Dropping leaflets in public places is opaque. Tor is somewhat opaque. Duck Duck Go is somewhat opaque. Hawala banking is opaque.

Memorization of names instead of having a ledger of members is opaque. Trading reactionary books is opaque. Phone trees are somewhat opaque. Distributing reactionary literature, or Samizdat, is opaque. Paying cash for a burner phone is opaque.

There are two great books you should read. One is called The Art of Not Being Governed, by James C. Scott, and the other is called How to Be Invisible, by J.J. Luna.

In How to Be Invisible, Luna describes a technique where you go way out on a country road and find a stand of mail boxes sitting there on the side of the road. You take a regular mail box and nail it to an empty spot on the wooden rack of mail boxes. If, say, the address on the box is "607" you can tack on a box labeled "607B" or you can drive around and see that there are no other addresses for "609" and literally just take that number. It's perfectly legal for someone to just set up a mail box. You don't have to notify the postal service. You can then receive deliveries at that address. Just keep in mind that odd numbers are one one side of the street and even ones on the other, (in America). And putting up a mail box is perfectly legal and does not require registration.

Another thing that can be done is a group of people can establish a way of passing notes using a cityscape as the method of doing it. You have a series of spots picked out across the city. Maybe one spot is under a flower pot, maybe another is a brick that has been removed from a wall, and a third is a safety deposit box. A courier goes to each location and puts notes under the rock/under the flower pot/in the safe deposit box. The notes tell a brief story like this.

"Alice goes to the market. She talks to Dave. She retreaves the box."

This is a code. There is a rubric for deciphering it. It is a grid, like this;

A sophisticated enough code can be indistinguishable from normal writing, and even make sense to the casual viewer. You can even have evolving codes where a box in the rubric says, "shift the whole code down three rows, and over to the left two columns," and a box in the rubric which say "for the next message you receive, use rubric number 4." You can have multiple rubrics and they can have boxes within each other than refer to each other, shift columns up or down, rows left or right, etc., so that someone trying to decipher it is constantly being thrown off.

Another method is to have a series of L.LC. companies where the charter on each, lists the owner as another L.L.C., and then to incorporate them in many different states so that an investigator has to fly all around the country to dig up the corporate charter of each, and find out who the final owner in a chain of nested corporations. This allows for the hiding of assets from prying people, or at least it raises the cost of finding the real owner so high that only a well-funded investigator will go to the trouble.

The Art of Not Being Governed is about how to live as an anarchist in practical reality, or at least how the people of the Zomia region in southwest Asia accomplish it. A pdf copy can be found here. In short, it describes various different techniques that people have used for centuries to evade control by governments. The techniques described in this book are some of the same ones that are used in Afghanistan, and why Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires, why we are still there, and why governing them is essentially impossible. These two books, Not Being Governed, and How to Be Invisible, are completely indispensable. The first is for people willing to go off-grid; the second for those who want to hide in plain sight.

Social Justice is Religious Capitalism

Liberal Capitalism

Under the liberal variant of capitalism, the morality of exchange infects everything. As people value objects for their use, they begin to value each other for their use. Unfettered by faith or tradition, humans under capitalism become consumable objects from the perspective of others. Patriarchy is hated not because it is evil and authoritarian, but because it places a restraint on the ability of a woman to consume men, their wealth, and their attention. Tolerance is celebrated because standards get in the way of consuming others, and because being held accountable to any standard is not fun, and not entertaining. People are regarded by each other as sources of entertainment, sources of validation, (no matter how unworthy of validation they really are), sources of sex, sources of attention, sources of income, sources of child support. Everyone wants to get it now. Women, being inherently more consumable than men under liberal capitalism, are more respected than men, and more readily cooperate with liberal capitalism's morals. Women are turned into consumable prostitutes, men into Jons. Everything that is presented as "left-wing" under such a system is actually in the service of the morals of capitalism. "Hate speech" is simply speech that is unpleasant, and thus, not consumable as entertainment. Everything that interferes with the validation of the ego; things like truth, argument, logic, masculinity, patriarchy, tradition, gender, sexual standards, "slut shamming," etc., are systematically destroyed by the very people who think they hate capitalism, and who paradoxically share it morals most deeply. Capitalism seeks the standardization of every human being, just as it seeks the standardization of every object. Everyone must be able to go into debt, be consumable, be productive, be a non-controversial employee, be a worker drone, be polite, be politically correct, and conform. Rather than being opposed to capitalism, diversity training is the very essence of capitalism, which seeks to fragment and standardize all races, communities, and structures outside of itself until the individual is noting by a worker and consumer in a machine. Tolerance is only done because standards are inconvenient for both the enforcer, who receives no compensation and much hostile resistance, and the one enforced against, who is made uncomfortable and not entertained or validated.

From my previous article, quoted in full.

"I keep saying that there is nothing outside capitalism, except maybe North Korea. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. It is a subset of capitalist behavior. Dictatorships and oligarchies are essentially giant corporations that own countries. Democracies are markets, and all other countries are firms. China is just one big firm.

"Cathedral PR says that tolerance is the highest virtue. In reality it is a moral value of capitalism. Tolerance is really indifference. Our tolerance is supposed to be love. In reality, by indulging you in your gender neurosis we are assisting in your destruction. Caring is too expensive and brings no profit/social status to the one who does it. Even worse, "intolerance" costs the one who does it status points as the person who is inhibited from acting out punishes the person who is inhibiting them. All of this follows from a pure logic of status profit maximization. The one acting out earns status though self-destruction. (The self-destruction of others is enjoyed as entertainment by other human monkeys). The entertained pay status points to the self-destroyer, who destroyers herself for status. (It's usually a White female who is destroying herself). The process is not inhibited because it would cost the surrounding people status points. Gender neurosis is a gift economy for trading on the self-destruction of others.

"There is a double aspect to this. The gender neurosis is also a "shit test" for the surrounding males. (The only one that sterilizes the female tester). It is also an updated version of classic female attention whoring.

"Veblen goods are goods that become more desired as they get more expensive. A Rolex is a Veblen good. The purpose of Veblen is to give status to the owner. These type of goods are consumed for their status rather than their usefulness. Social justice is a poor woman's substitute for Veblen goods. This also explains why the SJWs hate ostentatious displays of wealth, (like Trump).

"Lots of people crave higher status, especially university educated people. But the oversupply of education means that a degree is not what it used to be. Hard work does not lead to the wealth necessary for acquiring Veblen goods. Political correctness is the poor college graduate's substitute. The more one virtue signals, the more it superficially appears that virtue signaling has value. But the more other people virtue signal the cheaper one's own virtue signaling becomes relative to theirs. The only way to maintain high status is to out-perform the ritual relative to others with an even greater display of ritual perfection. Status is acquired through superior ritual recitation of the words of political correctness.

"Social justice is religious capitalism. Universities are now in the business of selling political perfection or the ritual because they can no longer sell higher status though direct knowledge transfer. People go to college to be trained to recite the ritual better than others.

Far from being opposed to capitalism, feminism is a distinctly capitalist thing. It is essentially a labor union for sex workers, which all women become under capitalism, as capitalism colonizes all ideological territory with the morality of use-value, a moral code where all humans are reduced to being only an object for other people's consumption. Under this system of pervasive using of others, women become "nasty women," who take pride in their nastiness. The female sex takes on a uniquely unpleasant air, so that most women become rather intolerable to the men around them. In a system of pervasive sexual usury and manipulation, men practice "game," while women practice feminism. Under such a system, the recent flurry of both false and true accusations of sexual harassment should be seen for what it is; an attempt by sex workers (career women) to gain an extortionate financial advantage over their Jons, (male employers). Feminism thinks of itself as a distinctly Marxist, or anti-capitalist idea, but that is the logic of all labor unions, and unions are a distinctly capitalistic behavior that seek to maximize the financial gain of their workers.

Gender becomes a consumable commodity, hence "transgendered" people. Even race becomes a commodity, see Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King. The commodity follows the trends of fashion, so that in one era Michael Jackson is lightening his skin to become White, and in another Whites are masquerading as Blacks.

As the logic of pervasive usury of others for entertainment, validation, sex, etc., marches forward, so does the extent of the ideological territory colonized by liberal capitalism. A market for virtue signaling emerges so that people can earn validation for virtue without doing any good deeds to deserve it. This is the ultimate expression of use-value; the act of being as lazy as possible while earning the respect of millions. Naturally, the market for virtue signaling favors the one with the least value and the most sociopathic traits. Hence we inevitably praise the most abominable people.

Religion does not escape the moral logic of use value. Megachurches spring up to provide us with our Sunday validation. The market relentlessly favors the most pandering expressions of Christianity, so that the gospel is replaced with speeches and rants about the pastor's own personal views, carefully curated to produce the optimum agreement from the congregation. If I have a church, and you have a church, and I give strict boring sermons which the public does not find entertaining, while you give highly entertaining events complete with a free rock concert and laser show, then your congregation grows while mine shrinks, and gradually real religion is driven out of the market by bad religion. The market relentlessly selects in favor of the churches that pander the most, while pushing any real expressions of faith out. Like money, bad religion drives out good religion.

The logic of use value extends to the classroom, where boring classical educations are replaced with the far more use-value-full, and entertaining form of political indoctrination. Since Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws by lobbyists, it is far more valuable to indoctrinate people to be a single bloc of allied purchasers of economic rents, (the left), than to give them a real education, and this also reduces the supply of real education to the students, rationing it so that the graduate is less of a competitive threat to his professors, and needs to eventually upgrade to a masters degree. Political education is watered-down education, which has the effect of causing the student to need more of it, and to pay more money to the university. Political education is to real education as inflation is to sound money, and social justice is the substitute Veblen good provided in place of a real upgrade of status.

Last but not least, this is only one variety of capitalism. There are other forms of capitalism that provide different values. See the essay on Reactionary Capitalism.

Monday, November 27, 2017

The vestigial organ fallacy

This little bit of retardation from back in 2015 at the website Slate Star Codex burns me up. As usual, Scott Alexander is a smart but stupid person on every subject. FYI: smart but stupid people (SBSP's) are smart but stupid because they are arrogant, and their arrogance makes them unable to see the value in things they cannot understand easily. Here is an example;

"5. Cultural evolution could have occurred way way back in prehistory. There seem to be about 50,000 years of prehistory, there were many more cultures back then, and maybe cultural generations were shorter – for all anybody knows, clans could have disintegrated and reformed over the space of decades. That provides enough generation time for cultural evolution to work. Question is, can we trust anything that evolved in pre-history – when the pressing social issues of the day were things like “How do we not get eaten by bears?” – to still be relevant?
"There does seem to be the potential for cultural evolution to be interesting, but I’m still not seeing it as a strong argument for preserving particular features of inherited culture absent other arguments suggesting we know why we want those things to be preserved."

I really despise smart people who are unable to see the value in tradition, religion, etc.

Think of it like this. The highest form of reason is not pure reason. Contra Kant, (pronounced "cunt" for a reason), accretive/traditional knowledge is a much higher form of thought than reason could ever be. Reason is prone to countless errors, mistakes, cognitive biases, fallacies, motivated cognition, anchoring, etc. Traditional knowledge, or accretive knowledge, is everywhere, and is the basis of everything that works. DNA is a tradition of adaptation to everything that killed your ancestors. The fact that your body has vestigial features like the appendix does not mean that the body is worthless or invalid. Religions can also have vestigial features, such as a prohibition against eating pork. The fact that this vestigial feature exists does not invalidate the value and usefulness of religion itself, and asserting that something has no value, even implicitly as Scott is doing above, is making a claim, and the burden of proof is on the one making that claim.

Science, contrary to liberal beliefs, comes out of accretive knowledge rather than pure reason. Someone make hundreds of observations about a natural behavior, (the accretion), and then someones develops a theory to explain it. Nothing is ever just invented out of thin air. Reality is always discovered first; not reasoned into knowledge from first principles.

Religion, DNA, law, constitutions, scientific knowledge, engineering principles, building construction standards, food packaging standards, capitalism, etc., is all tradition. Everything that works is a system, and all systems are traditions arrived at through experience with trial and error. The vestigial organ fallacy consists of devaluing an entire system because some part of it is outdated. No atheist would say that law itself is invalid because there are stupid laws on the books. No member of the "rationalist" community would say that vestigial organs invalidate the legitimacy of DNA, and no one should say that outdated religious features invalidate faith itself — no one with humility anyway.

Reason is also lazy since it spares the thinker from having to read anything or do any research. Yes, it might be less lazy than a cognitive miser, but it is lazy for those that can think, since they could do better and actually learn about the subject they are talking about. If you do not understand the reason for something it is your job to find out why, and not anyone's to tell you.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

How To Be Single

I'm not responding to Imperial Energy's response

Imperial Energy writes his response to my critique here. A reader requested that I give my thoughts of the subject of Reactionary Future's thesis, and that is the only reason I did. The reasons I won't bother writing a response to his response now, is that I don't care, I never cared, and I'm lazy.

He accuses me of not getting it, (perhaps I don't), of confusing several issues, of misrepresentation, and then tells me to read a pile of references.

I am not going to read the pile.

Though I have my own reference to recommend: The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

Imperial Energy's critique of my critique ends with him saying;
"As for when a ruler is secure, we will have more to say on that issue shortly."
Cool, I will wait for that. I want to find out what the goal post is before I say anything more.

Aphorism no. 47: the intolerance of tolerance

To demand tolerance is to deny all moral standards in the name of a moral standard; an inherent contradiction. Advocates of tolerance then screech against moral relativism; the very thing that tolerance inevitably increases.

Even worse, the more a society exercises tolerance the worse people's behavior gets, so that the environment is made intolerable by tolerance itself.

Eventually, someone asserts a standard at the point of a gun, which is how all standards, even standards requiring tolerance, always worked anyway.

Mandatory tolerance produces its inevitable opposite.

Ultimately, an appeal to tolerance is an appeal to laziness.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Theory fiction: aqua pigs in outer space

People often think of terraforming planets as one of the most viable options for humans colonizing space. Or they think we will arrive on some planet that has life already, and just start living there. Science fiction, especially shows like Star Trek, are replete with the idea that Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and whatever could just casually interact with each other, and even mate with each other without producing serious biological consequences. This is totally absurd, since even a small bacteria carried by aliens could devastate the planet Earth's biosphere. Imagine if aliens arrived on earth and transmitted a bacteria to the surface of our planet that converted all the atmospheric nitrogen to nitrous oxide, destroying the ozone layer, or a bacteria that turns sea water into hydrogen peroxide, bleaching all life in the oceans. Merely allowing an alien species to land on the planet might transmit an apocalyptic bacteria to Earth. The tolerant world of Star Trek, where multiple species live together on planet Earth, is a fairy tale.

We have two foolish notions here; the belief in cohabitation of biospheres, and the idea of terraforming itself.

A far more efficient way than terraforming is to modify humans to fit the environment of another planet through sophisticated gene modification. Many extrasolar worlds may turn out to be ocean planets, like Gliese 1214 b is thought to be. Assuming that such a planet is devoid of life, the easiest approach would be to genetically modify human beings to have gills and breathe underwater. Of course such humans would also need different skin that can tolerate constant exposure to salt water, sonar to communicate under water, collapsible lungs, different eyes, and a few modifications to the brain to process sonar signals. A sufficiently modified group of humans could colonize a water world this way. The moons of Europa and Ganymede are already water worlds right now, and if early indications are any measure, most Earth-like planets will be water worlds. This is because Earth is an outlier. The Earth was formed when a Mars-sized planet smashed into it. This created both the Earth and its enormous moon. Without this event erosion might have ended plate tectonics by now, turning the continents into enormous sandbars. If the Earth had been larger it would have retained more hydrogen, and hydrogen and oxygen make water. A larger planet would therefore probably be covered in an ocean miles thick. If the Earth were smaller it would probably have lost most its atmosphere to space. Having a medium-sized planet, large moon, active plate tectonics, and thick enough atmosphere, is a remarkable coincidence of exact conditions. Most of the planets in the galaxy that have water are unlikely to meet more than one of these conditions.

Additionally, there is the issue of gravity. A larger planet will have a stronger gravity at the surface. Interstellar travel will involve a substantial amount of bone loss from prolonged weightlessness. For humans to travel in weightlessness to another planet, spending years or even centuries in space, and then land on a planet with an even stronger gravity than Earth, presents a huge logistical challenge. The issue of gravity is almost totally solved by having human beings emerged in water, which acts very much like a weightless medium on the human body.

Most planets have radiation problems owing to the absence of strong magnetic fields, and moons that orbit gas giants are saturated within the radiation fields of the gas giants they orbit. Water has an excellent ability to shield things from radiation, which is one of the reasons it is used in nuclear power plants. Even if an ocean planet lacked a magnetic field it might be possible to simply live under the ocean at a few hundred meters depth, and be shielded from most forms of radiation. Humans with gills to breathe could simply build habitats under the water, and use their lungs only when they came to the surface. This is a far more valuable way to live than trying to massively alter the environment of a radiation soaked planet like Mars, or a CO2/sulfuric acid atmosphere planet like Venus. On these other worlds, regular humans would need to mine and carry around oxygen at all times. That is dangerous. Imagine trying to force a baby to always wear an oxygen mask outdoors. On Mars they would still need to live under the surface because of radiation, and on Venus they would have to build floating habitats, and contend with sulfuric acid. Again, this is dangerous for raising children. In contrast, a genetically modified person living in an ocean planet could simply breathe anywhere they went by making sure water was flowing past their gills. Even if the water was extremely cold humans might be engineered with Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) in their blood, like Antarctic notothenioid fish. Also, a vast abundance of water solves countless problems with farming and getting rocket fuel, and habitats can be stabilized against sinking by simply splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis, and using the oxygen to form a bubble at the top of your habitat to counteract the weight of the structure. A sphere-shaped habitat could be floated under the water with a small amount of oxygen for lifting gas, and the hydrogen could be used as rocket fuel. If there were any hurricanes you would simply submerge the habitat to a depth where the water was calm.

On top of this, there are advantages to having a greater pressure outside than inside. Bubbles are easy to identify visually, and so leaks can be found and repaired, and gas escapes more slowly. There is also a smaller pressure difference, eliminating the possibility of explosive decompression.

As a first step to developing this genetic technology one could begin by genetically modifying pigs to have gills. Pigs are close enough to humans genetically so that human organs can be grown inside them, and that means they make a great initial test subject in case anything goes wrong. You want to perfect the technique in animals before you try it in people. Since there is no reason not to take these farm animals to the ocean planet with you, you wind up bringing aqua pigs into outer space.

(I just like saying that phrase).

You do not actually need to give humans flippers or anything like that. They are already going to have grey-colored skin (genes borrowed from a dolphin), sonar, weird eyes, and gills. They can use conventional plastic flippers to swim though the water, and they will need their opposable thumbs to continue to work with technology. Furthermore, the spaceships they build may be filled with water rather than air, or have a combination of water for working spaces, and air for sleeping spaces. Remember that a human with gills must move around in order to breathe. This means they will need some kind of fan blowing water past their necks to sleep under water, or an air-filled chamber where they can use their lungs. They may also want to eat and defecate in an air-filled room for the sake of hygiene. A spaceship for aqua-humans will probably have both types of rooms in it. Some things are easier to make in air than water, and some combustible things might be made in the water for safety.

The point of all of this is that changing humans to live under water is a far more viable long-term colonization plan than making planets habitable. There already are water worlds in this solar system. Water also slows bullets and rockets fired by enemies, and acts as a natural shield. Aquatic farms can be constructed which grow algae, sea weed, fish, shrimp, and vegetables genetically modified to live in salt water. It is far easier to genetically modify a living organism to tolerate salt water than to genetically modify it to survive the lack of water and sulfuric acid of Venus, the radiation and dust storms of Mars, the liquid methane lakes of Titan, or any other horrible environments. We are genetically adapting Earth life after all, and the more Earth-like the planet the easier it is to adapt it.

Yet another great benefit of this approach is that it can be entirely perfected on Earth before even bothering with colonization. A probe can be dispatched to drill under the ice of an ice world and identify if there is a warm interior heated by tectonic activity. If so, and identical part of the ocean can be located where the pressure and temperature are the same. A base can be built there to train astronauts. Genetically engineered humans can get used to living in these environments long before any colonization mission is attempted. When they arrive the conditions they experience will be virtually identical to the ones they are already used to.

Last but not least, the development of the technology necessary for accomplishing this also creates a method of exit on Earth, and since most of the world is covered in ocean it opens up a frontier for freedom here. Imagine hundreds of underwater cities on this planet where, unlike the video game Bioshock, all of the people simply swim around in wetsuits under water with no need of oxygen tanks. They live in spherical houses stacked more vertically than horizontally. Their houses contain "water conditioning" that uses the compression cycle of a refrigerator to heat the house while cooling refrigerated sea food. The house blows water continuously around each room so that oxygenated water always flows past the gills of the inhabitants, who literally live in water at all times. They speak a combination of English and a made-up sonar language. There is a bubble of air in the "attic" of each spherical dwelling where you can surface, use your lungs, and converse in normal language. There are air chambers for doing business with regular flatlander humans, and people use sea scooters and other propeller-driven flying watercraft to commute to work in vast schools of aqua sapiens. Everything they manufacture is designed to work in water.

Imagine a man who looks like the Greek god Poseidon, with a beard, grey skin, and gills on his neck, chilling at home in his living room, and wearing a wetsuit at all times. He keeps his house at 89 degrees Fahrenheit. He lives this way, and breathing air is for weird terra sapiens. This dude has never even learned how to walk. Walking is for weirdos.