Wednesday, March 29, 2017

The crucial role of the principled conservative in societal decline

Think of it as a 5 step process.

First he defines what the principled position is for society: anti-abortion, pro family, pro nuclear power, pro free speech, against transgender castration of little boys, etc.

Second, he fights a battle to defend those principles, but because of his principles, he refuses to do everything that is necessary to win.

Third. The left only cares about power. So expanding power means defeating whatever the principled conservative would support, and supporting whatever he would oppose, and rubbing his face in it for fun. Furthermore, since all they want is power they are willing to do anything to get it, and thus, have superior tactics. Power is always power over someone: for power to exist there must be a victim. The psychology of the principled conservative means that he is addicted to losing. Losing is the "noble" thing to do.

Fourth. He loses because of his principles.

Fifth. Society gets worse.

Notice that all of these steps are necessary for society to degenerate. Without the first step, "defining what is principled," the left might actually trip and fall on the responsible action. After all, the Chinese Communist Party appears to behave perfectly responsibly. Or at least they aren't trying to normalize pedophilia and castrate little boys by turning them into girls.

So having a moral compass to oppose is crucial, otherwise the left might do the right thing. The right provides the moral compass for the left to oppose. This is crucial since they have no working compass of their own.

Next, they need a battle. With a right-wing to oppose, every leftward move is a "victory." Without opposition (divided power) every new social change is experienced by society as a tyrannical imposition. Nobody cheers for trans bathrooms when it is an order from a one-party authoritarian state. Only a battle can make people cheer for a disgusting agenda that violates their rights.

On the third point, by subverting the left's power the principled conservative gives the left a victim to enjoy tormenting. Every battle is the same and the conservative always loses. This brings great joy to the reptilian brain of the left. A controlled opposition is basically a pleasure machine that allows half the country to enjoy tormenting the other half. Even worse, the conservative acknowledges the moral superiority of the leftist eventually like a kind of political masochist. The left not only "wins;" it gets to convert the opposition and say "I told you so." This is profoundly validating to them.

Fourth. Obviously losing is crucial. If the principled conservative won the left would no longer be rewarded with the pleasure of stomping on him. "Shoving it in people's faces" is a lot of fun — as every Trump supporter knows. Trump represents the first time that something was shoved in the left's face in decades. The left has been subjecting the right to humiliation for generations now. You know how elated you felt when Trump won? They have been feeling like that every election for 50 years or more. Power is an amazing narcotic. By losing, the principled conservative feeds a drug addict that can only "get off" by tormenting him. He is addicted to cuckoldry. His sense of morality is that of a "heroic" cuck who demonstrates his moral superiority by being unwilling to win. Deep down the right-wing wants the world to end and society to degenerate, and all their so-called "morals" serve that purpose. They all crave a literal zombie apocalypse, that is why The Walking Dead is their favorite show. Remember that a conservative is just a liberal who is 30 years out of fashion. He accepts equality as a moral imperative. He accepts his enemies frame of reference. He is actually more degenerate than the left because not only is he assisting in his cultures destruction, he thinks that death — his death, is the ultimate heroic act. He craves annihilation. He has a slave morality and likes (secretly) losing. And it is only this exact combination of five elements, that he participates in, that can destroy his civilization. He is an enabler of evil who thinks of himself as a martyr.

He literally thinks that dying in a war in the Middle East for some corrupt empire is heroic because "muh constitution." At least the left wants to destroy the empire. Get this: leftism is an anti-value system. The conservative believes in these same anti-values but is too cowardly to see them through. His mindset is "I believe that the destruction of my culture in the name of equality is acceptable but I am too cowardly to self-immolate just yet." His own survival, the survival of his woman, family and his race, is immoral to him. He's a racially suicidal bitch who is unwilling to pull the trigger. It's perverse. It's even more perverse than the left. It's one thing to want to destroy another like the left does — there is gratification in power. It's another to bend over and beg to be fucked, "but not too hard please!" The left is pure in it's evil. It seeks your annihilation. The right is impure. It seeks it's own annihilation on "moral grounds." Every time you here a conservative talk about principles you are hearing a bitch talk about his love of losing. Because somehow, coincidentally, magically, their morals will always cause them to lose. Amazing how that always happens. Every. Single. Time. Their morals always cause them to lose. They never win. Not. Even. Once. It is just too habitual to be an accident. Either they want to lose, or their entire moral code is formed from losing, or both. Without the principled conservative society could not degenerate.

The left needs him to define what is right, otherwise they might accidentally do the right thing.
The left needs him to fight so they have a justification for tyranny, otherwise the people will hate the left.
The left needs him to lose.

Without this exact combination there could be no social degeneracy. Either win or get out of the way so the left can rule responsibly.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

How genetic enhancement will go down

(1) Gene therapies will be developed that make children vastly smarter, better, more capable, etc.
(2) The democracies of the world will ban it because "muh equality."
(3) Rich people who want children will get on a plane and go to wherever there is enhancement (China, Singapore, etc.), because "fuck government."
(4) The rich will have genius children and will get vastly wealthier as a result.
(5) The middle class, not wanting to get left behind, will also get on planes.
(6) Inequality will get vastly worse. Thus, the pursuit of equality will lead to more inequality.
(7) The people most passionate about equality will become a permanent slave underclass to the enhanced. They will look up and scream, "save us!" The enhanced will look down and whisper, "no."

Monday, March 27, 2017

The Red Pill

Yeah. It's pretty much like that.

Aphorisms no. 36

Ignorance of reality is suffering and total ignorance death. Without external pressure from the brutality of nature, humans lose their ability to observe reality, substituting ideology for it instead. Ideology can make people blind. So all great cultures encode reality within ideology, creating religion in the process, and forcing those who refuse to observe reality into contact with Gnon. In this manner they rise above mere subsistence. Corrupt ideology destroys civilization by removing contact with Nature and Nature's God.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Meta-rational, sort of, a little. Well maybe.

Every argument I have with people is the same. I state some fact. Then they attack me, slander me, or misrepresent what I am saying.

For example, today I said;
"There have been so many false accusations of rape against White men that men are avoiding all victims."
This is true. To be more precise: there have men so many false accusations of rape against White men that many men, especially White men, are avoiding most, but not all, victims of rape, even the innocent ones, since a man has no way of knowing for sure who is telling the truth. This is because human beings obey incentives, actions have consequences, and men, being human beings, obey incentives. Here are the responses I received on twitter.

What I said;
"Feminists falsely accuse so men avoid all victims"
"any woman who does that, is committing a crime. this woman you mocked did not falsely accuse"
I never said that she did falsely accuse.

My response;
"After all: falsely accusing White men of rape is a fad these days"
"Oh, so you think I'm a false accuser? The fucking lesions in my damn vagina would say otherwise."
No one said that.

What I said in response;
"So many white men have been falsely accused that we now avoid ALL victims"
Her response;
"Lol, you men are fucking weak."
The point is not to drag the reader into drama but to point something out: every statement that I make is the same. I just keep repeating myself over and over again to a shrieking harpy. The process is like beating someone to death with a single fact repeated over and over again — if facts could kill, that is. It's brutal. There is no emotion. No fucks are given. I am simply describing an incentive: if feminists falsely accuse men of rape, men will begin avoiding ALL victims because they can't be sure of who is telling the truth. Reality. Just reality. Relentlessly delivered.

Every fucking political argument I have with people follows this pattern. It's always the same. Here is a fact, I say, followed by hours of autistic screeching from them in response. It is so boring. Humans are so boring. Are you another boring human? Can you control your emotions long enough to understand the world in which you live? In my experience 98% of women and about 70% of men can't. And even the 30% of men who are able to need hand holding to get there.

Imagine being able to have not just one of these coldly rational thoughts but dozens every minute. Now you have just put yourself in my head.

Action ---> Reaction ---> Action---> Reaction

Imagine also being able to switch back to thinking like a normie, but not completely. This is also me.

On the other side of hysteria is reality, and most people can never understand it because they can never silence their emotions long enough to. Can you? Are you one of the chosen people who can think rationally? Are you, ahem, meta-fucking-rational? Can you separate yourself from your arguments? I'm not meta-rational, but I can get close to being when I want to.

Oh and don't bother telling me how horrible I am. I don't care. The world is horrible because people refuse to understand incentives, not because I offend people. It is the relentless refusal of people to simply see reality — to just observe what is in front of their noise that makes everything shit. Immigration invasion? Refusal to observe. Muslim bombing? Refusal to observe. Feminist persecution? Refusal to observe. Hating White men? Refusal to observe. Can't see Black crime? Refusal to observe. Diversity is our strength? Refusal to observe. Blah blah blah, refusal to observe.


Of course there is a time and place for courtesy, kindness, and even polite lies. But could people at least try to think rationally first? A person should be able to think in a parallel fashion, understanding multiple perspectives. Even if they don't say the truth out loud, they should at least know it in the back of their mind. I can understand why someone would be motivated to tell a polite lie. But this isn't that. This is hysterical and juvenile denial of reality. The generation that fought in World War 2 could tell the difference between saying something nice and the truth. Why can't these idiots? Why can't these people be more like their grandparents? Knowing the truth and yet being "nice" about it? Why do they have to believe everything they say? And why can't they discover the truth on their own without someone having to rub their faces in it? In short, why can't they grow the fuck up?

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Compare and contrast

I like this statement;
"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely Allah is high, supreme."
— Quran, Surah Ayat an-Nisa` 4:34, traslation by N. J. Dawood.

Compare this verse with this article from the Huffington Post;

Muslims Are the True Feminists
"Contrary to American popular belief, Islam has a culture and history of women empowerment. In the Qur’an, which is believed to be God’s word told to Prophet Muhammad, women and men are described as equals in everyday actions and responsibilities. When it comes to family, charity, children, sex, and much more, a man and a woman have the same duties and that is to continue on the straight path.
"Early Islamic women kept this idea alive. The first Muslim woman was Khadija, Mohammed’s first wife. Without her influence, Islam might not have emerged as successfully as it did. Khadija was a business woman and a land owner in the lands of Arabia. When Mohammed was given revelations, it was Khadija that ensured him that he was not going insane, but that he was a chosen one. It was Khadija that pushed Mohammed to listen to God and the angels that were trying to communicate with him and to not run in fear. It was Khadija that gave Muhammad the support and confidence in his development as becoming God’s last prophet. Khadija, a woman, was the strength that allowed Islam to fully bloom. Just this one example gives us a view on how true Muslim women are; outspoken, driven, certain and courageous, the epitome of a feminist."
So feminism will deliver women into the hands of Islam, and women will vote for it? Maybe we should side with feminists, huh?

Recommended reading

This is a great article by Captain Capitalism. Link here. Read it. It's really good, and I agree with everything he says.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

I regret having ever woken up

I never should have learned the truth. Understanding the world is a curse. I apologize to everyone who I have inflicted my terrible writing on. Save yourselves while you still can. Return to the Matrix before you reach the point of no return. The truth is evil, and not worth knowing.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Everyone is just wailing in hell

A lot of what I write about is just "rubbing in the left's face." I don't really care bout these things. I just love that wonderful screeching sound that comes from a liberal freaking out. It's messed up but I can't help myself. You see, I have found a little bit of inner peace, and all these lefty assholes are fucking it up by annoying me. Most people find the world to be unbearable. I have the opposite problem: I find the world to be just fine and the people who won't shut up about how awful it is to be unbearable. All I really want is the silent acceptance of reality from others. I don't ever want to hear how unfair/unequal/patriarchal it all is. I was a street orphan growing up. Though I originally came from a wealthy family, because of a series of family tragedies I wound up orphaned and living on the street as a teenager. I went from being raised in a cultured Southern Presbyterian home to literally sleeping on park benches. Eventually I grew up and was allowed to work full time. (Children aren't allowed to work enough to pay rent because of child labor laws). Once I was allowed to make enough money to afford an apartment I got off the street. Then I joined the military and afterward proceeded to put myself though college in the field of architecture. I am basically a former Brahmin who was turned into a more K-selected Optimate type person by the sheer brutality of my childhood and military service. See Moldbug's classification for an explanation of American castes). If I can't spell it is because I never attended high school. That didn't stop me from finishing a bachelor's degree last December. I have also managed to pull myself out of poverty though nothing but my own sheer will power and hard work. So I have zero sympathy for people who bitch about "privilege."

I'm basically a walking drill sergeant at this point. There is no one that I know personally who has survived more brutality than me. I'm like your grandpa who served in World War II and survived the Depression. And I have the same uncompromising mentality. I'm only alive because of my will power and self-discipline. And I now have a nice little bachelor's degree to add to my honorable discharge certificate hanging on the wall.

So it gives me a little revenge fun to point out simple facts that destroy the viewpoints of liberal spoiled brats. Like the following;

Women create patriarchy with their sexual choices, thus, feminism is impossible.
You oppress yourself.
Democracy is a coercion market, literally, a market for the purchasing of laws.
The state is a business that works for the profit of its civil servants, and not for the public good.
The market selects for ideologies that make people miserable, because the market selects for return business.
Equality is a mass delusion.
Democracy creates the perception of freedom, and not necessarily real freedom.
Equality and racism are not opposites.
Liberalism is destined to fail.
Injustice is genetic.
Immigration is really about exploitation.
People believe anything they are told.

I have known every class of human being on this Earth. I have slept in shelters as a child. I have rubbed elbows with homeless men. I have knows the dregs of society, and I have lived with hippies.

I have also lived among the rich. I have attended an Ivy League school, and served my country honorably. I traveled the world and seen Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Qatar. I have seen all the US states except New England and the deep south.

The Bible says there is "wailing and gnashing of teeth" in hell. People say life is hell. Why do people wail at life? It just want everyone in hell to shut up.

I don't normally believe in God, but sometimes I think that the explanation is that we are already dead and in hell now. This would resolve the problem of evil, which goes;
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Because we are dead and this is hell, Epicurus. Literally, we must have done something evil in a previous life and God sent us here. He sent us to a universe where the second law of thermodynamics commands suffering and struggle. Hell is written into the physics. The fact that we don't remember what we did to deserve this place is simply part of the torment. So just stop wailing.

If God is able to prevent evil, but chooses not to, it can still make sense if we all deserve it.

Catastrophes caused by the delusional belief in human equality

  • The war in Iraq killed 268,000 people, all because some neoconservatives believed that Arabs are equally capable of democracy. Even Whites suck at democracy.
  • Mao Zedong killed at least an estimated 40 million people, all because of a delusional belief that humans can be made equal by communism.
  • The lust for the delusion of equality has killed about 94 million people in various countries including Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
  • Equality killed at least 2.2 million in Cambodia during the Kumer Rouge.
  • Equality liquidated the Kulaks during the Holodomor.
  • Equality is castrating little boys as liberal parents help their children "transition" genders.
  • Equality is destroying the White race though mass immigration and interbreeding.
  • The delusional belief in Muslim equality will destroy western civilization as Islam conquers Europeans. It will also destroy women's rights in the process.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Comparing some statements with the P2P foundation

This is basically formalism. Of course no attribution is given. Compare the statements below with MM and Land;
"Societies and the movement of progress they inherit are based in belief. Unless a person is a zombie, operating without cognition, they are infested by belief. Whether it’s belief in oneself as someone or a belief in others, the central concept of belief drives societies. This is incarnated by religion, culture, science, or any deity to which society gives its arbitrary credence. Adjacent, and corrosive of belief, is the concept of trust. Trust between two or more people amounts to a handshake- a simple assessment of threat. Trust encodes the belief that two or more people have a mutual understanding of what they are saying and deem it to be true. Eye-contact helps. A third party can verify this in more developed elaborations of this central conceit, especially involving money. By replacing physical trust quotas with immutable code, the blockchain resolves this issue. This is why the blockchain is a central material tenet of cypherpolitics."
"For this reason the cryptographic position drives towards the elimination of all forms of democracy, the updating or depuring of traditional political positions and ultimately the deletion of politics. In order for this to be realizable, we begin with the elimination of belief."
"Therefore a rejection of belief is one of the undergirding principles of a cypherpolitics. The system of trust on which politics is based is fundamentally flawed. It cannot function alongside transparency. Any attempt to signal transparency is suspicious and will be met with outright rejection. Trust is the irritant around which the pearls of paranoia take shape. There is no human way of knowing if someone has expressed the truth. This can only be verified through technology. The only way for someone to subscribe to a cypherpolitics is to leave all traces of belief systems behind and only maintain the absolutely essential approximation of the ‘truth’. Heuristics follows- belief is avoided and we gain ground through strategies of obfuscation and indeterminacy."
—  Cypherpolitical Enterprises: Programmatic Assessments, by Stacco Troncoso

Now here is Moldbug on Democracy;
"My guess is that the conventional view of democracy, which I of course grew up with, is what we can call an adaptive fiction. An adaptive fiction is a misperception of reality that, unlike most such misperceptions, manages to outcompete the truth.
"For example, suppose we somehow became convinced that warm beer is refreshing, whereas cold beer is poisonous. Obviously a fiction, and obviously maladaptive in our society. However, if we imagine a hot country ruled by brewers, who control their serfs by paying them only in lager, which being warm leaves them both tipsy and unrefreshed, hence quite incapable of revolt... you get the idea.
"In this brewers' republic, the warm-beer fiction is what Gaetano Mosca called a political formula. (Mosca's philosophy is nicely summarized in James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, which at $50 for a used pocket-book is positively a bargain, and about as close as you'll get to Oligarchical Collectivism.)
"A political formula is a belief that makes the ruled accept their rulers. Since the former tend to outnumber the latter, a political formula is, if not absolutely essential, an excellent way to cut down on your security costs. A political formula is adaptive because the rulers have, obviously, both motive and opportunity to promote it.
"The best example of a political formula is divine-right monarchy - simply because this formula is defunct. Hardly anyone these days believes in the divine right of kings. Since at one time, most everyone did, we have incontrovertible proof that adaptive fictions can exist in human societies. Either divine-right monarchy is a fiction, and people then were systematically deluded. Or kings do rule by the grace of God, and people now are systematically deluded.
"Or, of course, both. Because Mosca's second example of a political formula is - democracy."
Democracy as Adaptive Fiction, by Mencius Moldbug

Now here is Nick Land on trust;
"Every public institution of any value is based on distrust.
"That’s an elementary proposition, as far as this blog is concerned. It’s worth stating nakedly, since it is probably less obvious to others. That much follows from it is unlikely to be controversial, even among those who find it less than compelling, or simply repulsive."
"The twin pillars of industrial modernity (i.e. of capitalism) are trustless institutions. Natural science is experimental because it is distrustful, and thus demonstrative. It raises the classical demand for proof to a higher level of empirical skepticism, by extending distrust even to rational constructions, in cases where they cannot be critically tested against an experimental criterion. Only pure mathematics, and the most scrupulously formalized logical propositions, escape this demand for replicable evidence. The ultimate ground of the natural scientific enterprise is the presupposition that scientists should in no case be trusted, except through their reproducible results. Anything that requires belief is not science, but something else. Similarly, the market mechanism is an incarnation of trustless social organization. Caveat emptor. Capitalists, like scientists, exist to be distrusted. Whatever of their works cannot survive testing to destruction in the market place deservedly perish. Reputation, in its modern version, has to be produced through demonstration."
 — On Difficulty, by Nick Land

Either neoreactionary ideas are being copied without attribution, or others are converging on similar themes on there own. Either way, I welcome both.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Deport them all to Africa

An African man in 1600 gets captured by a Black slave trader. The Black slave trader sells the man to a White slave trader. The White slave trader takes the Black man to America and sells him at auction. Slavers give campaign contributions to senators. As a result, senators are unwilling to repeal slavery, and in fact they expand it to more states as the United States conquers the Western Frontier. Since this brings more Africans into America we will call it a "vicious cycle."

It takes a civil war to get rid of it. That is how hard it is to abolish a feedback loop in democracy. It is so hard that you need a war that kills 30 % of Southern males ages 18 to 40.

A man gets arrested. The private prison that incarcerates him is paid for by the government. Using the money they make off his incarceration, they give politicians campaign contributions. Politicians respond to these contributions by writing harsher laws that incarcerate more people. It feeds on itself. Call it a "virtuous cycle," since it reduces anarcho-tyranny.

As a result, America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. That is obviously a bad thing, but it is a hell of a lot better than more anarcho-tyranny, and liberals are importing the crime problem by the millions.

President Shitlord makes everything the left does, and only the things leftists habitually do, illegal. The penalty for all of these offenses that only liberals tend to do is deportation to Africa. Private deportation armies perform the service and Uncle Sam pays for it. These armies give campaign contributions to senators. Because of campaign contributions, the senators change more and more laws so the penalty is deportation. More and more degenerates are deported to Africa. It just so happens that there are slavers waiting at the airport to take new arrivals into custody. So the deportation industry profits on the back end too. More and more degenerates are deported. Now America no longer has the worlds highest incarceration rate. The cycle feeds on itself. Call it a "more virtuous cycle."

This is what democracy does. Democracy has a habit of accumulating feedback loops: welfare states, slavery, identity politics, profits from immigration, frivolous law suits, military profits, profits from college subsidies, and social security voters. In all these cases there is a feedback loop. Someone is getting paid. That someone is turning around and either paying back the senators or voting for them. Feedback loops basically run democracies. Everything the left does is a series of feedback loops. Why do they import hostile immigrants? Votes and profits from globalization will pay them back. Why can't social security be reformed? The elderly will stop paying back senators by voting against them. Why are colleges subsidized? Teachers unions pay congress back with campaign contributions. Why does identity politics exist? Activists pay back senators by campaigning for them. Paybacks don't have to be monetary. Votes and activism will also work. It's all the same in democracy: feedback loops.

Let's invent a feedback loop of our own.

The way to smash a leftist feedback loop without a civil war is to invent another feedback loop that cannibalizes off the previous one by making the previous feedback loop unprofitable. In other words, deport their immigrant investment. And while you are at it, deport white liberals as well — to Africa. No one can ever accuse you of being unequal that way. And why bring the Third World to America when you can deport the spoiled brats of the First World to Africa? Also, make refusing to uphold your laws itself a crime. Then deport the leftist judge who refuses to uphold you laws — to Africa. In fact, just deport them all. Where? Say it with me now.


Make everything the left does a crime.
Make taking money for leftist causes a crime.
Make George Soros a crime.
Make propagating leftist ideology hate speech.
Make censorship and no platforming a crime.
Make receiving profits from harassment lawsuits a crime.
Make hiring illegals a crime.
Make renting to illegals a crime.
Make refusing to uphold your laws a crime.
Make uncooperative generals a crime.
Make all crimes punishable by deportation.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Trichotomy of trichotomies

There are three areas of competition: three battlegrounds. The state, the firm, and the mind of the public.

There are three forces. Anarchy is increasing: which is to say that technology is reducing the barrier to entry for power. Genetic enhancement will come along soon and increase the number of people who will be able to obtain power. It should also make humans both less xenophobic and less egalitarian. After all, if a corporation that genetically modifies human beings wants to reduce its tax burden it may engineer people to be less concerned with equality, and if it wants workers who get along with each other better,it may engineer humans who are less racist. These two forces pull against the Cathedral and disrupt its ability to control what human beings think. The ideas of the Cathedral are built on legacy genetics from a bygone tribal era. When those genes are disrupted so will its ideology.

There are Three Horseman of the liberal apocalypse. Islam destroys liberalism through invasion and out-breeding. Patriarchy also destroys liberalism though out-breeding. Capitalism destroys liberalism by destroying the genetics of egalitarianism. The middle class will want their children to be successful and will have the money to pay for genetic enhancement. Expecting parents will get on a plane to fly to China and visit a clinic in order to have their future children enhanced. They will want happy children, healthy children, smart children, and gifted children. They will inadvertently make their children "more like capitalism," and capitalism will act as a selection force on the genetics of the human race. Even liberals who loudly proclaim their love of equality will practice genetic enhancement of their offspring secretly.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Explain to me why Jordan Peterson matters

I can't for the life of me care what this man thinks. He never shuts up and he never says what he means. "Blah blah blah I hate reason." Please dear God can anyone sum him up for me so I don't have to put up with listening to his shit? Leave your summary in the comment section if you like.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Aphorisms no. 35

In the end it isn't enough to be right. You have to be alive to rub it in your enemies faces. Liberalism destroys itself. Nothing so weak deserves to live, and survival is the minimum qualification for morality.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Aphorisms no. 34

Serenity and outrage cannot exist in the same mind at the same time. If you want the one, you cannot have the other, and serenity is a better drug than outrage.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

The relentless march of anarchy

On March 6th, 2017, Moldbug published Patchwork: A Political System for the 21st Century. Reactionary Future once claimed that he was the one true interpreter of Moldbug. He spent months lecturing us on exactly what the one true Moldbug was. Then he published this;
"I have become extremely convinced that the project of rejecting imperium in imperio is one which can be successfully fused with the work of Alaisdair MacIntyre, and such a move would require rejecting a great deal of Moldbug’s theorizing. Moldbug worked heavily with the tradition of Mises, and therefore Hume and Smith, to whom Mises is a derivative. This theory contains a very specific conception of man which rejects the functional status of men, hence the fallacious “is-Ought” distinction and Mises (derivative) relativism. There really isn’t much in Mises which wasn’t already elaborated by Smith and Hume’s moral theories, and Mises transformation of this conceptual scheme into an assertion of objective contextless axiomatic certainty is unconscionable. It is really a tradition, with clear roots going back from Mises to Smith and Hume, who themselves were just justifying a set of contingent Calvinist/ English Protestant ethical positions. Their project failed, and Mise’s project failed."
Bullshit! The project of anarchy has not yet succeeded. Just wait for cheep nukes and genetic engineering. Patchwork is the inevitable outcome of your nuke costing "36 EASY payments of $599,999." It's the future fam. It has not just not failed, it is inevitable. A world of genetically engineered Wrath of Khan √úbermensch and suitcase nukes is a world without absolute sovereigns, to say nothing of even the possibility of governments. The task is not to engineer back to the past, al la communism or absolutism, but to go way the fuck forward to totalitarian capitalism. Capitalism will eventually infiltrate the human species genetically. It's inevitable goy. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." The task now is to grapple with it to prevent total destruction of all that is good, true, and green. We must join with the dark lord or be destroyed! Ba ha ha ha!

Everything in the modern world is reacting against capitalism. The Anti-Puritan stares into the maw of the Behemecoatyl Basilisk that is capitalism and says "yes! take me lord!" Capital will consume the human race. Get over it.

But putting aside jokes, RF said about exitocracy;
"The patchwork of differing political states (one communist, one white nationalist etc.) is an absurd concept"
For now. For now. (Rubs hands. Evil smile.) In the future it may be the only type of national government possible. I look around me and I see that not only has leftism not failed, it has succeeded wildly. The Cathedral is an abomination that every reactionary admits is basically unstoppable. It is only failing now because of the internet. In other words, this thing, created by the anarchy of guns giving birth to democracy, is only failing because a new technology is displacing it. This thing, whatever it is, was the product of technology and is now being destroyed by new technology. With capitalism's latest upgrade, the old software is obsolete. This doesn't mean that anarchy has failed. It means it has deepened. The internet is the information warfare version of an anarchy-enabling technology. Corporations like Facebook are forced to use algorithms to out-compete other companies. These algorithms trap humans in filter bubbles and tribalize them. The old media is disrupted. The new method of manipulating public opinion is now accomplished through using people's existing biases to drive them to the polls. With no competing information getting in, narratives are constructed in a customized and automated process for each and every voter. Voters are micotargeted in swing districts. Data is mined to determine which voters are to be targeted. Some are red pilled, others are white pilled. Enemies are black pilled. And this is done right down to the individual level. Individuals are targeted instead of the public as a whole. The Cathedral is just being reborn as a micromanager of everyone's opinions.

A part of pulling your head out of your ass is realizing that political systems must be designed for future conditions, or face being disrupted by them. There is this absurd attitude that says we must never try anything new because we have no guarantee that it will work. Only old political systems will work, they say. But these systems don't work. The proof is that they are dead. They failed to compete and we are here now. We got to where we currently are through their deaths. Advocating a return to the past should be even more absurd from that perspective. "This system failed, now let's go back to it," is the logic at work. A form of absolutism might work, but it will need an answer to the internet (now), cheep nukes (in the future), and genetic engineering, (in the near future). Once it is done solving all of those problems it will resemble communist China, and not absolutism. It will have massive propaganda outlets, censorship, reeducation camps, political prisoners, etc. It will pretend to be progressive while really being corporatist. It will have it's own version of political correctness. It that what you want?

How do you know that no one has tried absolutism? The world we live in is the result of people trying to maximize their power. Mao had a fuck load of power. Kim Jong-un can put your whole family in a concentration camp.

No, the way to maximize power is to give people the illusion of choice. Democracy does this — badly. A governance marketplace would be more convincing. How can you reasonably claim to be oppressed when you choose your legal code? If I give you the power to decide what Rights Protection Agency will defend your rights: if I let you choose the laws you live under, how can you complain? How am I oppressing you? There is a certain point where a political formula becomes truthful, when it ceases to be a lie. I want to get to that point. I want to make the illusion no longer be an illusion. I want to turn perceptual freedom into concrete freedom.

Recommended Movies

Baraka is a film that shows human beings in a more natural environment. The title of the film has nothing to do with our recent former President, though the title does share a similar derivation. Taken together, Baraka and The Human Scale form a study in contrasts. The Human Scale is all about alienation while Baraka is all about the natural world and tribal lifestyles. These two films are an indisputable influence on my thinking, and form visually the concept of rift. Baraka is also the best of Ron Fricke’s three films, with the other two being Samsara and Chronos, which I have also seen. Chronos is more about humans and their empires. All of these films are epic in their own unique ways. The Ron Fricke films were inspired by Francis Ford Coppola's Koyaanisqatsi, for which Fricke also did camera work. They all have a ham-fisted environmental message. But if you can overlook that they are magnificent works of art.

Stills from the movies.

Hindu Tmples in Nepal from Baraka (1992)

The Balinese Monkey Chant, or Kekack from Baraka (1992)

Monkey from Baraka (1992)

Thousand Hands, from Samsara (2011)

This is a type of harajuku style fashion if I'm not mistaken. From Samsara (2011)

Burma from Samsara (2011)

Friday, March 10, 2017

Notes for personal use

Reading list

Shia Labeouf's, "He Will Not Divide Us Flag" Taken Down by Weaponized Autism

In 24 hours no less. /pol was able to find the location of the flag using plane flight paths and star charts. Praise Kek.

Tribal Property Systems

Just musing about alternative property systems here.

Paradoxically, British minarchistic feudalism granted more property rights to the man who could pay than capitalism now does. This is because of the triumph of democracy over monarchy. Democracy is a special kind of property right that gives every adult non-felon a theoretical equal ownership of their government. Unlike corporate stock, a vote is neither fungible nor cumulable, and does not pay a dividend. It is a property arrangement that was produced by the equal weapons of the revolutionary war, (equal weapons created equal societies both in ancient Greece and the Colonial period). Since the world no longer has equal weapons it is a property arrangement that could not reoccur, that is, democracies cannot be created in the modern era without outside sponsorship.

This property right in government — the vote, is a legacy of a past technological system and the material conditions that it produced. The vote is a property right. What is owned? The state.

When you look at a western democracy and see its dysfunction what you are seeing is the inevitable friction between the democratic property system which we call the right to vote, and the capitalist property system. Democracy is non-transferable, non-cumulable, and pays no dividend. Corporate capitalism is the opposite in every way. All capitalist forms of property are transferable, cumulable, heritable, and can pay either a dividend, profit, or rent.

So democracy is akin to a communist property system running a capitalist marketplace.

And yes, there are different types of property systems. Soviet communism failed for many reasons, (1. 2. 3.) but I think the chief one was the total failure of communists to develop a practical form of equalist property. Indeed, the communists considered property as fundamentally hostile to their goals — a stupid mistake.

Every political system that works well is defined by an accompanying property system that reinforces it. Consider the property system of feudalism. It can be described using a simple relationship: service in exchange for ownership of some portion of the natural world, typically land. The whole society is defined like this from top to bottom with all relationships terminating and concentrating at the top in the personage of the king. Here are some examples;

—Barony (possession of lands in exchange for military service of you and your tenants)
—Knight-service (possession of land in exchange for service to your lord)
—Scutage (payment by a knight to exempt himself from obligatory military service)
—Fee simple title (payment of a tax in exchange for property)

Fee simple title is all that remains of the feudal system. When you pay your property taxes you are paying the fee for your title. Previously, you might pay this fee through military service to your lord. All of that was abolished in favor of money. This is stupid because the ability to make money is not universal. But the ability to wage war appears to exist in all able bodied young men.

Why did capitalism triumph? We can speculate.

Society tends to favor those property systems that accommodate human desires. Technology erodes central power by bypassing it, creating peer-to-peer relationships. Typically, power is built on some monopoly, say "land for service." Someone comes along and invents a technology that allows a person to make a living without needing land. So technology has disrupted that monopoly, routing around it.

The property relationships that prevail are the ones that fulfill human desires. However, technology does not just fulfill desires. As I have talked about repeatedly with birth control and other technologies, technology can modify human desires, trapping people in low level equilibriums, suppressing some desires while accommodating others, and creating moral decay.

So technology does not just fulfill desires but it creates the conditions that produce a range of options to choose from, and it can shape human desires by limiting the range of options available.

The purpose of this article is to create new property systems for a new political system. Never mind that these systems aren't compatible with democracy. They are not designed for democracy but the system that comes after it. Also note that just as capitalism helped destroy feudalism and create democracy, any property system may impose itself on a regime type, and force that regime to change from outside, so long as it can get its property relationships enforced somehow with hard security functions. Beyond the need for hard security functions (police enforcement), what determines the success of a new property system is (a), do people desire it more, and (b), does it alter the conditions of its environment such as to make the environment more suited to itself? That is, does it economically terraform the space it inhabits? In the same way that termites alter their environment to make it more suited to themselves, a good property system alters its economic and political environment to make it more suited to its own expansion.

It should be noted that although capitalism destroyed feudalism and helped create democracy this does not mean that capitalism and democracy are not in conflict with each other. The neocameral state is more suited to pure capitalism. It is an historical accident of monarchy that the feudal system turned into this rather than a for-profit corporation. Capitalism and democracy are misaligned with each other due to their having opposite property systems of their respective forms of corporate stock (transferable shares vs. non-transferable votes). But they are both voting systems; both the voter and share holder vote, and so they are alike enough to have lasted this long together.

So in summary, the tension between capitalism and democracy is the result of the difference between capitalism and democracies property systems.

A vote is theoretical equal ownership of government. It is;
(a) non-transferable
(b) non-cumulable
(c) pays no dividend
(d) non-heritable

Where capitalist property systems are;
(a) transferable
(b) cumulable
(c) pays profit, rent, or dividend
(d) heritable

Both are property. Both are votes. Both are commodifications of relationships.

Feudalism was capitalism in government. You could by your job (say the job of tax collector). Hence, jobs were "titles" just like land titles. You could accumulate titles. Those titles payed rents and were heritable. You could pass of the job to your son.

One can solve this tension by making democracy more like capitalism, or by making capitalism more like democracy.

The communists did not make capitalism more like democracy. That is the mutualist route. Marxism-Leninism tried to abolish property altogether.

Moldbug sought to make democracy more like capitalism. Hence, neocameralism and patchwork. One may think of the Moldbugian position as the precise opposite of mutualism.

Property is ownership backed by violence. Ultimately what stops someone from taking your property is the police officer. Let us say that I come over to you property.  I decide to start building a tiny house on your front lawn. I get the lumber, the concrete, the wiring, and the roofing shingles. There I am with a hammer pounding away at nails building my tiny little house on your lawn. I've got concrete bolts and everything so I can connect the timbers to the foundation — which I have already laid last night while you were sleeping. I have like 5 guys with me. And we have been building so fast the house is almost complete. You wake up to find half a house already built on your front lawn.

You come out of your house in your bath robe and say; "what the fuck are you doing on my front lawn?"

To which I reply: "it's not your lawn. It's may lawn. And I'm building a nice tiny little house on it."

You look at me in dumbfounded amazement and say; "uh, uh, oh, well, I'm gonna call the police!"

So you call the cops.

Now chances are the cops are probably going to arrest me and charge me with trespassing. They will probably also charge me with vandalism since I dug up your lawn to lay the foundation of my tiny little house.

So what is the point of all this, and what is property? We need a specific definition.
Property is defined as ownership enforced by violence.
But what is ownership?

Ownership are conditions of use, where the first condition is that only a single designated person may use it. So a better definition is;
Property is a series of conditions of use where the list of conditions is enforced by the violence of the state.
What are those conditions? Well, let's list some of them.

With the exception of business charters, only a single person has designated ownership.
You may not move an object belonging to the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of theft)
You may not change the object of the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of vandalism)
You may not inhabit the land of the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of trespassing)

In the final analysis it boils down to a list of conditions of use backed by violence of the state. There may be other conditions of use not listed above.

A vote is a form of property (ownership of the state) with many conditions of use. You may not collect votes. You may not transfer votes. You may not pass votes on to your children. And a vote pays no dividend. (That last part is a mistake since a dividend would reward voters for fiscal discipline and balanced budgets).

As a side note, observe that more conditions of use actually protects the average poor person from the rapaciousness of people who are more powerful. If votes could be transferred you would get a steady accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands. Eventually you wind up back at feudalism. Capitalism may paradoxically depend on the very democracy that is hostile to it in order to prevent from turning back into feudalism. But I digress.

The point here is that property is a series of conditions for use enforced by state violence, and that this means that any new property type can be constructed by defining new conditions for use, not just the limited property types of capitalism as it currently exists. We can invent an instrument of property by inventing new conditions for use. As long as the state is willing to enforce with violence the list of conditions then we have ourselves a new form of property. The easiest way to do this is with the open-ended mechanism of the contract, which allows individuals to construct customized conditions for use, in contrast to the predetermined conditions of land, cars, estates, marriages, etc.

Tribal Conditions of Use

Property designated as tribal property may only be transferred to other members of the tribe.
Membership in the tribe may only be conferred on persons belonging to a particular race, and who agree with the values of the society.
Property is transferable, but only between men.
Property is heritable, but only be the male members.
Property may pay a dividend, rent, or profit.
Property is NOT cumulable. A lone person may not accumulate property.
Only families may accumulate property.
Family property can only be bought or sold with the permission of at least one other MALE member of the family related to the original patriarch by blood.

The result of these condition is a property institution that forces men related by blood to coordinate their economic activity with each other, withhold economic power from women, and invest in their families. It is a semi-feudal capitalist system with equalist features. Imagine a democracy where only men can vote, and where men of a family must decide how to vote collectively in order for their vote to count, (because the family votes and not the individuals within it). The men are charged with representing their family interests. They must all mark the ballot the same way for every issue/office voted upon for their vote to be counted at all. They vote collectively as a family. Now imagine that this political system is coupled with the economic system described above. It's just a thought.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

The Gnostic Failure Mode

Every time I try to argue with someone who has not been red pilled about democracy I inevitably encounter Gnosticism.

Of course it isn't actually Gnosticism. The real thing died thousands of years ago. I'm just using the term as a catchall for "anyone who prefers pleasant lies to harsh truths," which I guess is everyone. It seems especially prevalent in politics since politics is one of those subjects that you can't do controlled experiments on, and because the human brain is uniquely evolved to believe anything it wants where politics is concerned.

In politics, Gnosticism is any behavior that involves arguing from morality, principles, ideals, etc. These things simply do not exist in the physical universe. Nothing in your head is actually out "there" in the real world.

Let me clarify, because this sounds like a pretty radical statement.

What you see is not reality. It is a symbolic interpretation of reality. Your eyes cannot see ultra-violet light or infra red, radio waves, gamma rays, x rays, etc. What you see is just the visible spectrum.

Your ears do not hear above or below certain frequencies.

The reality you experience is a tiny fraction of what actually is there, and, you experience it from only one tiny small viewpoint on a small planet in an average galaxy of no significance, on the distant edge of a spiral arm of that galaxy. Your experience of reality is vastly limited by scale, and you experience only a minuscule fraction of it.

On top of all of this, you corrupt everything you see by running it through a symbolic delusion called thought. You misinterpret it with language, since all language lies about reality by grossly oversimplifying it. Words are basically categories for things. The word "chair" refers to all objects that fit the archetype of a chair. It is a category of objects.

Every noun is a category of objects.
Ever verb is a category of actions.
Each adjective is a category of modifiers that modify nouns.
Each adverb is a category of modifiers that modify verbs.

All that is really there is atoms and void. (Though a physicist might quibble with that statement a little.) The categories are NOT REAL. Only the pile of atoms is real. The object "chair" is just a category humans have assigned to the pile of atoms known as chair. The word is not really real. You probably think in language, right? So you think in a system of categories that grossly over simplifies reality. This is what is meant be saying that language corrupts our understanding of reality by oversimplifying it. Words are categories and categories are oversimplifications.

To add insult to injury, in the realm of politics, people lie compulsively. They don't even use the correct words to describe things because they have agendas. They ignore facts. They present biased accounts. Even their memories of political events can change to suite agendas.

So in politics the vast majority of stuff that you and everyone you know talks about isn't even real. Even when it is real, it can't help but use language, and language oversimplifies things.

Many of the words you use don't refer to anything physical: "existentialism," "freedom," "logic," "love," "hate," "racism," "liberty," etc. A huge portion of vocabulary is not even real. It's abstract.

Thoughts may exist in your head, but electrical signals in your brain are all that actually exists in the physical universe. Thought is a symbolic delusion — a kind of programming language for biological robots. it is NOT REAL. Only atoms, void, and electrical signals in your brain are real.

The electrical signals are real. The thoughts are not real.

To understand this let's compare the word people use to describe something with the physical object it describes, if any. The word is the referent. The thing it refers to is called the object.

Referent                Object (what it refers to)
Chair-------------->A class of objects in the real world
Table-------------->A class of objects IRL called "table"
Dirt---------------->A substance IRL called "dirt"
House------------->A thing IRL that you live in
etc. etc.

Now let's do this for abstract concepts.

Referent                Object (what it refers to)
Equality---------->An idea in someones head, just a brainwave
Love-------------->An idea in someones head, a brainwave
Liberty------------>A brainwave in someones head
Racism----------->An idea in someones head, just a brainwave

Equality is just a brainwave.

This may seem comical. But yes, all of those abstract ideas only refer to brainwaves. What else could they refer to? They aren't real. There is no "thing" in the real world called "equality" or "racism." Now of course that doesn't mean there isn't police brutality, discrimination, violence, etc. Nobody would deny that a violent act is violent. Obviously if the cop is beating you with a nightstick the truncheon is very real. Violence is very real. Just ask Antifa.

So why do these concepts exist? Why are humans capable of abstract thought? Why do we have word-categories for things that are unreal?

Well some word-categories are for planning purposes. Math is abstract (non-real) and yet can be applied to the real world. That's why engineering calculations work. So some abstractions serve a purpose. But these aren't like that. The ones I have listed above are all feelings and religious words.

Yes. Religious words.

Imagine that you have a tribe in the jungle thousands of years ago. Everyone in the tribe is related genetically by some distant relative. How could they not be? In a group of about 300 people simple math dictates that after about 5 or 6 generations absolutely everyone is going to be a distant cousin to someone else. It's going to be massively inbred.

So anything that harms your tribe harms your own genetics one way or another because you are related to everyone there. Even the most distant guy there is like your 3rd cousin or something. So ideas that unify your tribe against a common enemy have an inherent advantage where inclusive fitness is concerned. Any bullshit idea, no matter how ridiculous, which unifies the men and fends off a common enemy that threatens to wipe you out is going to have an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint. And this is why religious notions exist, why religions exist, why political religions exist, and why people believe bullshit ideas as long as they unify them into a tribe-like solidarity.

"Racism" is a tribal signifier with a religious and political meaning. It translates roughly as "mortal enemy of our tribe." "Racist" basically translates as "demon outcast loser."

The point here is not to bash the left, thought that's always fun. The point is to understand how adults think politically.

This is how human society works. People form common religious ideas — Schelling points basically, around which they can hang tribal cohesiveness. Humans need an outside. They need an Other. They also need an inside, an Interior. But they also want to maximize their power. Small coalitions have little appeal, so they group into two large factions, two large tribes, "left-wing" and "right-wing." It allows them to simultaneously indulge their tribalism while having the largest possible coalition. That, and the mathematics of first-past-the-post systems.

And they construct make-believe ideas for that purpose. Childhood make-believe is actually preparation for adult political and religious make-believe. We don't grow out of our delusional childhood state — we grow into it. And as adults we substitute political and religious delusions for the games we played as children. Those games we played; cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, were all preparation for adult "us" vs "them" games.

The difference is that unlike children, adults will actually murder you if you don't share their make-believe ideas.

Don't believe in equality? Get murdered.
Don't believe in Allah? Get murdered.
Don't believe in democracy? Get murdered.
Don't believe in women's rights? Get bombed.

The beliefs change from one era to the next but the "get murdered" part is eternal.

And there's always a perfectly MORAL sounding reason for the "get murdered" part, and it is never legitimate. No, you may not murder racists.

Gnostic thinking is pathological in the human species where politics is concerned. This is because politics originates out of the human capacity for make-believe. What everyone is really doing in politics is tribal make-believe. This make-believe serves the purpose of making solidarity. It is a legacy genetic impulse, a legacy code of human DNA.

When someone makes a moral political argument they are assuming that what they want is even achievable. Most of the time it's not. They think this way because they are misapplying an ancient tribal tendency to the modern world. Obviously, the current society is way too large to be governed at Dunbar scales. It is entirely too complex.

Democracy encourages Gnosticism by telling everyone they have a voice and it matters. It doesn't. This is like telling everyone that they get a vote on how to build the Golden Gate Bridge. Since everyone is not a trained engineer they can't possibly know what they are talking about.

So an argument with a typical voter is me telling them that x delusion is not possible or y delusion will destroy everything, while they hyperventilate and shake uncontrollably because I am inadvertently counter-signaling against their tribe. That's evil, and they shake uncontrollably because people who don't subscribe to the myths of their tribe are literally Hitler and must be gassed.

When you counter-signal against someone's tribe they simply do not hear what you are saying. Fight-or-flight takes over. Their morals and beliefs are bound to their survival. Even now, hundreds of years into the Industrial Revolution, and thousands of years after society has exited tribalism in most places, this impulse still persists. Morality is tribal.

Oh, and speaking of morality. Chew on this principle; all moral assertions are hidden pleas for political violence, whether the speaker knows it or not, because implementation of a moral principle always leads there, and because moral arguments that are not backed by state force, (law), are physically meaningless signaling.

To fully understand this aspect of human nature we must realize that all of these things; politics, make-believe, religious ideas, religious political ideas, morality, and signaling, are all outcomes of inclusive fitness. They are all all manifestations of the same thing. There is no such thing as morality outside inclusive fitness, which is why people don't really feel moral emotions towards their enemies.

Morality is like an onion.

You feel the greatest connection to your family, especially your spouse and children. That's called love. With the next layer you feel attachment to your friends and community. After that comes your nation and race, then the species, and the biosphere. Natural human morality is thus nepotistic, chauvinistic, racist, nationalistic, etc. It is interesting that English has a shame world for all behaviors of natural human morality. Equality is pretty much an inversion of natural morality.

Modern morality turns inclusive fitness against itself. This serves the interests of capitalism and universal franchise democracy, where all are interchangeable commodities or interchangeable votes. Since conformist morality flows downhill from the power system, and the power system is against natural morality, socially correct morality is against natural morality.

The virtue of capitalism is that it forces a person to serve society in order to serve their own genetic interests. The need for money makes your serve society through labor to get it. Also, serving strangers allows society to exit tribalism, and the extreme violence of the ancient world.

The sin of capitalism is that it makes a person serve strangers rather than their own inclusive fitness. This feels oppressive, and it is. It alienates the man from not just from his own labor but from his neighbor. He serves an endless parade of strangers in a customer service job instead of his community or family.

There is no such thing as "objective morality." And if there were it would be irrelevant. So-called objective morality would have no way of forcing itself on the world, and the attempt to do so would make the person doing the forcing into Hitler Mao Stalin. Trying to make the world objectively moral is indistinguishable in the physical universe from operating concentration camps, mass mind control, etc. There is no difference. The thought delusion of universal morality always results in the concrete murder of millions in physical reality, because thought reality has no way of imposing itself on the world.

There are only billions of subjective moralities, (plural), and so when we say that Hitler was a moral man this is not a joke, and not a compliment to Hitler, but an indictment of morality. From his perspective he was moral. And what other perspective is there? There is no morality outside of the mind of the man who creates it. If you are moral in your mind then you are moral to you. Does any real chance of dissuading you from your horrific plan exist if you are utterly convinced? No, of course not. And this is the problem with morality. It motivates such horrible things. It is fundamentally connected to the tribal urge. It is inseparable from it. There is no morality without a powerful lust to exterminate the wrongdoer/outsider. None. Not even leftist bromides about tolerance. No exceptions.

Morality is subjective and has no way of imposing itself on the world. Morality is inseparably connected to tribalism.

Morality evolved to defend the tribe in an environment where both total equality towards insiders, and genocidal hostility towards outsiders was the norm. You will never disentangle moral inclination from genocide because there is no functional emotional difference between the actions of cheering the downfall of evil, wishing for justice, and desiring to exterminate. The same essential sentiment and psychological construction fuels them all. Oh yes. Analytically we all know there is a difference. But morality does not come from reason. Attempts to confine it to the reason box will always fail. Robespierre was a bastion of reason. In the end, it is an animal sentiment. Morality is gene guarding. That is the emotion that drives it. To pretend that it can be separated from racism, tribalism, nationalism, is to fundamentally misunderstand its nature. Even Richard Dawkins is sneering like a xenophobic monkey when he ridicules religious people. The notion that there can be some dictatorship of reason is hopelessly foolish and doomed to failure. It's monkeys all the way down.

It gets worse.

Because the need for sanctimony exists independently from the existence of evil in the world. Sadism is pleasureful to people when they think they have a moral excuse. Because when they don't feel guilty about it. So they search for that moral excuse high and low and are always looking for a non-conformists, a scapegoat — someone they can use for the masturbatory pleasure of tormenting. Someone who "deserves it" — and the outsider always deserves it. There is no moral sentiment for the outsider precisely because morality was designed by inclusive fitness to destroy the outsider.

The proof of this assertion lies in the fact that millions of people sit in front of their televisions every week to watch police procedurals with terrible acting just so they can feel the rush of sadism when the "bad guy" "gets what is coming to him."  It is this need for pleasure in applying the jackboot to another that earns billions for the studios and employs thousands of actors. Entertainment is a litany of appetites. "Comedy" laughs at the suffering of others. Detective stories gratify sadistic moralizing. Soaps give women the drama they wish they could create in their relationships. Action lets men act out fantasies of violence they only wish they could exercise against the innocent. The other stories involve a tribe of people flying around in a starship, or killing zombies, or being incels together, or doing other tribalist things. TOGETHER. Of all these categories, tribalism sells best, especially when combined with action.

Evil can never die. The market for sanctimony will not let it. People need to feel morally superior to others, and they need to take sadistic pleasure in the destruction of the "bad guy." Thus, if bad guys are not forth coming they must be invented. Someone must be made into Hitler.

The problem with the world is not that there are Nazis and racists, but that there are not nearly enough to sate market demand for hysterical moral sadism. Monkeys need Others. They need enemies. We will make them up if they aren't there.

So there will always be evil in the world. As "real evil" (whatever that means) slowly dies under the relentless advancement of capitalist-induced peace, morality itself will become the source of evil. The craving for sanctimony will cause ever larger displays of hooting and prancing. The last Nazi will never be gassed because they will never stop finding Nazis to gas. They will invent them. And ironically, to think that a Nazi is subhuman is to agree with the Nazi that some are inferior, and that some deserve to be gassed.

And the moral people of the world will ensure the continuation of evil forever. If there were no evil in the world morality would have to invent it. That which is your highest virtue will always be your hottest oven. There is no escaping this. You are damned to a hell created of your own morals. Because your morals are a legacy code.

And nobody is ever going to get it. Thinking about politics from an engineering perspective is an alien concept to people because it defeats the purpose. The whole purpose of politics is tribalism. If people didn't want tribes, they would have subsumed the entire function of government to the marketplace years ago, and we would have a private law society. Without tribalism, it is perfectly possible to have private rights enforcement agencies, private law, private courts, etc. Anarcho capitalism actually works really well without tribalism, and government simply becomes the "governance marketplace," a la Jennifer Government. You wind up with a society the way it is described by David Friedman.

So the task of anarcho capitalism is to discover how to force the tribal impulse into subordination to the governance marketplace, either by selectively indulging it as a market choice, or by suppressing it successfully. Assuming that you want to suppress tribalism instead of embrace it. For that see nationalism.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

What Nature Has Ruled Against

Nature has pronounced judgement against white guilt. Those who hate themselves too much to reproduce are to be destroyed by cultural sterility. Guilt over original sin use to fuel the conquest, extermination, and conversion of foreign genes. Under the influence of men like (((Howard Zinn))) it has been turned into white racial guilt. It now fuels the conquest and non-reproductive extinction of native genes. Gnon pronounces pathological guilt "guilty" and sentences it to extinction. If that makes the world more sociopathic, less liberal, or more conservative, so be it.

The religious reproduce more than the non-religious. Gnon pronounces atheism guilty and sentences atheism to extinction.

The cucked branches of Christianity reproduce at below break-even rates. The non-cucked religions do not. Gnon sentences the cucked religions to extinction. All future Christians shall be Amish, Mennonites, Mormons, and Orthodox, with some angry Westboro types thrown in the mix. Thus saith the Lord thy Gnon.

Muslims reproduce. Apparently, believing in a divine right to conquer others is good for birth rates. Who knew? Gnon smiles on Islam. Thus saith the Lord your Gnon, Islam shall dominate. Break-even is 2.1 children per couple in the first world and 2.3 in the developing world. See below for a related infographic.

Gnon finds the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement too pathetic to be worthy of life. Humans shall not go extinct, Gnon says, but the VHEM shall. All future humans shall be chauvinistic.

Gnon rules against feminism. Feminism shall be sentenced to death by childlessness. All future females shall be submissive. The female sex shall be rendered more submissive by the selection mechanism of birth control. In the future, all females shall be the product of a thousand generations of natural selection by birth control against women who don't want to have children. All women a thousand years from now shall be submissive, sex starved, and mad with baby rabies. Thus saith the Lord Gnon.

The sun will go supernova. In the long-term, Gnon finds only space traveling humans worthy of life. All hail Elon Musk! May his wealthy patrons reproduce forever and ever. Amen. Those who don't believe in space travel shall be burnt in the oven of the sun. Those who cannot afford to leave Earth are doomed.

Gnon rules against genderless freaks. If nobody knows what parts you have between you legs you cannot reproduce. Gnon rules against transgenders by making them sterile. Gender is good, thus saith Gnon.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Diversity is our strength

Seriously, it is. And no I am not talking about racial diversity. I am talking about a diversity of ideas. The Pepe frogs, Anime Nazis, Synthwave artists, MAGA hat people, old geezers, red necks, and based stickmen of the world make us stronger. It throws our enemy off balance. There is no monolithic conservative establishment to attack, no boring cucks, no one dimensional arguments. It's far harder to argue against an enemy with a thousand different arguments. This is Fabian fascism bro, and like the type of socialism after which I have borrowed the name, it is a decentralized thing with no leader. That makes it stronger.

Monday, March 6, 2017

You Oppress Yourself

All modern systems of oppression are created by the people who are oppressed by them. The people attack anyone who tells them this truth. As a result, the people guarantee their own ignorance. The wise man looks around and understands the system. He responds to the incentive created by the people. Rather than tell the people that they are a legion of ignorant fools, (which would only provoke their hostility), he climbs the social ladder and positions himself to take a percentage of the profits from their oppression. He recognizes that the people are cognitive misers and are unworthy of freedom. They are not willing to take the minimum amount of effort necessary to stop feeding energy into the systems that oppress them. They are not willing to study economics. They are not willing to think. "Fuck them. Pay me," he says.

All modern systems of oppression are perpetuated by the oppressed themselves, who also perpetuate their own ignorance by responding with hostility to those who remind them they are blithering idiots. I won't explain the economics to you for the proofs I am about to give you. If you want understand that, it is up to you to find out for yourself. I don't reward cognitive misers by doing their work for them. I'm too lazy.


(1). Voters vote for rent control, which causes housing shortages and raises rents on all non-rent controlled units. If you vote for liberal politicians you vote to raise your own housing costs through restrictions on growth, open space laws, form and space codes, zoning ordinances, etc. All of these restrict growth in housing stock and cause artificial increases in the price of rent. The liberal poor react with the greatest hostility towards new development.

(2). Voters vote for subsidies for college education, which lowers their own wages in the long-term by increasing the supply of competitors in their own field. By voting for college subsidies, you lowered your own wage.

(3). Women open their legs for dominant men, thus guaranteeing the continuation of male dominance by rewarding it. They could choose unattractive beta males, but won't. The individual preference of the female for the strong, tall, confident, rich male, creates a competition among men to be the most dominant player in society. All winner-take-all systems are built on hypergamy. The inequality of the world is built on the sexual inequality of female sexual preferences. Hypergamy creates patriarchy and inequality, as men race each other for pussy power. The viscous competition of capitalism is a direct result of the competition for sex.

(4). McDonald's exists because you have eaten there. You finance fast food. It would not exist otherwise. You created fast food by paying for it.

(5). Oil companies are only in business because you fill up your tank with gas. The BP Gulf Oil Spill was financed by your purchases. So was the Exxon Valdez incident.

(6). Liberals vote for the free immigration that will destroy their country. Once America is no longer White it will no longer be free. The project of liberalism ends when it succeeds. Belief in equality, rule of law, the Constitution, etc., are White beliefs. Immigration also lowers your wage by increasing market competition.

(7). The low IQ support communism. Peasants are generally low IQ. Communism kills peasants by the millions. It is probably more effective at eugenics than Hitler.

(8). Venezuela, where millions of idiots voted for their own destruction.

Democracy is in fact a system for getting the stupid to voluntarily support their own oppression by the elite.


Most of my readers are neoreactionaries I assume. So most of you have probably not voted against your own interests in quite some time. In this case it is more accurate to say that stupid voters oppress you, since your not actually doing this to yourself. Most NRx types understand Econ 101.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Neocameral Future: Chapter 1b, Proving Genetic Rift

Go back to Chapter 1a.
Go to the Contents.

Chapter 1b:
Proving Genetic Rift

Some have asserted that the assertions of legacy and rift require evidence, and that I have built my theory on a "house of cards" by making these assertions. They point to relatively recent changes in the human genome, and to epigenetics as possible evidence contrary to my assertion. All I can say is that the first assertion I have made is proven deductively by Darwinian theory itself, and the second assertion is proven through a combination of inductive observation regarding the sudden rise in the background extinction level, and the deductive knowledge that humans themselves are part of the biosphere they are destroying. Allow me to explain these two points, because they do not appear self-evident to everyone as they do to myself.

First, Darwinian theory simply makes no sense without the concept of legacy. There must be maladaptive alleles in the genome of an organism for selective pressures to even work on changing it. The term "legacy" is simply a synonymy for these alleles. Legacy code literally translates as "maladaptive alleles." If an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, and if no changes in the environment are occurring whatsoever, then the organism is not evolving in any meaningful way, despite the fact that mutations are still occurring. Legacy is simply the production of maladaptive mutations in the face of external changes in conditions. Evolution is not possible without it. Legacy is not a hypothesis. It has already been proven.

The concept of rift, however, is an entirely different assertion. For rift to occur (1), the rate of environmental change must accelerate, and (2), the acceleration must be above the threshold of the organism to keep up through genetic adaption. The conclusive proof of rift is inductive, and comes from the dramatic acceleration in the rate of extinction on planet Earth. On a whole-planet level, rift is simply synonymous with the word anthropocene. Since the background extinction rate has risen by one to two orders of magnitude, the existence of rift is proven conclusively with regards to the biosphere.

However, this still does not prove the case for rift. Because the concept of rift also implies that humans are undergoing a rift between their genetics and environment. There are two proofs of this: one is deductive and the other inductive. Deductively, we may say that humans are part of the biosphere. The biosphere is undergoing mass extinction. Mass extinction will destroy most species. Humans are a species. Thus, humans may undergo extinction.

Inductively, we may point to the dramatic fall in birth rates caused by the invention of birth control, and the migration of humans to the cities. On farms children are an asset. In the cities children are a financial liability. The world is becoming more urban than ever before, and the trend towards birth rates falling below replacement level is occurring worldwide. The technology of reproductive control is spreading like a wave from the European descended cultures to all others. Birth control may be the answer to the question; "why don't we here the radio waves of other intelligent species in the universe?" It could be our Great Filter. We will talk much more about this in other chapters, especially in Chapter 3.

In humans, rift is an assumption. It is the educated guess that humans are not immune to the destructive effects they are having on the biosphere. It is the assumption that if everything else eventually goes extinct, so might us. The concept of rift is not the extinction of humanity itself, but the widening of genetic legacy that leads to eventual extinction. It is conclusively happening to other species on the planet, and there is no reason to believe we will be forever exempt.

Rift is capitalism — at least until capitalism infiltrates us genetically. All that is being asserted is that humans are not immune to the genetic rift they are creating in the biosphere through capitalism.

Go to Chapter 2
Go to the Contents