Sunday, February 26, 2017

Mondbug vs. Me: compare and contrast

On mass slaughter

Moldbug: the bloody wars of the WWI and WWII were caused by demotism. Only demotism causes mass slaughter.

Me: the bloody wars of the 20th century were caused by GUNS. Democratic weapons create mass slaughter. During WWI, a country could not mobilize for war and then stop halfway through. This is because mobilizations would be detected by the enemy. The enemy would mobilize millions of his own troops. This made war unstoppable once it started. Guns created BOTH demotism AND mass war. Development of the atom bomb ended this. This theory is taken directly from Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope.

Guns created both demotism and mass slaughter. Atom bombs created peace. All of this was the outcome of technology.

On divided power

Moldbug: divided power creates endless conflicts. The culture we live in and the Cathedral are caused by these conflicts.

Me: compromise under a majoritarian system causes the party that loses to suffer under the tyranny of the party that wins. Because voting creates an incentive for telling people that they are equal, the left tends to win all the time. There are three solutions; (b) dictatorship, (c) separation in physical space, or (d), (full consensus, as described by James M. Buchanan).

On the solution to divided power

Early Moldbug: the solution is patchwork of secure sovereigns
Late Moldbug: the solution is monarchy

Me: the solution is a governance marketplace. Various forms are being worked on. All power centers should be divided and (ideally) subordinated to a market mechanism. If not all power centers can be divided, then the remaining power centers should be under a king and the king should act as final arbiter. The resulting system is a governance marketplace within sovereignty. This blog is all about how to do that.

On the Friedman Rule

Friedman: "Power is diminished when it is divided. If one man owns all the food, he can make me do almost anything. If it is divided among a hundred men, no one can make me do very much for it; if one tries, I can get a better deal from another." — The Machinery of Freedom, 2nd ed., p. 18

Moldbug: there is no contest. Friedman is wrong. Sovereignty is conserved.

Me: As power is divided, the remaining concentrated power centers battle to control the divided systems. Power is both diminished in total destructive power, and the number of holders expanded.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Being an outcast is the Cathedral's gift to you

Being outcast alone is a tragedy, but being outcast with others are the only way to form a tribe in the modern world.

Intuitively, you would think that the way to have acceptance is to accept everyone. After all, no one likes to be excluded, right? A warm, loving, high trust community sounds like the complete opposite of an exclusionary elitist one. However, there can be no Interior without an Other. Walls are the basis of all modern communities. This is because we now live in an era of mass human transportation. Anyone can get on a plane, in a car, and cross a border. Before, communities were maintained by the energy requirements of travel. In Marco Polo's time travel was so dangerous and expensive that almost no one could do it. People were simply forced together by the fact that their legs and horses could not carry them very far. The absence of telephones meant that leaving your hometown equaled not seeing your loved ones for years. When you got back these people you grew up with would be strangers. It discouraged a lot of people from traveling, and that was good because long distance relationships tend to disintegrate over time if they are not meticulously maintained with regular phone calls.

Back then the way to have inclusion was simply to include everyone.

The relentless demand by idiots and cognitive misers that we simply accept everyone is the weapon that breaks down all communities in a world of cheep travel. The rich have their communities automatically maintained by the barrier to entry that constitutes high real estate prices. They then get to live in warm, mostly all-white, high trust communities while everyone else is confined to multi-cultural hell's and ghettos. From their perch they snidely look down upon the racists, the rednecks, white trash, and minorities who are not allowed to have the communities they possess and maintain through economic exclusion. The solution is to build some housing projects in Martha's Vineyard. NIMBY-ism is the racism of the powerful. Smash it to make them see the light.

If you can find like-minded reactionaries, being an outcast will become the Cathedral's gift to you. It will allow you to have what they cannot because they are too busy chasing virtue signaling to recognize the cost of atomization. These fools isolate themselves with their tolerance, and their atomization makes them even more hysterical about forcing everyone to tolerate everyone. It is a psychological cycle that feeds on itself. A lack of barriers to entry guarantees social atomization. In response people hysterically demand enforced tolerance — even more of the drug that is atomizing them. And if I can't have a community neither can you! That's racist! You can't exclude me! (Because I have no one, the liberal says). Society chokes on mandatory tolerance. Mandatory tolerance enforces atomization, and mandatory tolerance is the hysterical reaction to atomization.

In the face of anomie and ennui, anti-racism reveals itself as a special class of jealousy. There is a fear that the racist will enjoy greater esprit de corps / brotherhood / fraternity / comity. Their fear is justified. He will. He does. And if that is not proof of how wrong their values are, then I do not know what is.

The reality is that the technology of modern transportation makes it impossible to have a community without some form of exclusion. Technology imposes itself on human beings as an irrevocable change in their circumstances. They either worship it as their new golden calf, or resist.

Social stigma can be the Cathedral's gift to you, but only if you find other reactionaries to associate with. It enforces a border with society. It prevents automatic entryism. The tolerance of everyone is the tolerance of no one. It is a relationship where everyone is fake, and where everyone pretends to have values they don't really agree with, except for that one brain-dead cognitive miser who truly believes it. It is a world where only the stupid have fraternity, and only because they don't realize everyone secretly disagrees with them.

You can use the stigma against the Cathedral to have what they can never: real community. You must first meet other reactionaries.

Friday, February 24, 2017

We need /vaccine/antiboitic/drug 3D printers

In a previous post I talked about how DARPA was working to stop pandemics by developing technology that would allow the rapid production of vaccines for RNA viruses. This sort of thing is important because if some DIY biohacker is going to have the ability to produce a deadly virus in his garage, then some other guy must also have the ability to reverse engineer a vaccine from the blood of a person who is infected.

Health bureaucracies are not always serving the best interests of the public, and the cost of FDA approval of new drugs has climbed to astronomical levels. If one is going to develop the sort of technology to reverse engineer viruses, one might as well go full-on zerg rush and create a household drug 3D printer for consumer use. Then you would sell the thing to millions of people and let them do whatever they want with it.

Many people would use it to develop recreational drugs. There would be overdoses. People would definitely get screwed up by some of the things they created. Some people would die.

However, the pace of developing cures for diseases would explode. People would experiment with these drugs and post the results on the internet. Someone would invent a wiki/review system for keeping track of effects. Eventually a cycle would be developed involving public experimentation---> wiki review and feedback---> and popular acceptance of safe drugs. After a decade or so, there would be vast online lists of safe medications developed by hobbyists around the world. Ensuring your safety would be a matter of always checking the list of a trusted source before consuming them. The FDA would be forced to reform itself, and become a public service announcement agency and information source. Would is be better than the status quo? Probably. Currently, 39.6 percent of the population will die of some form of cancer in their lives. If 1% of the population died from overdosing on 3D printed recreational drugs and the cancer rate were reduced by 10% (39.6 - 3.96), by that same technology, then the drug 3D printer would save a net 2.96% from dying.

Craig Venter is working to develop technology similar to this.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

______ all the way down

Props to you if you understand the reference. Even more props if you know which historian referenced it.

Genetic Math: or how to destroy patriarchy if you really want to

"Trump hates women. Trump grabs em' by the pussy. Trump is literally Hitler, blah blah blah," they say. So what. Trump still gets more pussy than you.

Remember that the next time you side with feminists. Feminists are women. Who do you think is providing the pussy?

Mathematics of Male Desire

What if a man could have sex with a new young hot woman every day?

And what if every one of these women was ovulating?

And what if he starting having sex with them at age 15 and stopped at age 80 when he died? And what if 40% of these sex acts resulted in pregnancy? And none used birth control or got abortions? And none had STD's? How many women would he have sex with? And how many children would he father?

80 - 15 = 65 years of sex x 365 days per year = 23,725 sex acts.
1 leap year ever 7 years = 9.57 leap years on average in 65 years (let's just say 10 leap years) = 10 extra days.
23,725 + 10 = 23,735 sex acts
x .4 = 9,494 children

Worldwide, 1.01 males are born for ever 1 female.
1.01 + 1 = 2.01
2.01/1 = .49751243
9,494 x .49751243 = 4723 daughters
9,494 - 4723 = 4,771 sons

In summary. A man would have sex with 23,725 unique women from across the world and father 4,723 daughters and 4,771 sons, and have a total of 9,494 children, assuming only 40% of the sex acts produced offspring. Multiply everything by 2.5 to get the 100 % rate.

This math is almost instantly appealing to any male reader. Is it not? Let us explore why.

When Women Reward Male Dominance

The world is male dominated for a reason. Women like the tall man, the strong man, the confident man, the rich man, the successful man, and the "grab life by the ____ man." These are all the traits of a dominant male.

Of male dominance.

The individual preference adds up to the collective preference. If men weren't interested in being in charge before pussy rewarded it, they sure would be afterward. Women are sexually attracted to the thing that enslaves them. Woman is the only creature that literally breeds her own captor. Male dominated societies out-reproduce more equal societies for a reason, and this birth rate differential is exponential.

Doing some more back of the envelop calculations...
If my male dominated society has an average of 3 children per couple every 20 years, with people living an average of 80 years, and it starts with a population of 100 thousand people who all breed;
Then after 6 generations my population will peak at 459 million and then go extinct by the end of the ninth generation.
If your "feminist" population has an average of 1.5 children per couple every 20 years, with people on average living 100 years, and it starts with the same population of 100 thousand who all breed;
Then your feminist population declines steadily until going extinct at the end of the fifth generation. If you can replace the ones you have lost through attrition you wind up terminating the genetic lines of an additional 150 thousand converts.
Your population can even live longer and still die faster. And it can die way faster and still grow even faster.
If a group of Somalis has an average of 6.67 children per couple (their actual birth rate) every 20 years, with people on average living only 60 years, and it starts with the same population of 100 thousand who all breed;
Then after 10 generations the population will be 4.177 billion.

It pays to live fast and die hard on Earth.

And this is why patriarchy rules the world. Because the more education women receive the fewer children they have, and the more education a woman receives the less of a slave to the cock she is, the less babies she has, and the less of a conquering force her race is.

The more religious you are the more children you have.
The more male dominated you are the more children you have.
The more power and status men have relative to women the more children you have.

There is a reason that women prefer the dominant male: historically, he is the one that produces the most children. Evolution is a gene reproduction maximizing algorithm. The gene wants to copy itself as many times as possible. Rationally, she may know that male dominance is bad, violent, etc. But sex does not occur on a rational level. It is animalistic in character. Attempts to put it in the consent box by feminists will always fail. And no straight woman really wants it anyway. She wants a merciless pounding that, in the words of Zane, "make her tummy hurt."

When a woman votes for invasion by rapeugees she is making a genetically logical choice. She recognizes that the white man is not going to put 6 or 7 babies in her. She also recognizes that the Somali man will, by force if necessary. Her genes want to spread, and she will vote accordingly and rationalize the choice post hoc. One part of the feminist program is at war with another because women will always chose greater male dominance over less, on the grounds of genetic inclination. It spreads genes faster.

Conversely, this is also why males instinctively want to kill people, and take their stuff. Genetic spread is proportionate. It does not care if a man produces 5 babies in a population of 10,000 or kills the 5 most genetically distant enemies in a population of 10,000. Proportionately his genes have increased in prevalence with the population by exactly .0005. As long as there are other males who share his Y chromosome, his genes are increasing prevalence. Both sex and genocide can pay off from evolution's perspective.

But the problem is that there is no way a man can guarantee that the ones he kills are the people most genetically distant from himself. The victim may be a distant cousin. Reproduction is guaranteed to spread a man's genes directly. Killing is not guaranteed to reduce competitor genes. In a tribal environment where everyone is related to each other, it is impossible within the tribe. Thus, humans evolved in an environment that made them less murderous towards the in-group and more murderous towards the out-group. Capitalism may be slowly reversing that tendency since people are no longer surrounded by their relatives. It may be making humans indifferent.

Basically, the programmed inclinations of both men and women are the outcomes of genetic math.

That math is different for women than men. If a man has a son his Y chromosome survives. If he has a daughter the X chromosome of his mother survives.

In contrast, if a woman has either a son or daughter then one of her two X chromosomes is passed on. Genetically, it does not matter if she has a son or daughter. Similar logic applies to all other related offspring.


In the first generation of offspring all her children will carry one of her two X chromosomes.
In the second generation 2 out of 4 potential grandchildren will carry 1 of her X chromosomes.

Now compare this with a man who has children;

In the first generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring, (and only sons) will carry his Y chromosome.
In the second generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring, (and only sons) will carry his Y chromosome.
In the first generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring will carry the X chromosome of his mother.

In essence, the X chromosome has an incentive to cooperate with more familial relationships than the Y because no matter who reproduces, one of her two X chromosomes will be passed on.

But with males this is not true. The only way the Y chromosome perpetuates itself is if the man has sons and grandsons. From the Y chromosome's perspective, having only daughters is tantamount to extinction.

So genetically and mathematically, women have an incentive to be more altruistic while men do not. And men have an incentive to be hostile to competitor males, since only the male relatives and decedents of the man carry his Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is less likely to be reproduced in all circumstances, and has zero potential for reproduction if the resulting child is female.

Male genes inhabit a more competitive environment, while female genes have a more cooperative environment. This means that males have an incentive to treat the X chromosome as a territory to be colonized, controlled, and conquered. Furthermore, since aggressive, dominant males spread their genes farther and wider than passive males, it makes genetic sense for woman to cooperate with male dominance, and to reproduce with the most dominant male. It makes genetic sense for hypergamy to develop as a personality trait in females since this is the trait that assists in the maximum spread of one's genes. Essentially, all women use men to conquer other woman.


The immediate cause of male dominance is the hypergamy of women, but upon further examination we find that hypergamy itself has a cause: namely, the genetic math of the Y chromosome, which places the Y chromosome at an arithmetic disadvantage, and incentives men to treat women as a territory to colonize. Men are more violent than women, and women are more cooperative than men for a reason, and this reason is rooted in a gene-centered theory of human behavior which finds competition among men, and cooperation among women, to be the gene maximizing behavior for each respective sex. But it is also the gene maximizing behavior of women to cooperate with male dominance, since this displaces the genes of competitor females in the conquered populations, because dominate males impregnate women successfully at higher rates.

So You Want to Destroy Patriarchy?

There are at least three solutions, each more devastating and potentially disastrous than the previous. Bear with me because they are absurd.
Possible Solution (1) Start a feminist cult where women are required to have four children per couple in order to get into heaven.
Possible Solution (2) Create a worldwide reproductive licencing regime and discriminate against male dominated societies on a massive scale.
Possible Solution (3) Radical mad science genetic modification of the proportions of the X and Y chromosome in order to balance their incentives.
I might write about this in a future post. But it begs the question: what would legitimize any genetic modification of the human species? I am not saying that playing God would be wrong. What I am saying is, why do our morals get to determine genetic modification? Are not our morals the product of our genetics — at least in part? Since our morals come from our genetics interacting with our culture, to modify our genetics according to some moral sense is recursive. The modification will produce another moral sense. That new moral sense will then create new genetic modifications. Where does it end? You could possibly end patriarchy with genetic mad science. But would the "nu-humans" that you created respect you for it? And since these new humans have new genetics they will have new moral values. Will they judge your actions correct according to their new morals? Or would they view their creator as monsters?

And besides. Feminism is just a modern obsession.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

DARPA battles to stop Cathedral incompetence from destroying the world

Technological decay is a real concern these days. Tech decay is really legislative accumulation, bureaucratic decay, or organizational decay under puritan quotas. When religious tests are the method of advancement rather than competence, agencies and corporations stagnate. The antibiotic crisis is really a crises of the states making. The government has made getting a new drug approved so expensive that companies would rather manufacture maintenance drugs than lower priced vaccines and antibiotics. This is really the agency protecting the profits of pharmaceuticals and the payrolls of itself at the expense of public health. Then higher levels of the state fail to correct the problem or create alternative national drug companies to develop what the private sector will not.

In contrast to this run of the mill crisis manufacturing of government, DAPA may actually deliver something positive, perhaps temporarily reversing tech decay in some small way. To quote DARPA;
“DARPA’s goal is to create a technology platform that can place a protective treatment into health providers’ hands within 60 days of a pathogen being identified, and have that treatment induce protection in patients within three days of administration. We need to be able to move at this speed considering how quickly outbreaks can get out of control,”
It seems someone up in the office observed just how close the world came to being wiped out by the Ebola outbreak of 2014 to 2016 and realized that the end of humanity would be bad for everyone's stock price. Perversely, according to the Cathedral documentary show Frontline, the only thing that actually stopped the outbreak was that Africans in the affected countries changed their behavior. As the documentary said;
"Thousands more were still to die across West Africa, but the changing behavior of the population, and the massive international response, gradually turned the tide."
"But the drop in numbers was real. With death all around them, Liberians were changing how they lived their lives. They stopped trying to nurse their sick and began to bury their dead safely."
Bruce Aylward, M.D., Asst. Director-General, Emergencies, WHO:
"The entire Monrovia knew Ebola was real, Ebola kills, Ebola’s going to kill me unless I do one or two things differently."
"There was a huge fear, and they changed their behaviors in ways which suddenly slowed down and took the heat out of this thing. And that’s what turned it around. Liberians turned their country around. We got in there a little bit afterward and took a lot of credit." 
So this is how close we came to the end of the world: we are only here because a population of people who still use witch doctors decided to stop handling the dead bodies of loved ones in a traditional manner, which always seemed to involve some excuse for touching the infected corpse. Because "muh spirits will wander the village," or something. It was these people not touching the infected corpse all the time which is why we still exist, and not the superlative competence of our health services, immigration procedures, or FDA approval process for new vaccines. That should make you nervous.

DARPA freaked out. Perhaps because DARPA is one of a handful of agencies who are allowed to fire employees and actually, you know, be competent and stuff. So I guess DARPA isn't eager to let the Cathedral cause the end of the world, at least not until they get an affirmative action program and a religious test of their own. To quote the release;
"The Pandemic Prevention Platform (P3) program aims to develop an integrated platform that uses nucleic acid sequences to halt the spread of viral infections in sixty days or less. Using nucleic-acid-based technologies pioneered by DARPA as a foundation, the program now seeks to create an end-to-end platform by developing technologies to overcome remaining bottlenecks that hinder rapid response to pandemic threats. The three required technology areas cover growth of virus to support testing of treatments; rapid evolution of protective antibodies outside of the body; and safe and efficient delivery of nucleic-acid-based protective treatments."
And to quote the article on the subject;
"Key to this undertaking are nucleic-acid-based technologies—those that are centered on DNA and RNA—including some developed under DARPA’s Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics (ADEPT) program. Using these tools, scientists can identify protective antibodies from recovering patients and then, through a biological version of reverse engineering, manufacture genetic constructs that, when delivered, can instruct an individual’s body to produce similar protective antibodies. Significant quantities of these nucleic acid “blueprints” can be rapidly manufactured compared to state-of-the-art antibody production methods."
"What is required now are breakthroughs in three other technology areas to bridge those past DARPA achievements and overcome the remaining bottlenecks that hinder rapid response to pandemic threats. The P3 program will pursue innovations in those three areas:"
"Growing virus needed to support evaluation of therapies in laboratory tests;"
"Subjecting antibodies to rapid rounds of evolution outside of the body to increase their potency beyond that of even the most effective antibodies obtained from infected patients; and"
"Developing means of efficiently delivering nucleic-acid-based protective treatments, since the technologies used to administer conventional vaccines do not readily translate."
"Achieving and integrating breakthroughs in all of these areas will require choreographed cooperation among researchers and engineers specializing in such areas as immunology, microbiology, virology, medical infectious diseases, molecular biology, and medical countermeasure product development and manufacturing."
There is a real danger that the ability of the Cathedral to respond to threats will simply decay to the point where civilization itself collapses. We live in a globally interconnected world. People often forget that if you are going to have routine international air travel across borders you must also have a world health bureaucracy capable of responding to planetary epidemics. We do not presently have said capability. Why? Because "muh feels" and "equality." And because the profits of big pharma and the payrolls of the FDA are more important than public health.

The FDA is considered underfunded. But is not "underfunded" just another way of saying over-mandated? You would think that this would be the CDC's concern right? But FDA is responsible for new vaccine development, you know, like the kind that would develop an Ebola vaccine. And various left-wing pressure groups over the years have created and worsened its drug lag. Every time FDA drags is heels on the approval of a new drug lives that could be saved are lost. The effect is to protect the profits of drug companies against competition and to generate jobs at FDA for civil servants. As we all know, the left is the institutions, and the only purpose of the institutions is to grow for the sake of growing, and for the sake of generating more employment for leftists. The history of this is a tale of leftism screwing up yet another aspect of society. The champions of this screw up were of course operating in the 1960's culture wars. To extensively quote yet another article;
"With the 1962 amendments, Congress gave the FDA authority to judge a drug's efficacy—whether it produced the results for which it had been developed. Formerly the agency had monitored only safety. Indeed, from 1938 until 1962, the FDA had just sixty days to disapprove the application of a new drug. If it did not, the drug could be marketed. The system worked without significant incident. But in 1962 the thalidomide tragedy hit the world."
A government agency uses tragedy to expand its mandate and funding. Gee, where else has that occurred?
"A sedative used to prevent miscarriage, thalidomide caused the birth of several thousand deformed babies in Europe. Thalidomide was not so major a tragedy in the United States, however, because the existing safety regulations allowed the FDA to catch it early. Ironically, the publicity generated by pictures of deformed newborns in Europe led Congress to amend the U.S. drug laws to add an efficacy requirement to the existing safety rules, even though the problem with thalidomide was safety, not efficacy. Congress gave the FDA the authority and latitude in judgment to decide whether a new drug did what it claimed it could do. It was not long after this expansion of regulatory responsibility that the phrase "drug lag" entered the lexicon."
"Some critics charged that the efficacy requirement was extraneous to the agency's central mission to monitor safety. The often complicated procedures created for assessing a drug's efficacy added to the years required to get a new drug into general use. A 1974 study by University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman concluded that since 1962 the new rules had reduced the rate of introduction of effective new drugs significantly—from an average of forty-three annually in the decade before the amendments to just sixteen annually in the ten years afterward. Peltzman also found that the regulations also made it difficult for companies to introduce drugs that competed with existing drugs, thus reducing competition in the industry."
"The drug lag controversy intensified with the rise of the AIDS epidemic. On October 12, 1988, a large group of AIDS activists staged a demonstration at the FDA's headquarters in suburban Washington, chanting, "No more deaths!" They were protesting the snail's pace at which the FDA was approving new drugs to combat AIDS. These and other critics, who complained about the agency's handling of drugs to treat cancer and heart disease, posed a new and controversial question about drug delays: was not the federal agency charged by Congress with protecting ill Americans from harmful or useless drugs actually causing great harm to patients, precisely for exercising its congressional mandate?"
"Have patients in other countries gained access to new drugs sooner than patients in the United States? The Center for Drug Development at Tufts University studied forty-six new drugs approved by the United States in 1985 and 1986 and found that 72 percent were available on average 5.5 years earlier in foreign markets. Other studies, comparing drug approvals back to 1972, have suggested a similar time lag in the United States. Meanwhile, the costs of development rise. The cost of developing a new drug in the United States is estimated to have risen to $231 million today from $54 million in 1976 (all in 1987 dollars), with the approval time from earliest development to final marketing typically about twelve years."
"The FDA responded to complaints about drug lag and the availability of promising experimental drugs by introducing a number of reforms. The most notable was "fast track" approval of the AIDS drug AZT, which was cleared for use within two years after it was discovered to be effective against the HIV virus. Other reforms allow patients access to promising experimental drugs. Unfortunately, to qualify to provide experimental drugs, administering physicians must meet burdensome paperwork requirements, such as the need to draft a "treatment protocol" for submission to an institutional review board, a practice more common to university-based clinical investigators. Also, because insurers will often resist payment for unapproved drugs, the rules limit the amount manufacturers may charge to "cost recovery," loosely defined as excluding charges that would constitute "commercialization" of the drug. Manufacturers, therefore, have little incentive to provide the drugs."
What we have here is a combination of bureaucratic incompetence stifling new drug/vaccine/antibiotic development, and a steadily rising threat of pandemics, some of them potentially engineered by terrorists.

Bill Gates recently spoke at the Munich Security Conference, and said;
“The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus, or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu,” said Gates, whose private foundation helps combat public health and global warming problems. “Getting ready for a global pandemic is every bit as important as nuclear deterrence and avoiding a climate catastrophe.”
 And speaking of companies that are in the bio-hacking business, The Economist ran a piece on DIY bio-hacking. To quote The Economist quoting the founder of the bio-hacking company Genspace;
"“Our goal is not only to advance biology, but democratise it,” explains Ellen Jorgensen, president of Genspace. Founded in 2010, the community laboratory in Brooklyn is the model for the two dozen others that have since opened around the world. Genspace hosts all sorts of events, including “biohacker boot camps”, as well as projects such as “barcoding” in Alaska, an attempt to catalogue plants."
Continuing. . .
"If 3D printers are the tool of choice for makers, PCR machines are de rigueur in amateur labs. Using a biochemical technology called polymerase chain reaction (hence PCR), the machines are used to identify a specific segment of DNA and make multiple copies of it. “You can now build these in a garage,” says Josh Perfetto, who is one of the founders of OpenPCR, a group which has developed a simple PCR machine that costs only $600." 
As Eliezer Yudkowsky would say, "Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”

At some point in the future the technology of DIY genetic engineering is going to exceed the organizational competence of health agencies, or as Nick Land would say, "The human species is too stupid to live." Sounds like prophecy to me. . .

Monday, February 20, 2017

Aphorisms no. 33

In America, your level of poverty is proportionate to the probability that you will be forced against your will to listen to autotuned rap at work by your brown or white trash coworkers.

A ∝ P

Where A = autotuned rap probability and, P = Poverty level

Corollary; bad music is how the lower classes mark their territory, with you being the territory marked.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

My soothing amoral bias

Note: the term "amoral" means without morality, not against morality. That's the other word: "immoral."

Back in early 2016, (or was it 15'?) I can't remember. Anyway, I was sitting on my couch smoking some bomb ass weed. I was high as a kite and thinking about politics — something I do with unhealthy regularity. I tend to become liberal when I'm high. I also become much better at understanding human motives. I guess my mirror neurons light up or something and I acquire a deep ability to understand how others perceive me. For a moment, I am not autistic. (Though I am not really autistic). the motives and perceptions of normies become crystal clear — and to quote Q, I "become as weak and as incompetent as all of you."

I know, arrogant. Right?

My IQ drops like a whole 21 points. I become just a stupid as everyone else. (That's a bad joke. 21 points is not much) If only I could live my whole life like this!

Anyway, while high out of my mind I had an epiphany, and like all epiphanies you have while on drugs, it was completely 100% true and in no way misguided at all.

The epiphany was that the system/universe whatever, was not a system that was failing to live up to its virtues, but succeeding. The political system was not a failing democracy but a succeeding fascism. Even worse, the moral code of the universe was itself fascist.

Before this, politics was upsetting to me. After, not so much. Over the course of several months I genuinely began to simply not care, and it is glorious.

You see, life struggles against entropy for survival. All life must work to survive, even if it's definition of work is a bacteria absorbing nutrients or a rabbit eating grass. The rules of the universe are set in opposition. The morals of life are the result of that opposition. So morality is angry. But one doesn't really need the anger. One just needs to keep working and that is fairly straightforward. And it's like that line from the movie Devil's Advocate where Satin himself, (superbly played by Al Pacino) says;
"Guilt is like a bag of fucking bricks. All you gotta is set it down... Who are you carrying all those bricks for anyway? God? Is that it? God? Well I tell you. Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift and then what does he do? I swear, for his own amusement, his own private cosmic gag reel he sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch but don't taste. Taste but don't swallow. And while you're jumping on one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughing his sick fucking ass off. He's a tightass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee-landlord!"
I just set down my bag of bricks. You can too. Set it down. Go ahead. You know you want to. Just let it all go.

This is about the naturalistic attitude in politics.

But really there are two reasons that you should just not care about morality where politics is concerned. Call these two reasons the planned obsolesce of religion and therapy and the algorithmic filter bubble of psychological torture.

The Planned Obsolesce of Religion and Therapy

Imagine that you and your broheim start your own cool cult in your basement. You discover all the secrets of life and decide to share them with the world. When people come to your subterranean church you tell them the awesome secrets of the universe and they instantly find inner peace. Or maybe it takes a few months. Whatever. The whole point is that you are making people happy. They leave your church with inner peace and joy at how awesome life now is, and walk around will smug shit-eating grins on their faces that disturb all the kiddies.

So you lose all your customers because they now have inner peace and no longer need you.

Now I start a competitor cult down the road. I don't give people inner peace. I just give them temporary relief, and my relief lasts oh, say a week. After about a week they need to come back to me for more relief. So my customers keep coming back. As a result I have lots of money to hire missionaries to go around spreading my culty half-baked gospel. My religion grows and thrives. I buy a Bentley and build a megachurch. Good for me.

So my customers keep coming back forever and ever and my religion takes over the world.

The same shit happens with therapists. A shrink that makes you better on the first visit gets no return business, but a shrink who "rations" the cure gets repeated business. He doesn't even have to try to be like this. The market will simply sort along these lines and reward only the moderately effective while both the incompetent and super-competent will be driven out. Just like bad money drives out good money mediocre shrinks will drive out superlative ones. Probably. Maybe. I think.

In theory anyways. I could be totally wrong. I have no proof. But this is what I mean when I say that ideologies are built on giving people pain. They induce need in the recipient. And as far as I can tell the only way to make people need an invisible savior is to give them some emotional disturbance that can only be cured by coming back, again and again, to the witch doctor who gave it to them. This is how it works in the political realm, with ideologies being invented to torment people so they need the ideologue. Feminism anyone? Identity politics? Liberation theology? Marxism? Hopefully it doesn't work this way with psychologists.

Ever heard of induced demand? It's not really the same thing, but you get the idea.

IF, I am right, it would mean that the only real path to inner peace is the one you make for yourself. I hope I am wrong. But I found some peace by simply divorcing myself from morality in the political realm. Morality is anguish. Morality is pain. Morality is rage. I just let it go.

The Algorithmic Filter Bubble of Psychological Torture

But it can be hard to let it go because we are trapped in filter bubbles.

Let us say that you log on to evil face-borg on the interwebs. This is something you should never do. But for whatever reason you feel compelled to. There you see some bullshit that infuriates you. So you click on it. Quite natural human response. Oops. You just done f**ed up.

Because that algorithm learns what you click on. So it presents you with more of the same information. Let us say that a liberal on face-schmuck keeps clicking on stuff that shows Donald Trump making an idiot out of himself and embarrassing America. And let us say that every excruciating detail and every misstep of the Trump administration is presented to this person on face-cuck. And let us say that it all scares and enrages them. And let us say that they simply cannot stop themselves from clicking on it over and over again. So the algorithm is torturing them and driving them insane. Eventually they go out and riot. They cannot stand it anymore. Their online social media life is like being slow boiled alive. Or as Morpheus would say;
"it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"
The algorithm?

Oh my God. The algorithm is the Matrix!

No, but really. It is a torture bubble. As long as you keep clicking on the machine the machine will keep torturing you. This is yet another reason to develop a cold amoral, (not immoral) way of looking at the world and its politics — to avoid psychological torture by its algorithms. Perversely, to escape a machine designed by heartless programmers you must become a little cold yourself. Faceberg isn't going to un-facef***k itself. You have to stop clicking on the bullshit that's driving you insane. It's the only way man.

So here is the point;

(1) Let it go.
(2) Click on other stuff to prevent your filter bubble from ruining your happiness.
(3) Realize that your worldview was probably designed by market sorting effects to give you anguish and rage.
(4) Stop craving pain and look for an inner peace of your own making.

Of course everyone who is still obsessed with morality in politics finds a naturalistic political perspective either sociopathic or infuriating.

But that is the cost of any amount of inner peace. In a world of tortured people you can either conform and be as miserable as all of them, or your can step outside it all and develop your own viewpoint. There are structural/algorithmic reasons that everyone is miserable. The market rewards it in many ways. The political machine cultivates misery to cultivate dependent voters who can be controlled. Even with no one consciously doing this it would still happen. Algorithmic market forces would still elevate a minimum level of hysteria into cultural prevalence. At the root and ground of all reality is math. People's beliefs are not derived from reason but from the mathematical forces inherent in various systems that incentivize the prevalence of particular beliefs over others. There is no one in charge. It is just an algorithm. There is no reason to assume the algorithm is benevolent or malevolent. It just is.

One really has a choice between either (a), being in harmony with humanity and disharmony inside, OR, (b) being in disharmony with humanity and harmony inside. Rejecting humanities moral anguish is a form of exile that restricts what you can say in polite company without being rejected, but, it comes with inner psychological benefits. All the philosophies that people believe in are designed by market selection forces to generate repeat business, and not to make people happy. By definition these ideologies cannot heal them completely. They have to want peace. They have to change their own behavior. They have to stop clicking on what makes them miserable, stop buying into dissatisfying ideologies, and stop giving ratings to their tormentors. Only then can they liberate themselves.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

How to be a homo sapien on Earth

Step 1: ruthlessly, or not so ruthlessly, pursue your self-interest at the expense of society, the environment, and others. Don't go out of your way to hurt people, just don't care.

Step 2: lie to yourself compulsively. Believe that you are a moral person. Delude yourself anyway you can.

Step 3: loudly and obnoxiously virtue signal how committed to the current fashionable ape morality you are, whether it be jihad, righteousness, equality, or the god emperor. Just loudly pretend to conform to the ape morals of your society, whatever they are.

Step 4: repeat steps 1 through 3 starting with no 1. forever until the day you die. Lack any sense of self-reflection of how stupid and hypocritical you look.

Obviously liberals are better at doing no. 3 than no. 2 and conservatives are better at no. 2 than no. 3. Politicians excel at all of these points. That's why they're in charge.

Once you accept that higher level reasoning processes are just a post hoc justification for appetites, 2, then it tends to follow that morals are a lie we tell ourselves and others. Right now when other people virtue signal, most people assume that these statements are representative of real behavior or character. We know that revealed preference constantly contradicts people's statements about what they want. This is so much so, that the economic system of communism does not work because surveys cannot be relied upon to accurately determine what goods people need. A whole theory, the economic calculation theory, explains this. Moldbug talks at length about how patchwork is preferable because it is based on the revealed preferences of immigration rather than the virtue signaling of voting. All of NRx is based on this understanding that revealed preference is a better indicator of human choice than virtue signaling.

Why would it be any different for people's morals?

Morality can be conceived — with no loss of predictive power, as a three step process that humans go through again and again to rationalize their actions. Does it actually exist? Prove to me that any humans are actually moral.

It is a pretty strong red pill to accept that equality is nothing but a political formula. Can we finally move on to stronger medicine and accept that morality itself is also unreal? Or is that just too much?

The damning proof that morality is unreal is that all three of these actions constitute the pursuit of self-interest. It is in your interest to lie to yourself compulsively. It is in your interest to virtue signal. And of course, it is in your interest to do what is in your interest.

Commenting on cyborg_nomade's 'naturalism, ethics and politics' post

Over at Antinomia Imediata, cyborg_nomade says;
" '1) the preemptive rejection of the strong naturalist intention (study ethics and politics solely in view of empirical evidence) does not offer any good reason why it should be so.'
'1.1) one good reason I would see is that, while we can understand evolutionary impacts of certain kinds of political and ethical arrangements (and under which conditions they come into being), effectively testing them would demand another framework – one such as federalism or the archipelago.'
'1.2) the reason “it assumes that empirical knowledge is superior to ethical and political knowledge” is weak. the naturalist method has produced demonstrable results for over 4 centuries now, incarnated in the technological world all around us. ethics and politics have produced nothing of the kind. if that’s not an evidence against the method used in ethics and politics so far (an introspective method, based at best on logic and at worst on suspicious “a priori” definitions).' 
'thus it’s not that empirical knowledge is superior to ethics and politics, but that the empirical method works better than the introspective method used in ethics and politics.'
'2) the attempt to evade the facts of empirical knowledge (for whatever reason) does not make certain political or ethical theories any better adapted to empirical reality. their flaws and their course when realistically applied can be empirically predicted. refusing to listen and pay careful attention to what naturalist empirical knowledge has to say is undertaken at the critic’s own risk. reality rules.'
'3) there’s an universal impartial judge, and it’s called reality. reality shows itself through survival. irrealism will lead to death, necessarily. those that survive the most, have the most truth in their beliefs and practices. those that die, don’t.'
'3.1) sure, the contest may last a long while. and to this extent, two different and even contradictory sets of beliefs may be held as truth, at the same time. in such a point in time, both must be held as truth indeed. when one dies, then the other must be recognized as the truth that prevailed.'
'3.2) once again, choose to ignore reality at your own peril.'
3.3) theories, of course, evolve. hopefully, learning from deaths around itself. if a theory that leads to longer survival is abandoned, for whatever reason, the whole of the institutions and societies that embed and accept them will eventually die, especially when in competition from societies that haven’t committed the same mistakes (and will themselves learn quite a bit about how not to run institutions and societies).'
'4) for normativity, see “The Blind Mechanic II”'
'5) Only naturalist methodology is “legitimate” because only it works as a good proxy for real consequences, and thus ensures realism. all other methods are greatly liable to delusion and willful blindness.'
Quoted here in full.

I am glad that someone else agrees with me. I have been saying for some time now, but usually only implied, that the only competent judge of man is Gnon.

Usually reaction implies that because nature and nature's god agree with tradition that tradition is the limit of human morality, and that there is nothing beyond that. For example: the fact that patriarchy always wins is taken as proof that it is correct, and not as an indication that the human race should use transhumanism to engineer a species that can survive and breed without it. Religious people and male dominated households have more children than secular/atheist/feminist ones. HRx and CRx types then feel justified in asserting that Gnon has spoken in favor of the traditional and religious framework of living. And it has — for now.

But all of Gnon's rules are just algorithms and math can be gamed.

One last note. I would add that reality is the beginning of morality: meaning; that which destroys itself is automatically evil but that which survives is not automatically virtuous. Survival is the beginning of morality, but not the end.

Eventually this leads to a recursive behavior. One species uses its conceptions of morality to design another, potential successor species. That species then uses its moral code to design the next, and so on, and so on. The moral codes of each arise out of their own genetics. The moral codes of each then design the genetics of the next. So in essence each genetic code is producing the next. The process occurs recursive until it reaches a dead end. However, there are multiple species that are engineered. So ALL species never reach dead ends. The result is a family tree of human species designing each next species. Most of these lines die off but the process itself is eternal and rapid evolution of intelligence occurs within the biological substrate. Future successful moralit(ies) bear only tangential resemblance to past traditions.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Even More Music: Friday Trance

Super8 & P.O.S Pres. Aalto - 5 (Original Mix)
(It gets interesting around 2:30. Soaring trance)

Endre - I Kill For You (Probspot Remix)
(This one is more mellow)

Lange feat. Emma Hewitt - Live Forever (Mat Zo Dub)
(More like party music)

Super8 & Tab feat. Anton Sonin - Black Is The New Yellow (Original Mix)
(Definitely one of my favorites)

Andrew Bayer - From the Earth (Breakfast Remix) [FULL HQ]
(Even better)

Thursday, February 16, 2017

We have all missed something massive in our discussions of patchwork

A lot of the time we forget that new people who are reading NRx material for the first time have not been exposed to it as long as the rest of us. A lot of what needs to be said in neoreaction has already been said. We are a little like the Q Continuum, sitting around on our asses in a shack in the desert with nothing left to say because it has all been said before. The neoreactionary continuum suffers from boredom fatigue. Most of the valuable stuff was written in 2013. Moldbug's first post will be 10 years old in April! And he wrote for 7 years. We have been doing this for a while. Roomers of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. Turnover is remarkably low for such an old movement.

But we missed something massive.

In our discussion of patchwork we always looked at the problem of competing systems from the perspective of competing for citizens. It was all based on movement of people and exit. Then the conversation terminated in 2014 with the understanding that the Singapore model leads to IQ shredding.

What about religion?

A state can compete on attracting smart people, yes. It can also compete on religious fanaticism. And it can compete on how technologically backwards / Amish it can be.  If you can generate native birth rates you do not need immigration. Indeed, it is a superior strategy. Immigrants bring their languages, customs, bad education / indoctrination, etc. Natives can be controlled much more thoroughly. You can indoctrinate them however you want. It is far more effective to breed your capital stock than import it, and far less dangerous. This turns the patchwork game into a game of what kinds of religions / memes you can evolve. Essentially, it means that you are competing to produce the greatest memetic hyper-cult. NRx failed to explore this in sufficient detail, and religion is where all practical exit lies anyway.

Religion is the ultimate weaponized social technology for propagating genes.

So this means that materialistic patchwork would extinguish itself, but not spiritual patchwork. That would thrive and dominate everything. NRx failed to explore the theocracy option: smart patches would adopt radical state religions to make their populations reproduce in abundance and have an excessive devotion to their patch which prevents emigration. Why compete on rationality when you compete on irrationality? Do you think rationality sells luxury cars? Imagine a thousand fanatical city-states for a more accurate vision of patchwork. Because after all the business-oriented states died off they would be bought out by the religious ones.

The Preisthold of Salt Lake
The Mighty Islamic Republic of Hamtramck
The San Francisco Eschaton of Enlightened Tolerance
The Feminocracy of Berkeley
The Gynocracy of Cambridge

The question here is, which religion would prevail? What is the algorithm that determines religious success? Obviously you would want to do that prior to designing any actual religion.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

The Principle of Rerouting and Entrenchment

Series Index

Actually Existing Democracy, Part Four

"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." — Noam Chomsky
That which the government punishes causes rerouting.

That which the government rewards causes entrenchment.

If the state punishes an economic activity the activity does not go away. It simply reroutes around the obstruction. A clear example of this is child labor laws. When you make it illegal for children to work the need for money does not go away. It is still there. So often homeless teenagers will pursue "voluntary" prostitution. Banning child labor increases levels of child prostitution. The market demand is not for child labor. It is a market demand by impoverished children for wages.

Another example is the whiskey business. The market demand for alcohol is so great that when Prohibition occurred an entire gang industry was created to provide for it. Al Capone was just a business man like any other. He even operated a soup kitchen! Men like Capone performed a crucial rerouting function for the state. Nations are generally unaware that they need the black markets they suppress in order to function. A lot of state regulation is simply insane or impossible to comply with. When that happens the market outsources to other jurisdictions, or goes dark.

That which the state rewards causes entrenchment. This is because the people who are subsidized have richer fortunes, which allow them to purchase more favorable regulations through their relationships and campaign contributions. It is a cycle; more money from the state allows more gifts to Congressman. More gifts to Congressman buys more money from the state. Most of these reciprocal gifts are arcane; a favorable regulation here, a small market distortion there. It is embarrassing to give people money in an obvious way, so regulations are written in subtle ways to provide rent-seeking. The vast majority of gifts are simply market distortions created for powerful actors. Anytime the supply of something is limited it is corruption. Any licence that excludes people is designed to artificially inflate costs. Let us go through some examples;

Legal behavior                              Way the corruption works

open space / green belts         restricts the supply of housing to raise its cost
Canadian drug import ban      restricts supply of drugs to raise their price
occupational licenses             restricts supply of workers to raise wages
college subsidies                    increases the supply of knowledge workers to suppress wages
illegal immigrants                  maintain a class of labor with fewer regulatory costs
"right to work" laws                union busting
taxi medallions                       limit the supply of taxis to create a middle class wage for drivers
uber                                          destroy the above drivers
Dodd-Frank Act                      destroying small lending competitors to the major banks

Democracy is basically a machine for doing these things. It is a coercion market. It gains support from potentially hostile power centers by selling them rent-seeking. This co-opts those power centers into its structure and reduces the cost of suppressing them. It formalizes a deadly game to determine succession of power. By turning the creation of rent-seeking, the appointment of laws, and the interpretation of them into a market, it converts a overtly violent struggle into a cultural one. But its openness to co-option encourages a broadening of the conflict.

Series Index

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Ending traffic tickets

This is part of a series focused on technologies and systems.

Sometime in the future all the cars on the road are automated cars. To get away with speeding you jailbreak the software in your car. You install a little program you got on the internet. To use this program you have to deposit a small amount of bitcoin, like 10 or 20 dollars worth. Once you get onto the freeway your car joins a group of other jail-broken cars and accelerates to 120 miles per hour. The cars travel in a school of cars. They rotate continuously so that no one car is always at the front of the line. If the police want to pull you over they will have to pull everyone over. Otherwise they can only nab one of you at a time. Since no one is always out in front going the fastest the person pulled over will be random. Any person pulled over will be compensated by the smart contract you signed as a condition of downloading the software. The small fee you paid goes into a pool that pays for the traffic tickets of people who get pulled over. But with millions of jail broken cars all traveling 30 or 40 miles per hour over the speed limit there is very little risk involved. Indeed, you are "going the speed of traffic," which is a legal excuse for speeding in most states. Now millions of people routinely speed at a 120 miles per hour and get away with it. And it is safe because all the cars are working together to warn each other of hazardous road conditions.

Monday, February 13, 2017

Revealed preference versus virtue signaling: a take of hypocrisy and annoyance

A climate scientist drives to an important summit on global warming. On the way there, he fills up his tank with gas. The only reason oil companies are in business and climate change is occurring is because of people like him who fill up their tanks with gas. Their payments make climate change possible. The payments are the reason Exxon, Shell and BP exist.

A feminist complains about the cis het patriarchy. Her boyfriend, whom she spreads her legs for, is tall, strong, confident, manly, and "dominant" in every way. Fucking dominant men is the reason they exist, the reason they will continue to exist, and the cultural incentive to become dominant. She may hate men like Donald Trump, but her fucking is the reason men aspire to be like Trump. She and billions of other women perpetuate "the patriarchy" with their sexual choices. Patriarchy exists because of them.

And it could be no other way. Men who are not dominant simply are not attractive.

A college professor complains about McDonald's. She has eaten fast food from a burger restaurant recently. She, and millions others, are the reason McDonald's exists.

A man believes what he is told. He has no original opinions. He complains that the media controls what people think. He complains that the mainstream media is misinforming people and that universities are indoctrinating them. Or maybe he complains about fake news. His willingness to believe what he is told creates the incentive to control what he thinks. He, and millions like him, are the reason for the thing that he despises.

See the pattern?

Step 1: create the incentive for a thing to occur. Step 2: complain about the thing occurring.

Revealed preference is the action that creates the incentive. Complaining is virtue signaling.

Why does anyone complain? About anything? Why complain about what you help create? Why not just shut up?

Sunday, February 12, 2017

In many ways progressives are right

Americans are racist. America is built on white supremacy. Whites in this country suffer from a bizarre kind of reverse false consciousness where they identify with groups that are less powerful than them. They have a weird lack of racial class consciousness and seem to think that blacks and other minorities should share their values. Clearly these minorities do not. This reverse false consciousness could be labeled "privilege blindness." And yes, whites are privileged — genetically, but not relative to Asians or Jews.

So what.

All nations are built on systems of oppression. Hierarchy is the basis of order. The more equal a nation becomes, the faster its political system implodes. The speed of national death is proportionate to the degree of leftism. A communist country will destroy itself in about 70 years, a republic in about 300. A geographically isolated monarchy can last thousands. A welfare state makes a democracy more equal and speeds up its decline. To become equal is to die. Power is the basis of order. Equality destroys nations, and the only morality is civilization.

Humans are incapable of equality anyway.

As a primate species they are incapable of leaving each other alone. The non-aggression principle simply does not work. Their endless virtue signaling, hooting, prancing, and predatory behavior provokes each other to violent rage. They crave conflict and will manufacture drama if there is none. They seek and enjoy war — but only when they win. They take pleasure in schadenfreude and sadism. They basically lack a conscience towards the "Other." They need to define an Other to have an Inner. In other words, they are incapable of having a sense of community without excluding someone. They actually need scapegoats for community solidarity. They are instinctively power seeking. They are bad and economics, logic, and math, and good at sniffing out outsiders, blaming others for their own mistakes, and tormenting weirdos. They are morally hysterical and quick to punish even non-offences. They are compulsively irrational, vote according to herd instinct, have dozens of cognitive biases, cannot be bothered to study the issues, and want "free" stuff from others. They use the ballot for predatory behavior. They operate according to petty jealousies.

Complete the following sentence;

If America is built on white supremacy, and you destroy white supremacy, then you destroy _________.

This is a species whose basic nature is the verbal equivalent of flinging feces. You want freedom? Are you even capable of it? Is any human? Again, humans cannot even leave each other alone. Simply ignoring the other monkey is beyond our capability.

You are not oppressed by the cis het patriarchy. You are oppressed by your compulsive need to define an Other and attack it in order to have a tribe. You are not oppressed by the stupidity of leftists. You are oppressed by your need to engage them in argument — to torment them with ridicule and criticism. You are not oppressed by capitalism. You are projecting your own brokenness onto the world and demanding, like a child, an answer from mommy.

There is nothing "out there" that is the problem. It is all "in here." The solution is always the same: make peace with it. Solve what you want to solve, and accept what you cannot solve or don't care to solve. Which is worse? A world that is unequal? Or teaching someone to hate the inequality they can never solve? Why hate what you can never solve? Why hate the left? Do you hate an earthquake? Do you hate a natural disaster? The left is a force of nature, an act of God. Why the fuck is our system designed to be so prone to this? Leftism will exist until the legacy genes that perpetuate it are gone from the species through a thousand years of capitalism. We have to undergo a genetic evolution under the market system to become compatible with the society we now live in. The only question worth asking is, how do we accelerate it? Even I was once a socialist. Socialism is in our DNA. How can we edit it out? Non-violently?

With the development of CRISPR this may happen. Capitalism will begin to infiltrate genetically. Parents will wish to have smarter, healthier, better looking children. They will inadvertently make choices that conform their children's genetics to the market system. A smarter child is easier for capitalism to train. A better looking one is easier to market. A healthier one is less costly to the system, etc. The solution to legacy code will be provided and the Nietzschean last man will be realized.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Nazi milk foot bath

Do not squander the precious milk.

Alternate caption "THE COLLECTOR"
"And all those Nazi boys thought she was swallowing"


Milk: our official drink.
Pepe and Moonman: our official mascots.
Bitcoin: official currency of the alt-right
New Balance, official shoe of the alt-right.
Dr. Marten's boots with red laces: our fashionable jackboots.
Wend'y, our official square burgers.

Second edit, March 18th 2017

-Basic art history style symbolic interpretation, for people who need explanation;

It's a joke.

The milk represents the purity of Aryan genes. The woman is holding a leather bound copy of Mein Kampf. Because it is leather bound it is made to resemble the Bible — her "Bible." She is bathing in milk — literally she is bathing in whiteness that she has collected in jars obsessively. The person who is pouring the milk in her tub is wearing a mask in an act of submission. There are lesbian overtones. The milk container is a cheep plastic container, which contradicts the preciousness of the fluid. There is a tangential reference here to precious bodily fluids, a la the movie Dr. Strangelove. See the attached video;

Only whites can digest milk since only White people have the gene for digesting milk. Hence White milk is a symbol of Whiteness. The clothing is 50's retro style. The woman has an old fashioned haircut. She is wearing an over-sized ring on her middle finger, probably in a symbolic "fuck you."

Alternately, the milk may be a reference to sperm, and the desire of a woman to bathe is sperm, maybe even bathe in the cum of der Führer. There are certainly sexual overtones.

It's an anti-Nazi joke in a long line of anti-Nazi jokes. Like all Brahmin jokes, it is a test to see how intelligent you are.

The thought of this website is closer to fascist thought than reactionary monarchism, on account of the fact that I do not reject the usefulness of either eugenics or elections. Nick B. Steves once called this site "republican reaction," aka, RRx instead of NRx (neoreaction). This is basically true. I am closer ideologically to the vaguely libertarian/fascism of Robert Heinlein or the anarcho capitalism of Murray Rothbard, than the monarchism of Julius Evola. I have a soft spot for fascism. Why make jokes at my own expense? Because that's what Brahmins do. I am descended from Quakers, socialists, and southern liberal Democrats. This whole post is me making a joke at my own expense.

The artist is Dany Peschl. He also photographed the image below. Can you find the symbology here?


The fundamental difference between this blog and others in the NRx sphere, is my tech determinist view of the world. Moldbug believes that society is downstream from power. He focuses on memetics as the evolution of ideas. He basically says, "ideas evolve and are selected for both virulence and their effectiveness at controlling power." This is like Hans Hermann Hoppe who focuses on the economics of power systems. Where Moldbug is a cultural anthropologist of power, Hoppe is an economist of the same. Moldbug's sources are many, but primarily point to Ludwig von Mises, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Gaetano Mosca, James Burnham, and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

So we have radically different priors.

I view the world as essentially the outcome of technology acting upon human nature with the most dramatic proof of this being the devastating effect of birth control on gender relations and human sexuality. My priors find their origins in Theodore Kaczynski, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Frédéric Bastiat, Carroll Quigley, Friedrich Nietzsche, and David Friedman (who once commented on this blog). Friedman, Quigley, and Nietzsche are the most important of my influences. My genetic worldview is basically a Darwinist re-articulation of Hindu/Buddhist concept of eternal suffering. Let us just list out what I believe concisely;

Ontology: determinist, no free will, atheist, physicalist, (Materialistic Monism). Humans are meat robots. Humans are monkeys. Every moment in the universe was determined from the beginning. Destiny is real. The universe is a tape recorder that plays in only one direction.
Epistemology: empirical realism. Logical validity does not establish truth, only comparison to the physical universe can, truth = observation, the more scientific the better, truth is inductive, not deductive.

Ethics; workability. That which does not work is automatically evil, but that which works is not automatically good. Moral hysteria occludes knowledge. Moral judgement should be delayed until workability is ascertained. Morality is inseparable from other aspects of inclusive fitness like virtue signaling. Moral obligation is nested: you owe greater moral obligation towards those that are genetically and socially more close to you than those that are farther away. This is both the true morality that human primates posses, and the morality they should posses. Every other kind of morality is a lie,and itself a form of virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is derivative of inclusive fitness, like every other aspect of human nature. Workability is what works in relation to someone. That someone is related to you genetically or socially.

Eschatology: no such thing. The world is not ending, but the human race might.

Nature of Reality: algorithmic.

Human nature: neither good nor evil. Primate nature. Gene-centered theory of evolution in environments of tribal inclusive fitness. The left is a manifestation in political form of the desire of humans to return to the ancestral environment. Capitalism inhibits return and that is a good thing. Humans are xenophobic tribal communists who play deadly adult "make-believe" games where politics are religion are concerned. Humans operate at a tribal level in a non-tribal environment. The gap between genetics and the modern environment threatens to destroy the human race.

Equality: a political formula. A mass delusion, a collective fiction, a superstition.

God: a cultural holdover from the era when governments needed Gods to justify kings. Now marketed in churches across the world. Religion under market conditions degenerates to Burger King levels of showmanship. Atheism, though true, is a genetic dead end.

Religion: a method of getting sentient beings to reproduce themselves. No rational self-aware creature that can control its own reproduction will have children knowing that suffering exists in the world. So various form of irrationality dominate. These forms out-compete rationality and are therefore dominant in all self-aware species.

Economics: Patriarchy and capitalism are prisoner's dilemmas. Get used to it. There is no escape. Capitalism is a hyperstition, (thing that becomes real by believing it is real). The correct economic system is some variant of extreme hyper capitalism which subordinates as much as possible to the market.

Society: has levels, as listed below.

Incentives: downstream from technology and human nature.

Power: downstream from incentives, technology, and human nature

Culture: downstream from power, incentives, technology, and human nature.

Morality: downstream from culture, power, incentives, technology, and human nature. It makes no sense to judge a political program on moral grounds when morality is itself the outcome of power processes. The level below does not get to judge the level above.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

The Condensed Anti-Puritan Thesis: simplified crass edition

Entropy is the second law of thermodynamics. Life must battle entropy to survive. It does this by replicating itself both at the cellular and whole organism levels.

To survive, it must be equipped with impulses that direct it towards reproduction. It has a primary impulse, (reproduction) and a series of secondary impulses which indirectly serve reproduction.

If it eats it survives and has the opportunity to reproduce, so it has hunger. If it seeks out other human beings it increases the odds or reproduction and so it has loneliness. If it defends the tribe it increases the survivability of its genes through its extended family clan genetics. If it falls in love with its sexual partner it increases the survivability of its offspring so it loves its wife. If it loves its children it provides better nutrition so it has protective and providing instincts. All its impulses are derivative like this. There is no need to list them all.

As a result of these impulses the species maintains a minimum level of hysteria and a small amount of suffering is inevitable and genetic. It projects hysteria onto its perception of the largest power structure, which varies by person, but not by much. The target of hysteria is always one of three things; God, capitalism, or the state.

The craving is always the same: return to the ancestral tribal environment that its ancestors evolved under. Humans may vary in their stated complaints but this is basically what all of those complains are pointing to.

The problem is that the ancestral tribal environment did not actually fulfill human needs, suffering is eternal. Granted, it did fulfill them MORE, but it also provided a lot more violence, war, death, rape, kidnapping, etc.

The other problem is that any culture that attempts to return goes Khmer Rouge. Communism is just various versions of attempts to return. The product of communism is always the same; de facto eugenics of the communist against his own liberals. The communist purges (some) communist genetic tendencies, just like the fascist inadvertently uses war to purge (some) fascist tendencies.

Any culture that goes back can be invaded by a neighboring culture that maintains capitalism, since capitalism give a society a high level of war time productivity. All other things being equal, a capitalist society will always have the means to annihilate a communist society of equal size because the taxable surplus it generates gives it a superior military weapons development advantage, and because modern wars are won by technology.

From the communist perspective, capitalism is prisoner's dilemma. No society can escape it without being invaded by stronger capitalist societies.

Going back is both stupid and impossible.

What those with power really need to communicate to the masses — what they are not allowed to say, is that suffering is eternal and genetic in origin and to shut the fuck up. They need to tell the masses to stop complaining. But politicians are not allowed to say that because of political realities.
Basically, no one is entitled to wail in hell. Liberalism is just wailing in hell. It is stupid, annoying, immature, and changes nothing. It is based on a false expectation that hysteria can ever end. In practice a minimum level of hysteria is inevitable.

These false concerns get in the way of real problems that the state has a moral obligation to address. They corrupt the political process, and distract government from its true task.

Good governments are competent governments. Since secure property rights and rule of law generate economic growth, in reality, there is no difference between a good state and a competent one. As for civil rights, protesting, etc.; only the corrupt seek influence over the political process. People who want power over the state want power over their neighbors. They want parasitism and handouts. "Voice" is irrelevant when the government respects your rights. When the government doesn't respect your rights, voice is non-existent. When the government respects your rights and you still have a voice, the only people who will exercise voice are parasites. The problem is how to allow voice without winding up with parasitism, or how to have freedom without voice.

Real concerns of government are things like;
secure property rights
water quality
environmental safety
chronic unemployment
roads and bridges
safety, education and health
social security and retirement for the people
"a decent life for decent people"
the threat of anarcho tyranny
technological stagnation, excessive regulation
the formation and maintenance of a middle class
declining birthrates and bare branches
affordable housing
Hysterical concerns are things like;
social justice
feel feels
"identity" and other juvenile pursuits
anything that comes out of the mouth of a feminist
Buddhism is the ultimate STFU religion. Its genius is that it articulates with spiritual nonsense the basic evolutionary fact that all life is suffering. All major world religions articulate the Darwinian order of being without realizing it in one way or another. The task of philosophers in the modern age is to convert these truths into science, to decipher the algorithm of Gnon, and then preach that truth to the masses.

The state succeeds to the degree that it gets the people to refrain from projecting their petty agony onto it, and to simply shut up. Do not mistake me: it needs voice. But only where real problems are concerned. The state succeeds to the degree that it separates real from hysterical concerns and takes care of the real things. The success of the state is the success of the people, and the success of the people is the business of the state.

To do this it needs to both appoint a religion to train the people to be quiet, and to train them to identify real concerns and hold it accountable to those real concerns. It needs to train the population to recognize the difference between the hysterical and the real, between its own projection versus government incompetence. It needs to teach the people to only exercise their voice legitimately over real concerns.

Only corrupt evil politicians pander to hysterical concerns. It is a method for distracting people from rent-seeking corruption and state decay.

Whenever the state is talked about, the purpose of education, indoctrination, and religion should be to get the population to recognize the difference between real and hysterical concerns. No class of graft seeking academics may be allowed to elevate hysterical projection over real matters or good governance. The state must not allow the teaching of corrupt ideologies. It is a circle: the state should force academics to teach students only how to recognize good governance in real matters, and to separate the real from their own psychological projection. The people in turn hold the state accountable to standards of good governance. Civilizational progress is identical to suppression of the left.