Thursday, May 25, 2017

Long long ago, on a planet called Retard. . .

There was a species of robots called Imbecile. Imbeciles have no original opinions. They believe only what they are told, and nothing more. Bots are literally incapable of original thought, even though they believe there is a "marketplace of ideas." But of course they were told to believe in the marketplace of ideas, so they do.

All the robot Imbeciles of planet Retard are divided into two factions: the "Tolerance-bots," and the "Skygod-bots." To the "tolerance-bots," everything and everyone is racist. They repeat their programming over and over, saying "we must tolerate everything always," and "that's racist! that's racist! that's racist!" This is all they ever say. The Tolerance-bots are programmed by a machine called Indoctrination. Like all bots of planet Retard they are incapable of escaping their programming.

In contrast to the Tolerance-bots, the Skygod-bots worship an invisible robot in the sky called Allah. Allah gave them a magic programming code a thousand years ago which tells them to kill all robots that refuse to worship Skygod. Many suspect that the Skygod-bot was really just a machine like Indoctrination, and not really in the sky at all. They like to walk in vast circular herds around a meteorite that their programmer, Mohamed-bot, once stood on.

Mostly the Skygod-bots say over and over again, "God is great!" while blowing things up. They have few other thoughts. Their programming is very basic.

One day the Tolerance-bots decided to start a war with the Skygod-bots. This was paradoxical because their motto is tolerance. But the Tolerance-bots secretly worship money, and the Skygod-bots had resources that could be exploited.

Of course the Skygod-bots went completely berserk and began bombing Tolerance-bots. The Elite leadership of the Tolerance-bots did not mind this because the bombs were targeted to ordinary bots, and not themselves, and because the bombings gave further justification for invading and taking the resources of the the Skygod-bots. Since all high and mighty elite Tolerance-bots really care about is money, and since war is money, they desired to perpetuate the conflict. Meanwhile the common Tolerance-bots suffered greatly, and common Tolerance-bots just kept repeating their programming over and over again; "we mustn't be racist!" "we are tolerant!" "all other bots are racist." etc.

The massive death toll that the Tolerance-bots suffered eventually gave birth, through robotic natural selection, to a new breed of Tolerance-bots: the Intolerance-bots.

The symbol of the Intolerance-bots was an upright raised arm, which they pointed at their leadership, whom they worshiped as gods. The intolerance-bots had new programming, and would say things like, "gas the kikes. Race war now!" and, "hail victory!"

Like two great forces of nature the Intolerance-bots met the Skygod-bots on the field of battle. A nuclear holocaust ensued. To this day, planet Retard is a radiation blasted hellscape, filled with deformed and malfunctioning robots. The self-aware bots on planet Retard have been purged, and all that remains are various deformed species of animal bots, insect bots, and plant bots. Retard is devoid of all intelligent life.

And all that it took to prevent this great catastrophe was for robots to learn how to have original thoughts, or for elite high Tolerance-bots to stop worshiping money long enough to prioritize their peoples interest. Or maybe all it took was for the Tolerance-bots to realize that their own elites want to destroy them for profit. Or maybe the Skygod-bots could have shifted their tactics and started bombing elite tolerance-bots instead of common Imbeciles. After all, the only reason the elite Tolerance-bots feel secure in their profits is because they are not targeted by their own puppet Skygod-bots. If the Skygod-bots made a campaign of murdering elite Tolerance-bots these bots would give up their pursuit of money in foreign lands and prioritize safety instead.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Losing the argument the hard way

I have a better idea. Instead of arguing with liberals about equality we will simply advance genetic science to the point to where there are men walking the Earth who are faster than liberals, stronger than liberals, more intelligent than liberals, better at math, etc., etc. These Aryan √úbermensch will bang all the hot chicks, get all the pussy, and make all the money. Everyone who believes in human equality will become a slave to THE MAN, and will survive at the THE MAN's permission. Do you exist? Then HE permitted it.

Liberals can then mow the lawns and suck the dicks of reactionary Supermen. Because the price for delusion is slavery. Go ahead and believe in equality. You and your children will be slaves in the new order.

Liberals will try to ban genetic engineering. No matter. Some country out of the Cathedrals control will simply do it. Like China, Russia, or South Korea. Then the left will split into two factions: one that sincerely believes in equality, (the rubes), and one that only mouths the right words, (the hypocrites). The hypocrites will fly to China to genetically enhance their children. Their kids will get into Harvard and the rubes won't.

Banning it will only raise the price of gene therapy. The egalitarian who stands in the way of technology will then be priced out of the market. His children will get poorer as the reactionary's children get richer. Being genetically enhanced will create a positive feedback loop of wealth and enhancement. Each generation will be richer than the previous one. The rube who is late to the party will be permanently behind the curve. He will never be able to afford the next round of treatments needed to keep up. Earnest liberals will become the slaves of liberal hypocrites and reactionaries. Gnon's will be done. Inshallah.

So go ahead and believe whatever you want.


This is an example of a prisoner's dilemma. As a subject, neoreaction centers around a number of prisoner's dilemmas. They are;

1. Male dominance. (because male dominated societies out-reproduce equal ones)
2. Religious dominance. (because strong religions like Islam out-reproduce less religious societies)
3. Separation of Church and State, (because the very existence of a separation creates a powerful incentive to invent a secular leftist version of a state religion)
Capitalism and war. (because those societies with capitalism generate a larger taxable surplus than those without, and are thus able to buy superior military technology in order to win wars).
Democracy/divided power, (because the very existence of divided power creates a culture war to unify it)

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

What should I name my new book?

Pick one;

1. The Outlines of Totalitarian Capitalism
2. Anarcho Capitalist Future
3. Introduction to Market Formalism
4. Something else

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Why Elon Musk's new project terrifies me

He wants to link people's minds together in a system he has branded Neuralink. Technology develops in iterations. First there was the wax cylinder. Then came the vinyl record, the cassette tape, CDs, and MP3 players. Iteration is important because corporations are greedy and risk adverse. An existing product allows for the development of a better competing product to come into replace it. The developers know there is already a market and that they have a competitive advantage: less risk and more reward with less investment in promotion.

Let us say Neuralink works. Then corporations will compete to produce better and better technology that can transmit your thoughts. The process of technological market iteration sould eventually lead to the storage of memories. And that should lead to immortality. And immortality should lead to a vast word overpopulation problem. And that is what terrifies the shit out of me. Also, what about memory hacking? Mind control? Borg collectives? What happens to democracy when the thoughts of voters can be influenced or controlled? When is you past not your past because you memories have been edited? What if the government can install a new personality in your brain? What if the can make you want to turn yourself in to the police? What if they can force you to walk, against your will, to the police station? What if you are a ghost in a shell? What if overpopulation forces us all to live in a matrix? What political effects will the next information revolution have on society?

This could go really bad.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Types of crazies on Earth

Premise: suffering is genetically programmed. Evolution favors the organism that strives to fulfill reproduction facilitating goals. Loneliness forces humans to make friends, thus bringing them into contact with potential mates. Horniness compels them to copulate, facilitating reproduction. Hunger compels them to eat, thus facilitating survival as a necessary prerequisite for everything else. Every human impulse facilitates reproduction either directly or indirectly. Therefore a minimum level of hysteria is genetic.

Premise: life is mostly suffering because of the above reasons. There are plenty of pleasureful moments in life but a great deal of it is filled with various forms of discontent, longing, loneliness, anxiety, etc.

Premise: a rational self-aware organism will avoid reproduction if it has a choice.

Necessary conclusion: all thinking self-aware organisms that reproduce themselves must be more or less insane. Here are some types of madness that compel reproduction;

-Utterly selfish people who have children because they want kids regardless of whether the child suffers.
-Abusers who reproduce because they desire a victim to torment.
-Pedophiles who reproduce because of sexual interest in children.
-Absent minded people who are too self-absorbed to think about the issue.
-Religious crazies who reproduce because their god commands it.
-A desire to conquer an enemy through producing babies.
-Baby rabies

There will be a few types on non-crazies that reproduce;

-People who forget to take their birth control.
-People who are too low agency to keep a clinic appointment.
-Rape victims.
-Unthinking people.
-Inability to choose otherwise because birth control has not yet been developed. (this eugenic reason is now extinct)

Why dysgenics?
Why is family life getting worse?
Why are there so many broken rootless people from broken homes?
Why do so many parents suck?
Why are so many people choosing not to have children?

Consider that a major eugenic factor no longer exists: involuntary pregnancy. Therefore, all that is left are the other reasons. Religious madness is one of the best motives on the list to have kids.

So here is what is being selected for by birth control;

-Absent mindedness.
-Religious insanity.
-Conquest babies.
-Baby rabies.
-Memory problems.
-Low agency.

And here is what is being selected against by either birth control or abortion;

-Involuntary pregnancy
-People who just want sex
-Atheists and secular people
-Career women

Now forecast these trends for one hundred generations into the future and see what you get.

However, male victims of abuse tend to be less successful with women. Pedophilia may also harm fecundity, in boys. And victimhood can lead to feminism. So in the long-run a new list might be that nature selects for;

-Absent mindedness.
-Religious insanity.
-Conquest babies.
-Baby rabies.
-Memory problems.
-Wanting children and not just sex.
-Stay at home mothers.

In a birth control world, that is.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Aphorism no. 41

Calling someone racist isn't about fairness. It's about control. Since the left and its client minorities always desire more control over whites, as whites become less racist, accusations of racism will only increase. The same level of control must always be maintained. Hence, the standard must be raised forever  to guarantee that whites are always guilty. To conform to the standard is of today is to feed a higher standard of incrimination for you tomorrow, for tomorrow the standard of incrimination will simply be raised to make you and your children guilty. Racism is a shame word, like "infidel," and like the Islamic version its purpose is social domination by monkeys over others.

If you accommodate them they will simply raise the standard to make you guilty again. Because the point was never fairness, but control, and the same level of control must always be maintained — or increased.

Whenever you can get get away with it you should say you are racist even if you are not — just so you can escape control. Because hurting parasites is a moral imperative.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

No More Monkeys Driving Cars

New NRx blogger Imperial Energy

This is interesting. It just goes on and on. The blog is titled Imperial Energy, and he is writing a manifesto on absolutist neoreaction. Take a look at his outline below. Do I detect some influence from reactionary future?

Also, RF is now at The Journal of Neoabsolutism.

Act 1: The Commander and the Crisis of the Cathedral.


Part 1: Caesar Himself.

Part 2: A Dionysian Conspiracy.

The Inciting Incident

Part 3: The Age of Crisis.

Act 2: Never Such Innocence Again.


Part 4: American Fascism.

The Confrontation

Part 5: The American Minotaur of War.

The Companions

Part 6: Neoreactionary Conflict, Consensus, Confusion?

Act 3: A STEEL-cameralist Manifesto.

Statecraft of STEEL

Part 7: STEEL-cameralist Statecraft.

War Makes the State and the State Makes War

Part 8: Cameralism, Neo-cameralism and STEEL-cameralism Compared and Contrasted.

A State of STEEL

Part 9: STEEL-cameralist Grand Strategy, Geo-Economics and Legal Philosophy.

The Steelmanned State

Part 10: The Structure of the STEEL-cameralist State and Philosophy of Command.

Applied STEEL-cameralism

Part 11: A Study in STEEL: 9/11.

Part 12: A Study in STEEL: Urban Renewal.


Towards the Dark Enlightenment.

Part 13: Ten Steps to Unqualified Enlightenment.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

White pill of the century: Mexico's birth rates below break-even

Google it yourself.

The birth rate stands at 2.24 children per woman, below the 2.3 necessary to achieve break-even in the developing world. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but more and more I am coming to believe that the future belongs to the ideologically competent. If competence is a requisite for survival, the future looks very bright indeed.

Who is ideologically competent?

Amish, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews, some Mormons, conservatives who live on the farm, people who reject birth control, two parent families, and some other groups.

Build the wall.
Build it tall.
Laugh at cuck tears.

And for God sakes repeal the Bush Global Gag Rule.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Macron Wins: Whites choose morality over survival in France

It didn't help that her own father said she was unfit to be President though. Corrupt people with a corrupt morality. Nothing so weak deserves to live? It's truly amazing how easy it is to corrupt White morality in favor of auto-genocide.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Is censorship good for the right?

If you prohibit alcohol you get an underground economy controlled by the mafia, no regulatory oversight of quality, no taxes, and no control over who consumes it.

If you outlaw marijuana you get an underground economy controlled by the gangs, no quality management, not taxes, and no control.

If you outlaw free speech you get no controlled opposition, no tone policing, and no thought control. You get an unregulated, uncontrolled market for speech controlled by shitlords.

A totally uncensorable internet would be far better for humanity than lobbying for the right of free speech.

On Bannon

There are multiple overlapping truths. And she is wonderfully lacking in self-awareness.

Friday, May 5, 2017

The super-Dunbar problem, or how to sort homo sapies by their values to achieve world peace

How Dunbars' Number Relates to War

Per Wikipedia;
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size.[3] By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain only 150 stable relationships.[4] Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar".[5]
Basically, it is impossible to maintain constant staple relationships with more than a few hundred people. Oh sure, you can have ten thousand friends on Facebook, but do you communicate with each of them month? Can you keep track of all their birthdates without the software telling you? Are you really connected to them all?

It is a mathematical problem: as the number of people in a negotiation grows, the number of possible connections necessary to reach agreement grows almost exponentially.

Dunbar's number is important in politics because it relates to the ability of people to agree on values, beliefs, etc. There is a super-Dunbar problem where people treat society as one big tribe even though it is not. This cognitive bias results in never ending war and violent political struggle, since it is impossible for millions of people to agree on anything at all. A nation like America, with 400 million people, could not even agree on what flavor of chocolate to eat, let alone a political agenda. The failure to agree is not the crime, no, it is the insistence on agreement itself which is impossible and tyrannical. No will ever agree on anything at super-Dunbar scales, and thinking otherwise is a deluded fantasy. Above about 300 people, politics just becomes oppression.

So why do people do it? Why do people impose their value on others? Humans habitually think in terms of "we" because of our tribal evolution. This is inappropriate in the modern world. The tendency to impose ones values is genetic. People feel morally outraged, and believe this emotion entitles them to imposition. This is the root of all war. That's right, morality, (moral outrage) causes all war between humans.

People who just want prestige are actually generally content to leave others alone so long as everyone sings "hail to the chief" at all the right party's. It is the prig progs of the species that are the greatest tyrants.

Therefore oppression is inevitable, even if systems of "comprise" like democracy are used. Someone is always going to have the jackboot on their neck — unless humans are sorted into different spaces according to their moral and political values.

Our goal is peace on Earth.

Compromise, (which everyone calls "democracy") is presented as the only alternative to tyranny. But this is a lie. People can also be sorted into different boxes/territories using their own values as a guide. All you need is;

1. A values test that cannot be cheated, (like the Implicit Attitudes Test).
2. Enough boxes/territories to adequately represent all major permutations of political values.
3. A market mechanism to non-violently coerce people to sort/deport themselves according to their test results — using money to pull them to one or more districts whose politics matches their values. This is because you do not want to have to rely on violence in order to sort people. That would defeat the purpose.


There are at least five types of possible societies, based on how they deal with the super-Dunbar problem.

Tribe (does not have the problem)
Tyranny (monarchy, or authority if you prefer, subjugates disagreement)
Systems of compromise — "democracy"
Sorting humans by their political values (sorting in physical space, rather than market space)
Private law markets (give everyone what they want within a market equilibrium / sorting humans in market space, but not physical space)

Notice two things. First, this looks like a progression. Tribes led to monarchy. Monarchy led to democracy. Democracy should lead to governance markets of some sort. Governance markets might then lead to private law societies everywhere on Earth.

Second, notice that there are many possible combinations. There are five types here. Doing the permutations gives us 25 possible forms of government of combinations of 2, if we assume a federal structure with a different kind of local structure.

Territorial Governance markets
Territory-less Private law markets

Combinations of Two

Tribes + within Tribes (a federation of tribes has been done before)
Tribes + within Monarchy
Tribes + within Democracy
Tribes + within Territorial Governance Markets
Tribes + within Private law markets

Monarchy + within Tribes
Monarchy + within Monarchy (also known as empire, or feudalism)
Monarchy + within Democracy 
Monarchy + within Territorial Governance markets (or patchwork)
Monarchy + Private law markets (a type of patchwork)

Democracy + within Tribes
Democracy + within Monarchy (or exitocracy)
Democracy + within Democracy (federal democracy)
Democracy + within Territorial Governance markets (a different form of exitocracy)
Democracy + within Private law markets (anarcho-syndicalism)

Governance markets + within Tribes
Governance markets + within Monarchy (market formalism: a will talk about this is a future post)
Governance markets + within Democracy (probably impossible. Democracy would be hostile to it)
Governance markets + within Governance markets (medieval Iceland)
Governance markets + within Private law markets (impossible. You can't nest a territorial system inside a non-territorial system)

Private law markets + within Tribes
Private law markets + within Monarchy (a type of market formalism, Monarchy would probably be hostile to its own market)
Private law markets + within Democracy (probably impossible. Democracy would be hostile to it)
Private law markets + within Governance markets (in other words, private law societies within a federation of territorial private governments)
Private law markets + within Private law markets (the society described in Jennifer Government)

Everything is then duplicated along a second axis for left-wing and right-wing governments.

Not that not all of these combinations are possible. I have crossed out some of them. A tribe is a small thing. A larger structure cannot exist within it. Democracy is hostile to every form of government other than democracy, and so another system within democracy is probably also not possible.

Our goal is to find that system, or develop it, that will allow massive sorting based on values without needing violence to do it — some sort of market system.

A Values-Based Market Sorting System for People

1. The whole population gets tested according to some test criteria for political and moral values using a test that cannot be cheated. This test is a form of IAT, or implicit attitudes test. The values criteria is standardized across the whole country.

There are a number values criteria: here is a hypothetical list;

1. Attitude towards more taxation: positive or negative.
2. Attitude towards more privacy: positive or negative.
3. Attitude towards greater family values: positive or negative.
4. Attitude towards more authority: positive or negative.
5. Attitude towards more sexual liberation: positive or negative.
6. Attitude towards more women's rights: positive or negative.
7. Attitude towards more religious tolerance: positive or negative.
8. Attitude towards more freedom of speech: positive or negative.
9. Attitude towards implementing Sharia law: positive or negative.
10. Attitude towards more racism against non-whites: positive or negative.

2. Everyone can buy deterrence certificates, or sell attractance certificates. For a person to move to a county, they must pay the balance of all deterrence certificates minus the balance of attractance certificates. Whether or not they pay the system, or the system pays them, is determined by whether or not they are moving to a system that aligns with their values, or disagrees with their values. If you move to where people agree with you then you get paid. If you to where people disagree with you then you must pay their market.

2a. A Deterrence Certificate is a form of property in proximity. Basically, you are paying the market to keep people who don't share your values out of your county. You can buy one certificate for each of the ten attitudes on the standardized test. A Deterrence Certificate is property in deterrence of hostility. It is a form of property in likeness of values, buy a certificate that requires other people to have a minimum score on a standardized test for a certain trait in order to move there. A person has to pay the cost of certificate to live there.

With a deterrence certificate, you pay the system money to deter others you dislike — you get money back, when they pay you, to live there against your desires.

2b. An Attractance Certificate pays out to the stranger who shares your values when a person who meets a criteria moves to your county. It works in the reverse mode of a Deterrence Certificate: the system pays you first, and you pay back the system when someone moves to your district according to a standardized test criteria that proves they share your values along one of the ten standardized attitudes.

All the money the system pays out to you is held in escrow so you can reinvest it in buying deterrence certificates. The system never actually pays out directly. It allots a certain amount of credit for you to play with and then all money is reinvested. Otherwise the wealthy will set up "poles" (like magnetic poles) using their vast resources to push people out and pull people in. Also, their moral values would wind up dominating everything. In this iteration, every citizen gets the same amount of credit to their escrow account.

First Summary

We now have a design for a system of moving vast numbers of people non-violently based only on their political values. The only problem is that if we implemented it within democracy the left would probably move to block or nullify its effects. We need a consensus-based democracy like system, which isn't democracy at all, to allow this sorting machine to flourish. We need some sort of market-based federal government: a marketocracy. We need a higher level system to facilitate the lower level system. I'm not going to design that here. I don't know what it would be.

To implement this system you would need to follow a process. Also, you would need "poles" (like magnetic poles), meaning financial attractors, which are not controlled by the wealthy, and which would pull on people to accelerate and stabilize the process or sorting. Otherwise, markets could shift at whim and people could find themselves being pushed out of the places they just moved to. But these would need to be relatively equal, otherwise the rich would distort the system until it represented their values, and only their values, at which point it would transform into something else. Once it transformed, sorting would end, which would also defeat the purpose. To achieve the purpose of peace, sorting must never end, because new generations are constantly being born.

Process of Implementing the Market

The values sorting market is implemented first.
People move around as a result of going where it is cheapest, e.g., where there are other people with values who agree with their own.
Then after awhile a blank Charter of Common Values is propagated for each county.
The Charter of Common Values is a summary of bullet points.
A bullet point is a mathematical statement or algorithm that determines the cost of a positive or negative attitude towards one, and only one, of the 10 standardized attitudes that are tested for. For example;

Cost of positive attitude towards more taxation.
Cost of positive attitude towards more privacy.
Cost of positive attitude towards greater family values.
Cost of positive attitude towards more authority.
Cost of positive attitude towards more sexual liberation.
Cost of positive attitude towards more women's rights.
Cost of positive attitude towards more religious tolerance.
Cost of positive attitude towards freedom of speech.
Cost of positive attitude towards implementing Sharia law.
Cost of positive attitude towards more racism against non-whites.

A cost can be NEGATIVE. Let us say that this is the case for "more taxation." In that case, there is a cost for an attitude in favor of less taxation. In other words, it can cost money to have an attitude in favor of less taxation rather than costing money to have an attitude in favor of more taxation. Since all of these ten standardized attitudes that are tested for can have negative or positive values, they can all be costs for a favorable attitude or costs for an unfavorable attitude, but never both.

Anyone can propose a bullet point on one of the ten values to the market.

A bullet point on the Charter of Values must be in one of the 10 categories of attitudes that is tested for, and may not overlap with another of the attitudes.

There is an auction. There are two simultaneous bids: one for "yes" and one for "no" on each proposed value/(a mathematical statement) regarding each bullet point.

People purchase "yes" or "no" votes with their escrow account (not regular money).

If more money is given for yes votes than no votes on a single bullet point, then it passes. If less, then it is defeated.

Once this is done for every single bullet point that has been proposed, each bullet point goes head-to-head in competition with another bullet point within its attitude category.

If there are 8 bullet points they go head-to-head in 4 competitions. 4 are eliminated. Then the 4 go head-to head is 2 competitions, then 1 competition. Finally, only one formula for each bullet point is left standing. That math formula becomes the markets way of calculation the cost, whether negative or positive, for that particular attitude. The result is a custom system of values, determined by the market itself, for its particular county. This custom system then attracts and repels certain types of people based on whether or not they share the value of the people who live there. It stabilizes the system, and is "democratically" derived.

Each county has a Charter of Common Values worked out by the market itself. This charter then acts like a "magnetic pole" attracting people who share its values by paying them to live there while taxing those who disagree with its values who live there. The push/pull effect consolidates a community of like-minded people in each and every county in the nation.

Any regular money paid to anyone within the system is corrupting. Therefore it is taxed at 80%. The tax money is then redistributed into every escrow account equally. This (and the free credit issued by the government) is how money gets into escrow accounts in the first place. The free credit amount can never be withdrawn from the account, though the additional money deposited from redistribution can. For example: if the government gives a person $500 worth of credit to play with, and then $700 redistributed from taxes on bribes/campaign contributions, then;

   500 Credit
+ 700 redistributed
= 1200 Balance (of which only 700 may be withdrawn)

As a result of this redistribution of influence, influence is maintained in common hands, rather than flowing into wealthy hands.

Each county the has a local democracy that determines its laws. While democracy resists any attempt to have another system encapsulated within it, democracy itself may be encapsulated within another system. What that higher system is, is not defined here. The result is a vast sorting within a super-structure. Humans then live under the democracy that represents their values, and struggle is (mostly) eliminated. Any remaining disagreement is within narrow margins between like-minded people.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

We are under attack

Or shall I say, "the Cathedral is under attack."
"Within the United States itself, there is a need for the Russian special services and their allies “to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)” (p. 248).  “It is especially important,” Dugin adds, “to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S.  It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics…” (p. 367)."
This is a quote translated into English by John B. Dunlop from Aleksandr Dugin’s book Foundations of Geopolitics, which was allegedly required reading for the General Staff Academy of the Russian military. This quote is on Dugin’s own website, here, so there can be no doubt about its authenticity. The connection to Putin and the Russian government is also disturbing, to say the least.

I'm putting this quote here just in case you have any doubts about the source of modern racial animosity in the US. Typically, my analysis has focused on the role of divided power in producing conflict between groups. This was based on Moldbugs' naive ideas. Though divided power plays a part, more and more it looks like America is destabilizing because an external influence is causing that effect: Russia.

Of course, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. Just because Russia is attacking the Cathedral doe not mean that we are required to take sides with either the Russians or the American left. Making people support tyrants because of fear of another tyrant is an old hat trick elites use to play people against each other. I'm not falling for it. Elites are all insane, and taking them down with decentralized systems (markets, competition, and elections) is the way to go on this.

The problem is that our fate is currently bound to the Cathedral. We don't want to be bound to anyone, certainly not a Russian dictator.

How to not think well: or the relentless liberal undervaluing of all the right types of knowledge

Let us create a classification of different types of knowledge. Some of there terms are made up. Do not worry. I will define them all. I have put them in rough order from most valuable at the top to what I think is least valuable at the bottom.

accretive (or cookbook knowledge)
derived from the scientific method
engineering-based (tinkering)
iterative (design-based)
statistical knowledge
theological interpretation
common sense
well-intentioned advice
pure reason

accretive (cookbook knowledge)

All cookbooks are "cookbook" knowledge. Cookbook knowledge/accretive knowledge is any knowledge that has been learned from lots of experience by many people, and put into the form of a recipe. "Do this and you will get a certain result," is the format of accretive knowledge. I call it accretive because it accumulates from the experience of many people. It is among the most important type of knowledge created by humans, and the type the left-wing undervalues the most. Here are some examples of it;

Cookbooks, like the The Joy of Cooking.
Knowledge of how to organize family and sexual relationships from religious books, such as The Bible, the Rig Veda, or the Upanishads.
All medical texts, such as the Physicians Desk Reference, Grey's Anatomy, Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, or the Astanga Hridaya.
Building codes, such as the International Building Code,
Dictionaries and encyclopedias, like Black's Law Dictionary, or the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Additionally, you have Native American, Amerindian, and tribal folklore and folk medicine.

Notice that this knowledge is not derived from science but from experience. Accretive knowledge is just an accumulation of what works. Buildings kept falling down, and that is how knowledge of building standards came into being. Doctors worked out treatments through mostly trial and error. Religions defined the proper roles between men and women through experience. None of this stuff was arrived at a priori from logic, but backwards, from experience. It works because it works, and the whole world is built on this stuff. "Accretive knowledge," has given us the engineering standards to build rockets to the Moon, and yet listening to liberals you would think that the "scientific method" did everything. Actually, the cookbook/dictionary/engineering manual/religious doctrine came first, and then science simply explained it later. People made vast books of what worked, and then theories arrived to explain it.

Accretive knowledge is underrated because it just "works," and working is its only criteria. It's always the case that nobody fully knows how it works. That is why it is accretive, and not scientific, knowledge. Consider that there is now a scientific cookbook called The Food Lab: Better Home Cooking Through Science, which applies theory to explain what makes food taste good. But of course the ordinary and boring experience-based cookbook preceded it.

derived from the scientific method

Almost nothing is purely derived from the scientific method. But it has given us abstract mathematics, information theory, symbolic logic, calculus, and the like. In truth, accurate science usually only arrives at after enough accretive knowledge accumulates to postulate an hypothesis.The scientific method is as over-rated as accretive knowledge is underrated. The second form is built on the first. Contrary to liberal beliefs, "proof" is not based on a priori reasoning like Kant would have you believe. It is the long culmination of the process of accretion. When accretion reaches a certain lofty height, if becomes science. Scientific knowledge is just accretive knowledge with a theory to explain the pattern.


Teleological knowledge is that which is derived from an analysis of purpose. An objects teleological function, is its function according to what it does, and not what it says it does. This is where statements like the following come from;
"taxation is theft,"
"government is a stationary bandit,"
"ideology is to government as marketing is to business,"
"Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws,"
"a bureaucracy behaves like a corporation that works for the profit of its employees,"
"the tendency of bureaucracy is to grow without bound"
"immigration is about replacing White voters"
"feminism is designed to sterilize White women so they give birth to fewer Republican babies"
"unsecure power will fight until one is supreme, with disastrous consequences."

Knowledge derived from teleological processes, (analysis of a de facto purpose as measured by results), is the most underrated knowledge. It is underrated because it is the only proper way to understand the state, and because people with power do not want to have their motives fully understood. Teleological knowledge will always be undervalued because there will always be an incentive for anyone with even a little power, (even a college professor) to downplay it in order to conceal their true purpose. Everyone who has an agenda hates teleology: it exposes them.

engineering-based (tinkering)

Not to be confused with engineering standards, (a kind of cookbook knowledge), engineering knowledge is the kind that Thomas Edison practiced in his workshop, and every computer programmer is familiar with. This is the actual source of most of the worlds great inventions, and not "reason" or the scientific method, though real scientific theory can help. The incandescent bulb was invented by tinkering, as well as the airplane, automobile, assembly line, television, telegraph, and many others.

iterative (design-based)

This is repetitive learning through designing something over and over again. All cell phones in the world are designed through a process of iteration. Architects use iteration to weed out the mistakes in their designs. Software companies write and rewrite software to make it better, etc. Also massively underrated. Iteration consists of designing a thing, then critiquing its flaws, and then redesigning it. This is repeated over and over again. The process is didactic. One learns from the process itself.

statistical knowledge

The most overrated form of knowledge. Statistics have an outsized importance because they can be used to lie. Most statisticians are in the business of producing lies for political agendas. The vast bulk of college professors who teach statistics are in on the game. Never trust a statistic unless you understand how it was collected, its sample size (n), etc. If you have never taken a stats class then you have little clue as to how extensively you are being deceived.

theological interpretation

If there is one piece of advice to give people, it is to trust theological knowledge before "pure reason," and to trust a traditional interpretation before a modern one. Theological knowledge is not religious knowledge straight from the book — that is cookbook, or accretive knowledge. Rather, it is the interpretation of that knowledge in ways appropriate for the current society. The basic rule with theological interpretation is that if the priest is changing the meaning to eliminate its conservative, or traditional aspects, you have a bad priest, and you are being lied to. Since religious wisdom is accretive in nature, it is compiled by many minds over vast stretches of time. There is "wisdom in the crowd" so to speak. The fact that it has been interpreted, translated, rewritten, and edited by so many people has given countless minds the opportunity to iron out its imperfections. Extensive editing is proof of its legitimacy, not against it. Doctrines like the Quran (which are not subject to change) are worse than doctrines like the Hindu Vedas, (which have been changed through oral retelling over the course of thousands of years). Editing produces perfection, unless the new edition has survived for less than a few hundred years, in which case it may be influenced by modern agendas. You want extensive editing without modernist corruption. That way it has been modified by the hands of many (sound) minds.

common sense

Albert Einstein once said that "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein was also a socialist, proving that a man can be a genus in one area and an idiot in politics. Common sense is a form of accretive knowledge. It is produced by editing of social constructs by the social body itself. Unfortunately, it is far more prone to liberal corruption than cookbook knowledge, and contains liberal/egalitarian corruptions in abundance.

well-intentioned advice

Well intentioned advice is not always worth following because what is appropriate for one person may be wholly inappropriate for another, because intentions are hard to ascertain, and because the other does not have the complete story. But it is "objective" in that it consists of a mind external to ones own, and may provide some small amount of corrective thinking to ones own small flawed viewpoint. It is better than nothing.

pure reason

Is not knowledge at all. Kant loved pure reason. Probably because it allowed him to make up lies. For something to be knowledge it must have some contact with the external physical universe. Pure reason only requires that all lies have an internal consistency. To that end, there are schizophrenics who are better at it than Kant. With no messy details of reality to get in the way, pure reason can be utterly consistent. If fact, complete consistency actually selects against pure reason.

The universe is hostile to life. As such, it is impossible for a living organism to be completely true to its morals and survive. To form a moral code that would be compatible with survival, a living being would need a perfectly accurate model of the world, with zero imperfections. Otherwise a simple error in its model would lead to a faulty moral sense in some small way. This could produce a contradiction between survival and morals. Since misestimation abounds, moral codes are imperfect, producing moral compromise.

If you had to compromise your morals to survive, your morals were imperfect.

Pure reason is the drug of men who prefer Gnosticism to reality, idealism to survival, and virtue signaling to genuine goodness. It is a consistency in morals placed above life itself, which is a contradiction, since morals should serve life. Pure reason also is not even pure reason: inevitably logical fallacies creep into the most dedicated thinkers. Reason has also not undergone the cumulative process of accretive knowledge, the testing of science, the analysis of consequence inherent to teleological knowledge, the tinkering of invention, the flawed proof of statistics, the recursive self-criticism of iterative design, the social editing of theological wisdom, the social editing of common sense, or even the bad process of good advice. It is the laziest, dumbest, most flawed, most deluded, form of thinking there is, and the most beloved by "rationalists" and atheists.

In conclusion

Contrary to popular belief, real science is the culmination of vast amounts of human experience with what works, collected and cataloged, and piled up into a great mound of knowledge. A typical car manual has more real science than a book on climate change. Once EXPERIENCE has reached a vast height, theory is brought in to explain it. It was only after humans has cataloged the movements of the planets that Sir Isaac Newton invented his calculus to explain the motion of heavenly bodies. The scientific method is 1. observe. 2. form a hypothesis. 3. test the hypothesis. 4. verification or refutation. 5. independent verification. This process depends on a big enough pile of observations at stage 1 to move on to the rest of the stages. It does not spring from the mind of "pure reason."

The point of all of this is that collections of information about what works, even if they don't explain why it works, are superior to other forms of knowledge. Science comes out of Chesterton's Fence. It is a tradition of workability. Once you have enough knowledge about what works, and what doesn't, even if you don't know why, you can begin to find out why. Once you have found that out, you the form a theory — and not before. It makes no sense to demand an explanation to justify a tradition. Finding out why something works is an act of obedience to Chesterton's Fence: once you know the reason you have a theory, and once you have that justification for tradition, you have SCIENCE. As a subject, proper science is literally a justification for a tradition of doing what works. It is the theory-based justification of practical tradition.

How science really works;

1. For thousands of years, some pagan priests record the motion of the planets and stars.
2. Either everyone respects Chesterton's Fence, or leftists forget to burn the books, but somehow the knowledge survives.
3. Newton comes along and uses this record of patterns to develop calculus.

Now this is how the left thinks science happens;

1. "Pure reason" comes from the mouth of Dawkins.
2. "I fucking love science" happens.
3. I get a new iPhone.
4. The communist utopia arrives cuz super-sciencey scientific socialism.

Notice that the leftist is a hindrance to the science he loves so much. He refuses to respect Chesterton's Fence, to just trust that because something is working that it must have a reason. Those pagan priests were trusted because they could accurately predict the next full moon. No one knew how it worked. They just knew that it worked. This is cookbook / accretive knowledge. "It works because it works." That had to be respected long enough for the next stage to arrive: theory. Everyone who undermines "it works because it works" undermines the arrival of theory. Don't question it: answer it. Find out why it works. Now you have science.

Oh, and last thing. If you really want to advance science, you would make an encyclopedia of patterns, paying special attention to unexplained patterns which could have a physical cause. Of course, a lot of HBD would wind up in there, and if the liberals didn't burn the books. . .

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Aphorism no. 40

The problem with the modern world is not its stiffing conformity, although that would always be a problem for some people. The problem is that the conformity is based on the internal logic of power, and what ideas power needs to propagate in order to survive, and not the psychological well-being of the people. Under the current system, powers' needs are orthogonal to public sanity, or actively hostile to it. The propagation of stifling conformity could be a boon to mental health if engineered by the hands of a responsible party — like it was in the era of Walter Cronkite. Good propaganda can actually increase national sanity. In fact, that is a fine definition for the term: good propaganda is whatever increases national sanity. Bad propaganda is whatever lowers it. For more discussion on this issue, see Mimetic evolution under different social structures, and the ideologies they produce.