Sunday, April 30, 2017

Minimal basic rights vs equality

Some years ago when I was in college, someone told me that American civilization was built on White supremacy. At the time, I found the assertion profoundly offensive. No doubt, that was its intended effect. Then I thought about it for a long time, and I eventually concluded that if the foundation of civilization was white supremacy, and you removed the foundation, then you would destroy the civilization, for a building cannot stand without its foundation.

At the time, it was a sickening thought to me.

But the you look around the world, and you see that China is built on Han Chinese supremacy, and Korea on Korean supremacy, and so on and so forth. And I concluded that if equality was the enemy of civilization, and I had a choice between inequality and civilization on the one hand, and equality and a new dark age on the other, that I would prefer civilization to a dark age, and inequality to equality.

And equality IS the enemy of civilization. Witness all the atrocities of communism. What is the thirst for communism but the thirst for equality? If communism had never been tried, then even looking upon it is like looking upon the Medusa — even a glimpse makes a man insane. It is best not even to try. If the pursuit of equality leads to 94 million deaths, then a half-ass pursuit should lead to half as many deaths. It makes no sense to say that equality is "good up until a limit." Or that it is a "worthy endeavor so long as it is not taken to extreme." Half strength poison is just half the lethal dose. Why bother?

The problem with every premise of the indoctrinated class, is that it depends on Gnosticism for its effect. But what if one is a realist? What if realty matters to you and not ideals? If one goes by the Keirsey Temperament system, Idealists, (NF) are a mere 19 % of the population, at max. If the message of the idealist is "destroy yourself for your ideals," then this message should be unfavorably received by most of society, who prefer realism to idealism. If the rest go along with it then it is only because they are shamed into compliance, or bad at inventing ideology.

But let us differentiate between all the different types of equality out there.

Equal outcome, (Impossible and immoral. All the other types are used as a door for it, this is always the true hidden goal. If implemented, it ruins civilization.)
Equal opportunity, (unethical, excuses affirmative action, justifies parasitism)
Equal justice, (realistically impossible since rich people are subject to more attacks from lawsuits)
Equal rights, (impossible, since people will not be equally responsible)
Equal responsibility, (impossible, since the people who should do it, are too inferior to care)
Equal voting rights, (unworkable, since low agency people will destroy the system)
Equal care, (unethical, since criminals must be punished)

Now here are some things that are not equality, but like equality, which I am perfectly comfortable with;

A minimum standard of income, or basic income.
Leaving people alone who obey the law and pay their taxes.
Universal healthcare, (with the right to buy more healthcare).

But these three things above are not equality per say. They are minimums. Leaving decent people alone is a minimum standard of justice. Basic income is a minimum stand of income. Properly done, universal healthcare is a minimum standard of care.

Could we all just have minimal rights rather than equal rights? Could civilization be reconstructed on that basis? There is a concept in philosophy called the social minimum. It is separate and distinct from the notion of equality: a vast open door for parasitism if ever there was one.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Neocameralism is Globalism: or the great immigration/emigration pump of capitalism, and how Moldbug's entire central thesis is flawed

Housing prices just keep going up. What makes anyone think this process will ever stop? Liberals conspire to restrict the supply of housing while dumping immigrants on American shores. This process shows no sign of slowing down. Already I have been priced out of living in Los Angeles.

People seem to think this is a one way pump. It is not. Eventually poor people in the First World will begin emigrating to the Third World to escape high housing prices. It has already started with expat communities abroad, and retirement communities in Mexico. What you are seeing is a planetary sorting effect based on income. There are more upper middle class people in the Third World than in all of the First. They will all want to buy housing in America or Europe. Nationalism isn't just about immigration. It is about your children and grandchildren being able to afford to live in the country of their ancestors. Everything follows the law of supply and demand. Frenchman can no longer afford to live in Paris. Eventually they will no longer afford to live in France. The same thing will happen everywhere. There is no law of nature that says that you will continue to be able to afford your rent in America or Europe. You could be pushed right out. . .


We already live in a Nick Land fantasy. We already live in a patchwork — in case you haven't noticed, Mencius Moldbug is a globalist, and patchwork is inherently a globalist vision. Consider what he is advocating: he wants to divide the world up into thousands of states, let people freely immigrate wherever they want, and then, once the poor are all clustered into ghetto city-states, let them die there. This is the world we already live in, only the patches are larger and the process is slower. Neocameralism is globalism. If implemented it would create a planet of miscegenated people stratified entirely based on IQ. The ideal neocameral "patch" is described as a sovereign real estate corporation that seeks to maximize its real estate value. Here is Moldbug on his own idea:
"A patchwork - please feel free to drop the capital - is any network consisting of a large number of small but independent states. To be precise, each state's real estate is its patch; the sovereign corporate owner, ie government, of the patch is its realm. At least initially, each realm holds one and only one patch. In practice this may change with time, but the realm-patch structure is at least designed to be stable."
"A Patchwork realm is a business - a corporation. Its capital is the patch it is sovereign over. The realm profits by making its real estate as valuable as possible - whether it is Manhattan or some ranch in Oklahoma. Even the oceans can and should be divided into patches; a naval realm is sovereign over, and profits by taxing, all economic activities within a patch of ocean."
"Which is a more valuable patch of real estate, today: South Korea, or North Korea? Yet before the war, the North was more industrialized and the South was more rural. Such are the profits of converting an entire country into a giant Gulag." — Source.
Let me get this straight. A half Jewish guy who advocates hyper-globalism is the godfather of the alt-right? And his vision is the maximization of profits on real estate.

Oh, and this guy also hates democracy. And he thinks that the solution is direct elite control. Here he is worshiping progressive elite control and hating democracy;
"The original progressives (or Progressives) were original and iconoclastic thinkers, believe it or not. Just as we do here at UR, they found themselves grappling with difficult truths. One of these truths, which has revealed itself again and again ever since Plato, is this: democracy doesn't work. — Link to source.
Really? Democracy works just fine in Switzerland where they have the purest form of democracy: direct democracy. Switzerland also doesn't have any immigration problem. Hmm. . . And Switzerland also doesn't wage aggressive wars for profit. As for Plato? He was the worlds first totalitarian thinker, and all philosophers acknowledge him as such.

Continuing with the quote;
"Or, as Croly puts it:
Majority rule, under certain prescribed conditions, is a necessary constituent of any practicable democratic organization; but the actions or decisions of a majority need not have any binding moral and national authority. Majority rule is merely one means to an extremely difficult, remote, and complicated end; and it is a piece of machinery which is peculiarly liable to get out of order. Its arbitrary and dangerous tendencies can, as a matter of fact, be checked in many effectual and legitimate ways, of which the most effectual is the cherishing of a tradition, partly expressed in some body of fundamental law, that the true people are, as Bismarck declared, in some measure an invisible multitude of spirits — the nation of yesterday and to-morrow, organized for its national historical mission.
"Here we see the seam between progressivism and reaction, under glass. Here at UR, we are perfectly happy to observe that majority rule is an arbitrary and dangerous piece of machinery, which is peculiarly liable to get out of order." — Same source.
"National historical mission." I detect totalitarianism — and a bit of Hegal? Or Marx? The "seam between progressivism and reaction." Meaning: the place where progressiveness (globalism) and reaction are supposed to meet.

He also says that majority rule is liable to get out of order. No dumb-ass. It is elite control which always gets out of order. Please observe that monarchies have constant civil wars. Also observe that as America has become less democratic it's politics has become more insane. In fact, the more America is ruled by an oligarchy, the more insane its' politics become. Could this be because the elite are inherently insane themselves? After all, a wealthy person who has never experienced hardship has never had to test their beliefs against reality, has he? These people can afford to be as delusional as they like. Money buys that kind of indifference.

Moldbug's entire shtick is to;
1. Observe that democracy is broken in some way.
2. Point out that elite control, (the Cathedral) has broken it.
3. Assert that the solution is more elite control.
Imagine if a doctor said: "Cyanide is killing the patient. Clearly the solution is more cyanide and less patient." This is basically Moldbug's entire central thesis. Everything else depends on this.

The problem is ostensibly supposed to be the cure. But we have hundreds of years of experience with elite control, and we know that Kings are despots. Remember the, "right of the first night?" Hmm? Anyone? Bueller? ever see the movie Braveheart? It's called Droit du seigneur, as per la wik;
"Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French pronunciation: ​[dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ]) ("lord's right"), also known as ius primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmiː ˈnɒktᵻs/; Latin pronunciation: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs]) ("right of the first night"), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, and elsewhere, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women (the "wedding night" detail is specific to some variants).
Well, that's one way to practice eugenics!

America has a pedophile billionaire. Imagine a world were that guy is your king.

Do you really think that your progressive overlords would be any less insane in a modern monarchy? Remember, Moldbug actually wants progressives to rule you. He actually believes that they will behave responsibly if given absolute power. What a naive vision. And what if they decide to practice their sexual perversions on your children? What if the local lord thinks your son would look good in a dress? What is your recourse? Do you really think that these corrupt people wouldn't wind up ruling you? Imagine a globalist oligarchy with absolute power. That is what Moldbug's vision would really be, whether he realizes it or not.

No thanks. I'll keep democracy.

You are all fucking fools if you think you will be any freer under any other system.

Oh, and for those of you who hate immigration? There is absolutely no reason to think that monarchy will be any better on the subject. Granted, it will not have an incentive to import people to win elections. But it will also not have any incentive to not enslave people, import them, export them, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that a monarchy won't be co-opted by globalists. The fact that ancient monarchs were not globalists is only caused by the fact that globalism did not exist at the time, and could not, because of the absence of technology. Today is different, and the elites can always afford more palace guards while they turn your country into a Third World hell hole. They will do whatever profits them at your expense. Donald Trump anyone? If he can sell out do you really think a king won't? Hmm?


I regret anything I have ever said in favor of monarchy. At this point I am a nationalist.

Actually Existing Democracy

On the Rectification of Names in Politics
Reciprocal Political Relationships
Rectification of Names II
The Principle of Rerouting and Entrenchment

Friday, April 21, 2017

Conservative cucks suppress birth control in Africa

It's called the "Bush Global Gag Rule." From the Center for Reproductive Rights;
"On January 22, 2001, on his first business day in office (and the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion), President George W. Bush re-imposed the Global Gag Rule on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population program. This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. The 1973 Helms Amendment is a legislative provision that already restricts U.S. funds from being used for these activities."
Here is Melinda Gates talking about African birth control.

You think liberals are the problem? Think again.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Mimetic evolution under different social structures, and the ideologies they produce

In my opinion, human beings vastly overestimate the free will of the individual while also massively underestimating the role of material forces/incentives in shaping human cultural conditions. The point of this belief is not to disempower the individual, but to achieve the opposite: control over the forces that control us. Everything is recursive. A process occurs. That process shapes human culture. The same process then shapes the reaction to the change in human culture. For example: the accumulation of redistribution under democracy eventually gives birth to identity politics, as democracy breaks down into client populations competing for political power/payoff. The same process that gave birth to identity politics (that process being competitive redistribution), then gives birth to the alt-right as a political force for White identity politics, since the alt-right then competes for the political power like every other client population.

Second example: the cultural exemption of women and minorities from moral agency gives rise to failure and dependency among minority populations. The failure itself is then interpreted through the lens of exemption. Exemption from responsibility gives birth to both the problem (minority failure to thrive) and the interpretation of the problem (Whites must be to blame). The motive for moral exemption is the incentive of the Democratic party under democracy to cultivate psychologically dependent client populations in order to win elections.

The trick is not to rant and rave against the processes that control us, but to reverse engineer those processes by asking: what result do we want to achieve? Then we ask: what political process will produce that result? The structural form that the state takes in arrived at in a backwards manner: first we decide what kind of world we want to live in. Then we figure out what kind of political system will produce that world. Ideology is the effect of power. Ideology is downstream from power. Ideology is marketing for power. When power needs an excuse, it takes an ideology off the shelf and uses it. That is why some ideologies become famous and not others. They are elevated by power.

Ideologies can be classified into roughly three groups based on the power systems they evolved under: ideologies of secure power, ideologies of unsecure power, and ideologies under capitalism. Memetics is the theory that mental ideas undergo a process of transformation similar to Darwinian evolution. Ideas are passed from one human being to the next. The information content of these ideas is corrupted along the way. (Anyone who has witnessed a gossip chain in action can attest to this). Only the essential pattern is retained. For example; while there have been many different Christian denominations over the centuries, the basic pattern of hell, Satanheaven, original sin, salvation, and savior remain consistent. This even bleeds over into progressive liberalism, becoming capitalism, Hitlerprogress, privilege, equality, and education. Even though the information content is drastically changed in the process of converting it from Christianity to Progressiveness, the mental pattern is retained, and the above list is a one-to-one translation of concepts.

Christianity          Liberalism/Progressivism
hell                       capitalism
Satan                   Hitler
demons                Whites
heaven                 progress
original sin           privledge
salvation              equality
savior                   education
disciple                college professor
wickedness          racism
rapture                 global warming
blasphemy           hate speech

The more ideologies change, the more they stay the same.

Ideologies developed by secure power

In Hinduism there is a concept you are undoubtedly aware of called karma. This means roughly "spiritual debt caused by bad actions." Additionally, there are the concepts of dharma (your spiritual purpose in life, the cosmic law and order), svadharma (your purpose in life according your nature, your caste duty, etc.) Dharma and svadharma, (alternate spelling swadharma), is the difference between eternal duty, (sanātana dharma) and ones duty to ones caste, (swadharma). Of course, I am butchering the concepts here. There is no precise translation.

In the Bhagavad Gita there is a war between Prince Arjuna, and his cousins, over the Kingdom of Hastinapura. Allow me to quote a summary on the issue;
"The Gita is the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna leading up to the battle.
"Arjuna doesn't want to fight. He doesn't understand why he has to shed his family's blood for a kingdom that he doesn't even necessarily want. In his eyes, killing is evil and killing his family is the greatest sin of all. He casts down his weapons and tells Krishna he will not fight. Krishna, then, begins the systematic process of explaining why it is Arjuna's dharmic duty (his swadharma) to fight and how he must fight in order to restore his karma.
"Krishna first explains the samsaric cycle of birth and death. He says there is no true death of the soul — simply a sloughing of the body at the end of each round of birth and death. The purpose of this cycle is to allow a person to work off their karma, accumulated through lifetimes of action. If a person completes action selflessly, in service to God, then they can work off their karma, eventually leading to a dissolution of the soul, the achievement of enlightenment (moksha, or spiritual liberation) and vijnana, (mental clarity or discernment), and an end to the samsaric cycle. If they act selfishly, then they keep accumulating debt, putting them further and further into karmic debt."
(parentheticals are mine) 
The point here is not to get into a long discussion about Hinduism, but to show a pattern. All of these concepts; swadharma, karma, moksha, samsara, vijnana,  are exactly what you need to produce order in a civilization. I believe that ideology is marketing for power. This is a fairly jaded view of the world. However, it does not mean that I do not also believe that Hinduism is true. Indeed, I believe that it is true, but I also hold simultaneously that it is a political necessity. Allow me to explain.

Let us imagine that you are trying to develop an ideology that will enable people to accept the power of a King to rule over them, and let us say that this process of motivated cognition is leading people to invent ideas that justify the rule of the king. Hinduism is a collection of some of the oldest religions in the world. (Hinduism is a collection of religions and not a single religion). It follows that the process of mimetic evolution has had a much longer period of time to develop, and that it developed in Hinduism for much longer than Christianity, and for much longer in Christianity than in Liberalism. In Hinduism this process of steadily building up concepts piled on top of concepts goes all the way back to 3300 BC. The oldest Hindu society goes all the way back to Madrasian Culture 2.5 million years ago. Hinduism claims to be tens of thousands of years old or even older, and it very well might be. In contrast, modern liberalism dates to about 1963, or about 1642 at the earliest.

Mimesis is "accretive:" meaning that the process of humans inventing, transmitting, and modifying ideas, builds up layer by layer like the strata of a rock face counting geological time. It builds slowly, accretively, little by little, ideas being developed one layer at at time. Under secure power, it justifies power. It seeks to produce psychological harmony in the low class/caste individual. The goal of an ideology developed for thousands of years under monarchy is going to be to generate support for the monarch. The goal will be to make every caste in society happy with their station in life. Karma is pretty much the ultimate psychological weapon for doing that. If you are low caste it is because you must have done something wrong in a previous life, and you are working off your karma in this life. You deserve it. That is why India is said to have "happy poverty." There is no presumption of entitlement there by the poor. Hinduism teaches the poor that they deserve their poverty as punishment for bad karma from previous lives. As a concept, karma is far more effective at producing a psychological acceptance of power and its inevitable abuses than anything else.

In Christendom, before the development of democracy we see a similar thing. This goes by the name of the great chain of being, a phrase which means roughly, "the natural order of the universe with Gods and Angeles on top, Kings above men, men in the middle, and plants and animals on the bottom." All of life is order cosmically by God's divine will into a natural hierarchy. This is similar to the Confucian concept of filial piety, where the son performs duty for the father, the wife for the husband, the children for their parents, and the father for the Emperor.

In China we had the mandate of heaven, in Japan the God Emperor, in Great Britain the King was God's divine representative on Earth. All of these are ideologies developed under (relatively) secure power. Their purpose is to generate social harmony, cohesion, obedience, and serenity among the population. Ideology is marketing for power. The ideology of a secure power system is designed to maximize psychological harmony of the individual with their government, to make them a mature responsible adult, and to make them submit to authority. The king wants society to function well. That is his incentive. To do this he wants to cultivate a graceful acceptance of the power structure. Thus, secure power ideologies produce in the most well-adjusted minds grace, and in the less well-adjusted minds apathy.

Ideologies developed under unsecure power

This desire for social harmony in monarchies is in dramatic contradistinction to those ideologies which are developed under unsecure power in democracies, or other demotist systems. An election is a war where the troops show up to be counted. The ideology that markets power best under these circumstances is the one that produces the greatest anxiety and rage in the voters emotional state — an ideology which drives the voter to the polls in an irrational rage to vote for his tribes slate of candidates. The ideal ideology for performing this function is one that engenders complete psychological dependence, and that causes the individual to conflate their own personal identity with the causes they support. The nature of unsecure power is that it is a war with itself, and new ideological techniques are continuously being invented to produce psychological anguish in the public in order to harness the individuals energy for votes, protests, marches, and harassment of the enemy camp. Equality is the perfect goal for such a movement since it is a goal that can never be achieved on planet Earth, since the symmetry breaking nature of the laws of physics inhibit it continuously. No economic system can ever make people equal. No justice system can ever generate perfectly equal justice. No survival is compatible with equal worth since not all individuals contribute to society equally. To make a person rage against equality is to make them rage against something that they can never change or defeat. It is the perfect weapon for wining elections, and the perfect ideology for a parasite whose thirst is never sated. It makes the host work hard for the parasite forever, since the goal can never be reached. Low agency voters also need more ideology to motivate them to go to the polls than high agency ones. As I said in a previous article;
"The (democratic) state is actually a coercion market. That is, it is a market that sells coercive force to private buyers. While it is true that it often legislates in the general interest, (the criminal code is an example of this), it is also true that it is in the general interest of it's client lobbyists and public interest groups to have a properly functioning society and economy. Just as the selfish desires of individual businessmen may lead to an "invisible hand" of collective public good in economic production, so the selfish interest of various pressure groups acting upon the legislative process may also produce legislation in favor of the general welfare, especially if they negotiate and compromise their interests against each other. Despite the fact that the state is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, it may still legislate for the common good most of the time. Even parasites need a functioning economy to expropriate."
Unsecure power can do good things. But its modus operandi is to win the next election. That is it's true concern.

As the state grows under democracy an ever greater level of ideological hysteria is needed to justify ever increasing levels of redistribution. It is not enough that they take money from others, they must feel righteous about it, since the state religion of equality contradicts their implicit goal of redistribution. Parasitism can only be justified among equals if it is a compensation for an injustice. The nature of the ideology demands blaming the producer who supports the parasite in order to satisfy the guilt of the parasite. Therefore there must be oppressors everywhere. If these oppressors are scarce or absent they must be manufactured. The perpetual war of insecure power demands the perpetual anguish of the public as a means of justifying the whole catastrophe morally. Ideology is marketing for power: under democracy is must engender psychological dependence, helplessness, entitlement, and never ending struggle for acceptance among its client populations. Oftentimes people are mystified as to why feminists discount the agency of women and blacks, or why so much talk about empowerment is completely disempowering to the target audience. Simply realize that all popular ideology is only popular because some system, or power center, is rewarding it. That system is only popularizing the ideology because it views it as an investment in its own power.

Consider this: at the University of Colorado Boulder Philosophy Department there is a tiny library located on an upstairs floor of the Hellems Arts and Sciences building. In that library are the published works of all the philosophers that have taught at the University's Philosophy Department. In fact, that library is unique in that it contains only the works of professors who work there, and no others. Probably none of them are widely read outside the University. Why does one philosopher stay on the shelf while another becomes famous? There are thousands of philosophers around the world, and yet almost none of them matter. The answer is simple: one serves the power system well while the others do not. As ideology is marketing for power, philosophers are, whether they realize it or not, writing marketing briefs. The ones that become famous are the ones that have written the most effective marketing plans. Those sit on the shelf did not. That is why there can never be a popular ideology of true anti-power, for power is the true customer of ideology.

In an unsecure power system, ideology is just the whip that gets voters to go to the polls, nothing more. There is no such thing as an anti-power ideology. Who would promote it? And what incentive would they have?

Ideologies developed or modified under market conditions

Christianity, as a particular religion that developed under monarchy, is now operating under market conditions. The market selects for a very particular thing. It is a vast filtration mechanism. What it selects for varies by industry. In the luxury car business it selects for stylistically high quality automobiles that also so happen to have a bit of planned obsolesce built into them. In the hamburger industry it selects for a greasy Whopper, or salty Big Mac. In architecture it selects for cost efficiency on a square foot basis. There is no greater price you can charge for aesthetically pleasing architecture, so glass skyscrapers, big box stores, strip malls, and cookie-cutter subdivisions are produced en masse. The era of component standardization brings with it the degradation of architecture. Previous buildings were constructed by the hands of individual craftsmen. This force for good design is now gone from the world. The same behavior afflicts religion under market conditions.

If I have a church, and you have a church, and if I host a rock concert with fireworks and acrobats descending from the ceiling on ropes, while you host a boring ceremony in Latin, I acquire more parishioners than you. You in contrast, lose your congregation steadily as young people are attracted to the flashy show I put on. In the long-term my rock concert religion will not fulfill the spiritual needs of these people, and they will drift ever further into atheism. But your church will still go out of business, and the elegant traditional building that housed its congregation will be bulldozed to make way for a strip mall. Such is capitalism — a race to the bottom.

In another previous article I spoke on this exact behavior.  To wit;
"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 market corrupts not only the architecture of the church, not only the format of the ceremony, but the content of the gospel itself. Religion will shift from that which focuses of salvation/liberation/moksha into that which focuses on maintenance, return business, and induced anxiety. Religion distorts into weekly rock concert therapy for shallow hipsters. The focus on money quite literally shapes the gospel itself, producing the "gospel of prosperity:" a direct contradiction of actual scripture, and a complete abomination;
"Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless." — Ecclesiastes 5:10
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." — Matthew 19:24
While ideology developed under divided power is built on inducing a state of anguish in the mind of an entitled "victim" class that can be relied upon to agitate and vote for it's patron party, maintenance religion is based on maximizing market return on on investment. Weekly sermons are more frequent than elections. Thus, the level of anxiety induced to keep the penitent coming back is not so great. There is a focus on providing temporary relaxation and relief from life's problems. Aging baby boomers lift up their pudgy hands to the steel truss ceiling of the concrete mega church, obese hips obscenely rocking back and forth, eyes closed, incompetently mumbling the words to a Jesus rock concert, presented in both English and Spanish. A hot female "pastor" in nerd glasses swings and dances on stage, keeping all male eyes fixed on the front of the room. Women in yoga pants make you stare at their asses in the whore-"house of God" built out of concrete masonry units, and furnished with metal stackable ballroom chairs sitting on industrial carpet. This is religion under capitalism.

In Conclusion

Each social structure, (I won't say system because monarchy is not a system), produces predictable results. Unsecure power produces the most emotionally painful and psychologically tormenting ideologies on earth. Capitalism produces maintenance religions with Ayn Rand levels of greed worship — though we did not get around to talking about her. Indeed, Rand is herself a secular religion of capitalism. Monarchy produces the most peaceful ideologies, designed to quell envy and produce dutiful service to society and state. Traditional religion is often accused of producing false consciousness in the individual. But as an alternative, the ideologies of divided power produce an utterly fantastic level of hysterical rage; "inequality," "oppression," "White males (as a slur)," "cis-hetro-dominated patriarchal rape culture," "social justice," and "microaggressions." These terms are dripping with rage. Consider the level of madness that unsecure power (democracy) generates in a persons mind for, that person to thing that microaggressions (ie., looking at someone the wrong way, failing to use their desired made up pronoun) constitute some form of abuse. If monarchy induces a beautiful and serene false consciousness, and "freedom" is the constant psychological agony of paranoia over microaggressions, then the rational choice for a happy life is false consciousness.

With secure power you get relaxing ideology designed to justify your circumstances and your place in the power structure. You learn to develop grace, and accept all suffering with dignity. Your cathedrals are worth visiting, you are trained to be mature, and your religion is the center of your community life. You attend weddings and baptisms. You have actual traditions and culture. When you grow old you become a respected member of the community. You die in your bed surrounded by your large family in a beautiful classic old house. Everyone loves you because of White sharia.

With unsecure power you are indoctrinated to hate everything, are in constant emotional pain, and struggle for a goal that can never be reached, (equality). You grow moldylocks, open your ass up with a speculum for your pornographer, hate your own race, and get punched in the face by a man with a fashy haircut. You die at 45 of AIDS. No one comes to your funeral because you were a porn star and have no children. You die in a hospital bed looking at ceiling tiles.

With capitalism you are fed maintenance religion, superficial temporary relief, and the gospel of greed. You tolerate bad architecture, nerd hipster female pastors, angry cucks, and greedy cutthroat bosses. Your wife dumps you for Jeremy Meeks. You beat off endlessly to Moldylocks porn. You drive your obese ass down clogged streets. You get shrieked at by insane White women over raping them with your eyes. You have no traditions and culture, no respectable architecture, and your vote doesn't matter. You die in a hospital surrounded by nurses that you cannot sexually harass. All you leave your two kids is debt, and everyone hates you because you are White.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

All About White Nationalism: it's Beliefs, Prospects, Enemies, and Potential Consequences. Realistic Plan Included.


I am a political designer. That is what I do. To perform that function to have to have a pretty amoral attitude towards politics. Amoral is not immoral. The first is indifferent towards morality while the second is against it. I am a philosophical arms dealer. I give weapons of ideology and strategy to any party that I think possesses the realism to win. My personal attitude towards politics is that everyone should get what they want. Stupidity in politics is a crime, and if giving a man what he wants destroys him then nature's justice has been rendered. There is no right in the physical universe to be stupid. I am perfectly happy to give a man a communist a state — separately from me. Obviously I would never want to live in it myself. My view is that the world should be divided up into thousands of micronations, and people allowed to migrate to whatever state serves their ideology best. If a man chooses wrong and it kills him, oh well, justice has been served. In the end nature is the ultimate judge of every man. Designing a white nationalist system is just another design from my perspective. Furthermore, this is just theoretical. It is just a thought experiment, and I do not support terrorism in any manner. It is not terrorism if the state does it. It is "intelligence operations." Keep that in mind later.

On the False Belief in (Successful) White Genocide

As some of you probably already know, I subscribe to a materialist technology-driven view of humanity. To the consternation of many, I am basically a right-wing Marxist, (if there is such a thing). This is because I come out of the Hegelian/Landian techno-commercial wing of neoreaction. I essentially believe that all human culture is driven by material forces, especially the material force of technology, and that religion and ideology play very little role in shaping human destiny since they are themselves products of material conditions. I have gone so far as to outline a five-phase model of human civilization crafted in accordance with this presumption. I have also written extensively about the effects of birth control on society, and the morally corrosive effects of technology on human ethics.

Let me get to the point.

The White race is in decline and reproducing and below break-even levels.
However, Muslims are also reproducing at ever lower and lower levels in all places not being bombed by American forces.
Latino birth rates are dropping, but still above break-even.
Asian birth rates are in free fall.
African birth rates are still high, for now.

Observe the chart below. Even Brazil is at 1 to 2 children per couple. Break-even is 2. Link to source. Look at the source provided and scroll down to the part that says, "Major Regions." Observe that large sections of Latin America and East Asia are at below break-even levels. Even the other parts of Latin America are at 2 to 3 children per couple.

Sorry to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but the White race is not going extinct, (in relative terms), any time soon. By relative terms, I mean that if we are headed towards extinction, so is every other race.

How do so many people on the alt-right believe in White genocide? Because there is a concerted effort by some people to create it. There are some Jews, (not all), and some minorities (not all), actively cheering for the extinction of Whites: like the assholes listed here. However, wishes are not horses, and Whites will still exist thousands of years from now.

What is happening is extremely simple: birth control and urbanization. As people move to the cities birth rates are plummeting. In the countryside, children are an asset. In the city, they are a financial liability. Urbanization, combined with reproductive technology, is driving birth rates way down. East Asia, not Europe, is where this process is most dramatic.

Reproductive technology was invented by Americans first. Thus, it affects White countries most severely. It spreads out like a wave across the Earths surface. It reaches White countries first because they developed it first. It reaches Asia second because they developed it second. It reaches Latin America third because they developed it third. It reaches Africa last because Africa is developing last. Why are East Asian birth rates lower that White ones? Because their governments are forcing urbanization at higher levels than normal as a means of population control. The rate of decline is a function of (rate of adoption of birth control) x (speed of urbanization). The fact that birth rates are declining in White countries first, is simply a function of developing first. Whites are not going extinct, (not unless every race is going extinct). The world is just returning to a pre-industrial racial population ratio.

I also do not think the human race is likely to go extinct. Groups like the Amish have rejected technology. These groups may serve as a reservoir for the human species. Future humans will be largely farm dwellers. Cities will empty out after their populations die out.  The cost of a house in Tokyo declines every year as the countryside continues to reproduce itself. When empires collapse, people go back to the farm. Want to preserve you genes? Become a farmer.

Why The Population Bubble Happened in the First Place

1837. John Deere invents the steel plow. Source.
1911. First antibiotic approved for market use. Source.
1921 to 1970, all serious childhood diseases cured with vaccines. Rubella is last in 1970. Source.
1960. Birth control released to the public. Source.
1980. Level of urbanization in the U.S. exceeds 73.7 percent. Source.

Notice that there is roughly a half-century gap between the introduction of the first antibiotic and the development of birth control. Levels of urbanization were already at about 46 percent in 1910, but there was no direct ability of women to limit their conception of children. This is probably why Asia is in free fall. Unlike us, their urbanization occurs after birth control, and not before.

The gap is significant because what you see here are two sets of technologies One set of technologies increases population, (steel plows and antibiotics), while another set of technologies/behaviors decreases birth rates, (birth control combined with urbanization). The fact that there is a half-century gap between these two sets of technologies, is the reason that the the worlds population will reach about 9.7  billion by 2050, and go no higher. What you are seeing here is a massive population bubble created by the gap between population increasing and population decreasing technologies. It is that gap that has created the world in which we live. We are the people born as a consequence of modern technologies like antibiotics, fed as a result of the steel plow, and kept alive during their childhoods as a result of vaccines. By 1970 all of the worst childhood diseases were cured. The population increasing technologies happened first over a series of decades from 1837 to 1970, while the population decreasing technologies occurred between about 1960 and onward. This is going to produce a 9.7 billion population bubble that is going to crash in the future. When we look at declining birth rates what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the bubble in White countries. That collapse in population is going to spread outward though the whole world, and the rest of the world is going to collapse faster because their urbanization occurred after birth control while our urbanization occurred before, thus, movement to the cities translates directly into population collapse for them even faster than for us.

So You Still Want An Ethnostate? Let Us Firgue Out How To Do That

But let us say that after realizing this, you decide that you still want an ethnostate. After all, there is no guarantee that birth rates will level out after the collapse of the population bubble. We could be looking at the potential end of the human species as we know it. Whites are part of the human species, therefore a problem exists. Maybe you want to preserve them no matter what, and you figure that an ethnostate is the way to do that. That's cool. I'm not judging you.

Although I am not a White nationalist I am sympathetic to all the various form of ethnic nationalism: including Black nationalism, Asian nationalism, Hmong nationalism, Tibetan nationalism, whatever. I view racism both as an inevitability, and a tragedy. As Avenue Q would say, "we're all just a little bit racist."

Racism used to be funny, I guess. Identity politics ruined that for many people.

Of course, all of the analysis I have done presumes that Africans will respond to material forces the same way that other races have. If not, we (meaning other races) are completely screwed.

Want to produce a White ethnostate in the most nonviolent way possible? (1) Give farms to White nationalists and teach them how to grow. (2) Monopolize all farms in the hands of Whites. (3) Make those farms tax exempt. (4) Cut immigration to zero. (5) Build the wall. (6) Let the multi-ethnic cities die off.

Nature will do the rest.

Moreover, farming is better for the morals of people. It involves hard work and gives you a ready-made tight-knit high trust community. It produces more babies because it naturally produces better morals. Farms are also the places most distant from the corrupting influence of the universities, and their gender studies professors. Ideology reaches the farm last.

This is not just an effective way to accomplish the goals of WN, it is also the least potentially violent because the countryside is sparsely populated. It would be far more devastating to try to physically remove the inhabits of a major city that to simply buy up land and give it to Whites. Physical removal is a violent process. In contrast, buying real estate is a simple transaction. Through a simple and relentless campaign of purchasing, nearly all land could be acquired.

Of course the left would violently oppose you. They would ultimately make a peaceful program administered in private hands impossible. And what happens when liberal city dwellers realize their destiny is extinction because they did not breed? Robert Mugabe seized the land of White farmers. There is no guarantee that a majority minority society would leave White people alone. Envy is how stupid people make everyone equal. Realistically, you have to control the government if you want to survive. The left is too evil to die off without trying to take everyone else to the grave with it.

Building a White Nationalist State

Speaking completely hypothetically;

First, switch America to a "land area-based electoral college." You know how the left wants to abolish the electoral college to disenfranchise the right? If the number of votes in the House is based on the amount of land you have, and not your population, then Alaska will get more votes than Texas, and Texas will get more votes than Los Angeles. Democrats would never win another presidential election again. Do the same for the Senate. Don't think you can get the votes for a Constitutional Amendment? Hold a convention of rural states and switch all the rural states to a land area-based system. Then every state but the coastal ones will vote conservative in every election. Do things incrementally. Then, kick California out of the union — with war if necessary. (California is 55 electoral votes). Now you have a constitutional two-thirds majority, and you can modify the document as you see fit. Switch the remaining state to a land area-based system.

At the same time tax all campaign contributions at 80%. Then, give "campaign contribution vouchers," to the members of a nationalist party, and only a nationalist party. Now you control all elections through control of nearly all donations. Make all members of the nationalist party sign their resignation letters in advance. If they betray the movement, fire them.

Of course the Supreme Court would try to block you. Other societies have dealt with this situation with untimely deaths. They then issued presidential pardons to the killers.

One-party states outlaw all other parties. They allow guys like "Based Stick Man" to do what they do best. They issue presidential pardons to private security forces in league with the government. They build up a paramilitary force like the SA Weimar Germany under the sanction of the state.

They rewrite the constitution after ceasing power. They strip women and people who don't own property of the right to vote. They redistribute massive amounts of land to their dominant ethic majority. They police the cucks in their own party with untimely deaths. They pardon the killers openly and have show trials. They laugh at the whole thing on television. People then get the message.

Protesters? Water cannons and reeducation camps. Riots? They deport the rioters.

Once they have an ethnostate they would conquer disobedient states like California and drive the social justice warriors into the sea.

They would turn the cities into city states. They would let the cities stay multi-ethnic, but limit them to one child per couple. They would let time will do the rest.

And they keep even seemingly "nice" Jewish influence out of the whole thing, otherwise they get destroyed.

Disclaimer: I advocate only for actions performed by the state, never actions performed against the state. THEY DO IT. I'm not advocating that we do it. Going up against the state is useless and stupid.

The Origins of the Problem

But let us not forget the origins of this whole problem. Race relations were improving for a long time in the US until the invention of identity politics. Race relations peaked sometime in the late 90's, IMO. We are used to seeing this problem from the bottom up, from the "goldfish bowl" perspective. But let us look at things from the top down. Let us look at things the way the powerful people who control our society look at them. And let us keep three dictum's in mind that are true, but may seem absurd at first glance;

One: Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws.
Two: every election is akin to an advanced auction of stolen goods.
Three: ideology is to power as marketing is to business.

It follows that as the state grows, the level of ideological hysteria and indoctrination will also grow. Ideology is marketing for power. If you are a politician and need to get elected, and if White people keep voting against you and your party, then what do you do? Why you work to suppress their birthrates of course. Take a look at this map;

What you see here is a map of incentives. There is a massive incentive to sterilize the White race, as well as to bring minority voters into the country. How do you accomplish that? The Democratic party believes it can through ideology and illegal immigration. The ideological component is specifically targeted to use ideas like feminism and environmentalism to sterilize Whites. If only People of Color voted, the Democrats would win every election. The obvious solution is to be rid of the White race. Indeed, that is exactly the agenda of the modern left.

This is because Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws, everything is a business, the two parties are two corporations, they measure their profits in terms of votes, and they compete for limited market share. The Democratic and Republican parties are like Coke vs Pepsi, or PC vs Apple. They are a duopoly, (monopoly of two corporations). Government is literally a corporation, no joke. Anarcho capitalism is not a fantasy. It is the actually existing state of the world we live in. It is how things really work. And we live in a corrupt anarcho capitalist marketplace for the purchasing of redistribution of other people's money. Purchases of redistribution are cumulative over time because the actors that make the purchases, (through campaign contributions) are still active in politics and they resist any attempt to destroy their cash cows. As a result, the market accumulates redistribution over time. This "legislative accumulation" / accumulation of redistribution eventually strangles the economy and leads to the nations collapse. A collapse of a democracy is the collapse of the market. Democracies have a "business cycle" of about 300 years. Most nations are not democracies, (markets) they are single-party states, (oligopolies), monarchies, (monopolies) or dictatorships, (monopolistic cartels). The field they compete over is predatory coercion. In contradistinction to the free market, the coercion market competes over redistribution. Unlike the free market, the coercion market produces nothing, and survives through parasitism only.

Thus, when I say that as power expands ideology also expands I hope that you will see what I am talking about. Ideology is marketing for power. It is the coercion markets version of marketing. L'Oreal sells cosmetics. The Democrats sell White genocide. One company measures their profit in dollars. The other in votes. This is how the America really works.

Don't be so surprised. Republicans do something similar though less sinister methods. Voter ID laws? The Democrats bring illegal immigrants into the country to vote. Republicans suppress these votes with voter ID laws. The fact that many Latinos who are here illegally still have the integrity to abstain from voting in our elections is simply an incentive to bring even more of them in.

Methods For Canceling The Incentive

No doubt that elite Democrats would like to suppress White birth rates even more than they already have. No doubt there is a concerted effort in the universities to perform this propaganda function. (The universities were long ago converted into a propaganda machine for Coke the Democratic party/corporation). What is truly remarkable is how little it is working. Japanese birth rates are even lower than ours, despite no apparent state-sponsored propaganda against them. Perhaps as the level of ideology ratchets up to accommodate and justify ever larger levels of redistribution from Whites, people become increasingly indifferent to the ideology/advertising.

Thus, I maintain my original assertion: that the primary cause of declining birth rates is urbanization and birth control. No doubt though, propaganda plays a part. What if the direction of propaganda was reversed? What if we promoted White birth rates? Positive propaganda would probably achieve much greater effects than negative propaganda since that would be a life affirming message, and life affirming messages sell better. People also look for ways to discredit a negative message, while in contrast, they look for reasons to accept a positive message. Whites have also been made to feel guilty from birth due to being raised in a Christian/leftist culture, so they are fairly indifferent to it.

This brings us to a fundamental analysis of the structure of the machine. Because this is a coercion market. The incentive to demonize Whites is caused by the need to use propaganda to justify redistribution against Whites. This involves turning White women against White men, and all people against White men. And that involves having the two sexes vote separately. But if only married couples are allowed to vote, and if only votes where both the husband and wife voted the same way are counted, then there is no more capacity to turn White women against White men. Well, I mean that there is no more incentive to do so. If you and your wife have to vote the same way all the way down the ballot in order to get your vote counted, friction is internalized into the marriage, and can no longer be exploited for political ends. Under such a voting system, telling White women to hate their husbands simply generates friction, and causes their ballots to not be counted when they submit it together. (The ballot has two sides that must match up with each other to be counted. It is a single document turned in by a married couple). Of course this is not necessarily good for marital harmony. Couples will definitely get to know the politics of their partner. But it absolutely destroys the incentive for sterilizing ideologies like feminism to exist. Any ideology that creates friction between men and women simply lowers the vote count of the political party doing it.

Everything is downstream from incentives. The incentive for White genocide (through the means of feminism) can be (partially) destroyed by only allowing couples to vote, and only in the way described above. Other incentives of promoting White genocide will have different remedies.

Let us list out the incentives for White genocide and tackle them one by one.

(1) Voting patterns among Whites favor the Republicans and create an incentive to suppress the birth rates of Whites.
(2) Voting patterns among Latinos and Muslims favor the Democrats and create an incentive to import these minorities.

The obvious solution is to destroy the incentive. There is a vote/money equivalent. Since elections are bought and paid for, there is a theoretical point at which a vote is worth a certain number of dollars: meaning, a politician would rather have the campaign contribution that the vote — because he or she can use the campaign contribution to buy advertising that will get him a vote. There is an "exchange rate" for votes with money at the point where it is more advantageous to have money than votes. This point varies by the voting district. A state like California is going to the Democrats no matter what. So a Democratic politician would rather have any amount of dollars than votes from California. Same with a Republican politician. In a swing district, a politician might spend 400 dollars for every vote, because it might cost that much per vote to win that district, (or whatever). Votes cost money in terms of advertising, volunteer work, etc. The obvious solution to White genocide is to tax the Democratic party for every Latino that comes into the country at such a high rate that it is effectively costing the Democratic party votes by depriving them of the financing they need to get elected. An additional tax on all registered Democrats themselves that is linked to the number of immigrants in society would also help discourage further immigration.

IF, and that's a big if, you could get the Courts to uphold your tax. If not, then you are right back at "untimely deaths," and the "Night of Long Knives" as your only workable remedy. Can you think of a single action that you could take in order to remedy the problem that would not be obstructed by the Supreme Court? No. Of course not. Eventually you are going to have to make your decision stick. That simply cannot be done in any way without a few accidents organized from the Oval Office. This is no support for terrorism. It isn't terrorism when the US government does it. Everyone knows that. There are many simple solutions that we might come up with. Many are non-violent. The accusation from the left that racism always leads to Hitler is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their opposition guarantees that only a bloody path will work. Like in Stalin's Russia, the level of violence is proportionate to the insecurity of power. One must go through dictatorship to get to monarchy. There is no other way. The opposition of the left guarantees a minimum level of insecurity. Again, I advocate only for actions performed by the state, and never for actions taken against the state. Capiche? Right-wing activism always fails. However, state-sponsored activism never fails. Read the the first two chapters of that last link to find out how state-sponsored activism can succeed.

And realize that there is no other way. Ending White genocide ultimately means ending unsecure power since elections create an incentive for mass immigration, and since we now live in an era of mass transportation. The very fact of transportation technology combined with unsecure power is going to create mass immigration. The only reason ancient democracies did not do it was because the technology did not exist. Modern societies require a one-party state to be ethnically secure.

Lastly, this is all just theory and speculation. Do not go out and do anything violent because of me. I do not condone terrorism. Only states have a legitimate monopoly on violence. I'm serious about that. The effective strategy is always to use the government, and never to go against it.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Aphorism no 39

If you have low standards for yourself you will wind up having low standards for the behavior of others. And if you have low standards for their behavior, you will wind up surrounded by abusive people, drug addicts, etc. You will then wind up investing your life in terrible human beings. So in a way karma is real, because the ethical standards your hold for yourself become the ethical standards you hold for others, and that determines who surrounds you. Inevitably, if you are sounded by bad people you will become a victim. High personal standards for yourself and others acts like a filter that screens out abusive and criminal human beings. Your own ethics protects you from them.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Index of best articles

Here is a list of the posts I have written that I judge to be either high quality, crucial reading, or both. Every one is on the list for a reason. Either someone recommended it, they received a lot of links, page views, etc. In roughly reverse chronological order;

The crucial role of the principled conservative in societal decline
Decline cannot happen without the conservative.

Everyone is just wailing in hell
A plea for the human race to shut up.

The relentless march of anarchy
About the future of humanity.

The Gnostic Failure Mode

What Nature Has Ruled Against
How Nature and Nature's God has passed judgement on certain things.

You Oppress Yourself
All the ways you actually cause your own "oppression." It is a rebuttal to standard leftist complains.

We need /vaccine/antiboitic/drug 3D printers
About viral threats and new technologies.

Genetic Math: or how to destroy patriarchy if you really want to
About the origins of male dominance and inequality, how these things are immutable, and how women assist in the creation or patriarchy.

Teleportation, and other r-selected disasters
Less humans, not more resources.

Ending Mortgage Debt Slavery
Abolishing the banks.

The Principle of Rerouting and Entrenchment
Economics of law. Part 4 of the series.

Rectification of Names II
The true nature of democracy. Part 3 of the series.

Reciprocal Political Relationships
How democracy actually works. Part 2 of the series.

On the Rectification of Names in Politics
The beginning of a series on the true nature of democracy.

What Immigration is Really About
Slavery, wage suppression, and votes.

A Brief Summary of Exitocracy
About the book Neocameral Future, Chapter 4.

Sexual Liberation Through Rules, with Notes on Tastemaking
Rules can be a path to liberation.

On Replicator Barter
3D Printers and their role in the future.

Everything is Tribal
Because it is.

The Million Year Recession
Communism is recession.

Fixing Democracy
A proposed partial solution.

Unnecessary Female Employment
A rant about the true motives (greed) behind feminism.

Perceptual vs. Concrete Freedom
Democracy only makes you think that you are free.

The consenting llama
The deterministic nature of technology and its potential to shape morals for the worse.

Civilization, sans Traffic
Plan for a civilization without rush hour.

Crime versus investment
On the subject of time preference and its relationship to criminality.

Liberalism and Other Methods of Absolution
The psychological structure of the left.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Aphorism no. 38

In an oligarchy, the banks, universities, media, courts, etc., conspire in a high/low alliance with the poor, against the middle, to oppress the middle class.

In a monarchy, the King conspires in a high/low alliance with the low, against the middle, to oppress the middle. The middle is Goldman Sachs, Harvard, NY Times, the courts, etc. The low is combines both the middle class and poor.

Oligarchy is left-wing and monarchy is right-wing.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Aphorisms no. 37

The basic progressive idea is that the world can be shamed into becoming more moral. This of course presumes that only the progressive is moral, that the problems of the world are moral and not structural, that the progressive is competent to assess the situation, that reality is easy to understand, that the he is capable of understanding it, that he has the patience to hear the answer, that he is not the ultimate cause himself, etc., etc. In reality he is just a shrieking monkey without a clue, a solution, or any humility, striving to feel superior. It is a foolish, delusional, infantile sentiment by a man without the competence to solve the problem or even the patience to hear the solution from another. In the final analysis he interferes with the very solutions that competent men develop for all the problems he hates. "Aggressive stupidity" is a charitable estimation. He causes all of the oppression he and the rest of the world endures. He actually oppresses himself. I have never met a liberal with the attention span needed to solve the problems he hates.

The ham-fisted message? "Somehow this is your fault."

Edit: the solution to poverty is to have less poor people. Reproductive licencing could have prevented this.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

The Appeal of Fascism: of how certain systems "want" to be other systems

You have to admit that it's impressive.

I feel a little like Cartman.

Fascism has a little bit of appeal to me, an appeal that I refuse, (so far) to embrace.

Certain political systems, "want to be something else." Other political systems, "want to be anything other than what they are." And some political systems want to be, "more of themselves."

Don't ask me why this is so. I don't know the answer. It probably has something to do with the structure of the human brain, or economics, or both.

Fascism = a system that wants to be even more of itself, until it converts into monarchy when it's numerous führers get tired of being assassinated.

Communism = a system that wants to convert into hyper capitalist oligarchy, or kleptocracy.

Chinese hyper capitalism = a system that wants to be itself? Or that wants to convert into democracy?

Democracy = a system that wants to be anything except democracy? Or a system that wants to convert into oligarchy? Or covert into dictatorship? Perhaps democracy wants to be even more democracy?

Neocameralism = a system that wants to convert into monarchy, or have its shares bought by a foreign power and become a colony.

(Neocameralism is a hypothetical form of city-state where the government is a corporation that issues fungible shares of stock)

Anarcho capitalism = a system that wants to convert into gang warfare, then kingdoms, and then a federation of kingdoms.

This is the problem of NRx: how to design a system that doesn't want to be something else? That "wants" to be more of itself? And that is not monarchy?

Sunday, April 2, 2017

The object and the source: on the impossibility of objective abstract morals, and the hallucinations of philosophers of moral reason

Whenever I challenge any liberal or conservative about the notion of equality they pull a series of goal post movings. "Moving the goal post" is a logical fallacy where the individual simply adjusts their standard as more and more evidence is presented to refute their assertion. For example;

Me: "communism has killed 94 million people."
Commie: "that is not the true communism. Real communism has never been tried."
Me: "they just tried real communism in Venezuela and it failed."
Commie: "it failed so that was also not the true communism."

It goes on and on like this.

In an argument about whether equality is real, the person who asserts that equality is true will make a series of retreats. First I will point out that humans are not equal: that humans are not the same. Remarkably, they will argue that indeed they are the same. After this retarded argument is put down with logic and simple observation of reality, they will insist that humans have equal worth!

They will insist that the equal worth argument was the one they were making all along. They will then retroactively change their own memory of the conversation and conclude that they never believed in equality as sameness, oh no, clearly people are not the same, but they must have equal worth! Oh yes, "that was the argument I was making all along!", they say.

They will simply change the argument a dozen ways and then insist that you must present a counter argument to each and every version of their delusional belief in human equality: equality as sameness, equal opportunity, equal worth, equal justice, and equal rights. They make you argue against each and every one, as they lodge personal attacks against you, call you names, engage in logical fallacies, rewrite their own memories of the conversation, and engage in a level of total mendacity that crosses into schizophrenic delusion and self-deception. This is motivated cognition par excellence. I have had entire conversations with Progressives that they have then later "forgotten" ever occurred because the red pills they were exposed to would have lowered their social standing if they accepted them.

So I am just going to cut to the chase and go straight for the jugular. Rather than the tedious task of refuting all forms of equality, I will simply attack the most important one, the one that is the Bailey of the Motte and Bailey argument: equal worth. I am going to make a simple assertion;
"innocent children do not have equal worth."
Here is the proof. Let us say that you are standing on a beach. On your left is your child swimming in the water about 200 yards away. On the right is some strangers child of the same age also about 200 yards away. They are both drowning. Because of the laws of physics, you only have enough time to save one. There is no one else on the beach to help you, and no one nearby. What do you do?
(a) save your own child because you are racist.
(b) save the strangers child because you are a guilty self-hating White liberal.
(c) practice equality by flipping a coin to decide who to save, thus, potentially allowing your own child to drown. (the coin flip adds a negligible amount of time to the equation).
So who do you save, huh? You can only save one because of time constraints. By the time you get to the other it will be too late. Pick. Your own child or the strangers?

If you flip a coin then you are a monster. If you save the strangers child, instead of your own, you are also a monster. Saving your own child is the correct thing to do in this situation. You should be prejudiced. You should be nepotistic. You should protect your own. That is what morality is all about: inclusive fitness. Your genes are the start of moral reasoning. That which is closest to you is the most important. The closer someone is to you genetically the more value they should have. This is why, contra Peter Singer, if you are White you should NOT give money to starving African children, but should spend that additional money on your own. If you have extra money beyond that then you should spend it on your extended family. If you still have extra, you should spend it on your distant family. You should NOT give your money to strangers and you should NOT set up foundations to help people you don't know. Your extended family clan is more important. Even your race is more important.

Of course, you can save the strangers child if there is time to. But this is a no time scenario. In a scenario where you have time to save both you should save your child first and the strangers child second, because of the different probabilities of death involved as a result of time constraints. If saving the strangers child would harm your own family, or your extended family, or even your race or nation, let them drown.

There are three political orientations that correspond to these three attitudes.

(a) corresponds to racism/nationalism
(b) corresponds to progressivism and "Israel first" type conservatism.
(c) corresponds to libertarianism, communism, and anarcho capitalism.

That's right. Libertarianism is a "flip a coin over your own child". . . "morality." That's why it's soul is closer to communism. Equality is just a plea for coin flipping.

I fail to see why either coin flipping or cuckoldry are superior alternatives to racism. The soul of heartlessness lies in equality while the soul of cuckoldry lies in self-sacrifice for strangers. Deep down all morality is sexual because all morality has its origins in genetics. It is very real to equate sacrifice for strangers with cuckoldry because subconsciously it is. Equality is an inversion of genetic inclination, and western culture has a shame word for everything noble: nepotism, racism, national chauvinism. You should be discriminatory. You should protect your own. You should be nepotistic. That is just helping your kid get into Harvard. Morality is like a Russian nesting doll: it comes in layers of loyalty: family first, community and then race, biosphere last, and in that order. I don't see "capitalism," or "equality" on that genetic list of things to be loyal to.

The problem is people. There is always a person. These people want to reduce morality to an abstract formula like "the greatest good," or the "kingdom of ends," This is a corruption of natural morality — which can never be divorced from the subject. Morality is always moral obligation towards someone just like power is always power over someone. There is always a recipient, always a person it is "being done to." There can be no such thing as legitimate moral math formulas that fail to take into account who it is being done to.

Just like morality is always done to an object, and thus, relative to the object, it is always done by a source, and thus, relative to the source. This is why there can be no moral "objectivity."

Objectivity does not exist. To state it ironically, objectively there can be no objectivity, since there is no objective viewpoint: only a series of subjective viewpoints. There is no objective morality, just billions of subjective moralit(ies), (plural). And there are as many subjective moralities as there are sentient beings in the universe, and possibly more than that.

Every person has a subjective morality. The will to make subjective morality real is the root of mass murder. The desire to make the subjective objective has killed millions.

There can never be an objective morality because morality has a source: the person "doing" morality. Morality will thus be practiced according to that person's subjective viewpoint, and this is the only morality that ever actually exists. Thus, to Hitler, Hitler was a moral man. And to Mao Zedong, Mao was doing what was necessary. And to X, Y moral atrocity is justified. And this is the only way it can be. Since there is no truly "objective" standard in physical reality, and since the attempt to impose an objective standards on physical reality only results in more bloodshed, no objective morality can ever exist. So the problem then becomes one of conflict management. All attempts to define objective morality are evasions of the far more important work of designing systems of conflict reduction.

In a nutshell;
Worth is defined by the subjective viewpoint of a person. Worth is always worth to someone. People cannot have equal worth because of inclusive fitness, and because worth is relative to the values of the person who values them.
Morality is always defined in the mind of a person. It is relative to a subjective viewpoint. The attempt to make it solid always ends in disaster.
Children do not have equal worth. They only have worth relative to the people who care about them. If a parent abandons their child then the parent has committed a crime against the worth of that child. Same with all family members.
Since worth is established by others placing a value on people, worth is established by the action of care. To perform caring actions is to establish worth. To refuse to perform those actions is to degrade the worth of others and betray them. Since there is no objective worth, failure to perform actions that prove the worth of another is a betrayal and a refusal to establish their worth. To allow injustice is to establish the worthlessness of the victim. To perform justice is to establish their worth. Caring is taking responsibility.
Notions of moral objectivity invariably lead to moral betrayal and even mass killings.
Morality is an action, a verb, and not a noun. It is a thing done to or for someone, either as a moral judgement against them, to protect them, or as an act of care. It is an action.
Moral sentiments towards strangers are a lie, equality is a coin toss, and real moral obligation is nested in concentric circles.
Last but not least. Both deontology and utilitarianism are reifications. They are the undead ideas of zombie philosophy that just refuse to die. They aren't real. There can never be an objective morality nor moral formulae, and thus, there can be no deontological ethics or utilitarianism. Consider that when you judge one of these two artificial abominations of natural morality, you always get the sense that something is not quite right. You feel there is something queasy about utilitarianism, or posturing and fanatical about deontology. You know that natural sense that you use to judge these other moral codes? That natural sense is your natural morals. It is the subjective morals that we just described: the morals of inclusive fitness. Your natural morals tell you instinctively that these moral codes worked out by philosophers are all either abominations or incomplete. Listen to your instincts. They are right. Nothing that is judged can ever be superior to the thing that does the judging — not where morality is concerned. That your instinctive morals judge both deontology and utilitarianism prove that natural morality is superior to either. That these two moralities are simply poor attempts to approximate natural morality is proof of the legitimacy of inclusive fitness. Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, and both of these artificial systems are just grasping at the thing they cannot quite put their finger on: the morals of inclusive fitness, the morals of nested tribalism, subjective worth, and demonstrated value.