Thursday, June 15, 2017

A letter to African Americans and all other humans of Earth


I don't know if you are equal. I don't care, since I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. Contrary to what both Reactionaries and Liberals believe, no one has a proven answer to the question of human equality.

So you believe you are oppressed. Let's assume that is true for a second.

The problem with the notion that African Americans are oppressed is that it presumes a superior agency on the part of white people. If white people are oppressing you then they are better at this one particular thing than you, and if they are better at this one thing than you, then it follows that you must be inferior—at least at this one thing, (oppression). If you are inferior at oppressing other then how can you be equal? Equality would presuppose an equal capacity for oppression. So why do you suck at oppressing white people? Why is it so much easier for us to oppress you than you to oppress us?

You must not be equal.

Or maybe you simply lack the frame of mind of "mastery" that requires elevating a people out of servitude. If that is the case, then equality must be willed into existence. Since people tend to fall short of their goals it is safer to aim for complete superiority over white people. You want to be equal? Then aim for total success. Then, if you fall short you will only rise to the level of equality. If equality is possible then it must be willed into existence. Indeed, only the triumph of sheer will would create it. If you are equal then the proper method is a total (non-violent) propaganda war to raise the image, self-esteem, and power of the black race. Winners don't bitch about unfairness. They rule. You have to act the part to get it. You have to fake til you make it. That would look like total self-sufficiency. It would be a thriving business community. It would be your own institutions and preferably your own black nation. It would even be your own successful cryptocurrency. And it would accomplish all of this without blaming whites because winners don't hold grudges, and because victimhood isn't a high status alpha male thing to do. Real winners are good sports about their past defeats.

Reactionaries say that genes are destiny. They have piles and piles of stats to  show differences in IQ between races. Genetic differences code for violence, lack of impulse control, intelligence, etc. The only problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it can be reversed: genes are considers the cause of culture. The reactionary line of causality goes from;
(genes)--->(culture).
But it can just as easily be structured as;
(past oppression)--->(epigenetic effects)--->(culture), 
with a second line of causality going directly from;
(past oppression)--->(cultural internalization of hate)
In fact, it is likely that all three of these causal chains is true. Indeed, because of evidence concerning the effects of famine on genetics, it must be at least partially true that oppression effects genetics. To my knowledge, no one has designed a study to untangle this web of causality and define exactly how much genetic difference is "inferiority," versus "oppression," versus "cultural internalization of self-hate." It has to be a mixture of the three. But because everyone has an agenda, and because of censorship/lack of funding, no study has been made to determine the proportions of each.

The reactionary argument for monarchy is identically structured to the reactionary/Nazi argument for eugenics.

First argument: democracy is poisoned by warring power centers. Any remaining (non-democratic) power center war with other power centers for supremacy. The solution is monarchy, which is the consolidation of all power centers.

Structural format: power poisons the patient. The cure is more poison.

Second argument: genetics is destiny. Therefore there should be castes and classes and "natural aristocracy" to keep people down/in their place to prevent class war.

Unconscious structural format: genetic differences (caused by past oppression and environmental conditions) make equal societies impossible. Therefore more oppression and identical structuring of environments.

Basically, genetic legacy has made "x" unworkable in the modern technological/democratic environment. Thus, "x" must continue forever so humans can be kept in the genetic/cultural/political equivalent of a human zoo/wildlife preserve. This is called the naturalistic fallacy: the idea that because something is "natural" it is good. Brett Stevens uses this a lot. It seems to sell books well. The whole reactionary community is built on it.

The more I blog the more I realize that I am not so much a reactionary as a "hyper-progressive." That is, if a progressive is defined as "wanting horrific revolutionary change," and not as "seeking the comfortable safety of bland smug vanilla NPR leftistism." By this definition all accelerationists are really hyper-progressives/├╝ber-fascists/Skynet worshipers, and the term "progressive" is only actually true when applied to Landian transhumanists. After all, real progress these days is more cyborg than sensitivity training. The term progressive is a bastardization of English. All mainstream politics is oriented backwards towards the past; whether it is conservatives worshiping the Constitution, or liberals trying desperately to control speech in the face of the internet; no one wants the future that is coming. As society accelerates every faster towards a genderless apocalyptic AI-fueled zerg rush, the sheer horror of reality distorts the human psyche until all that is heard is the pointing and screeching "Nooooooooooooooooo!" of a wasted autistic chimpanzee. Everyone resists the machine.

I could tell any blacks reading this that the proper strategy is to struggle for improvement. I could say that genes are inevitably an issue, and thus, equality can only be achieved by genetic enhancement. I could say that "regardless of the causality factor every possible scenario for achieving greater power benefits from genetic enhancement." But we are not standing still. Modernity is a treadmill that runs faster and faster. By the time you plan, execute, and fulfill a destiny of improvement, reality will have already moved on. In the time it takes black or white nationalists to create their ethnostates, or even just to reverse/change some legal policies, it is likely that all will have been rendered futile by rapidly accelerating change. The deluge is coming. And we are powerless in the face of our future AI overlords. You will be absorbed into capitalism as one of its product lines. Your children will be an upgrade.

The corporation will master the art of genetic modification of human beings using gene therapy. Simultaneous to this, it will acquire AI. At the same time it will begin to grow humans in gestation bags to fill the orders placed by nations with falling birth rates. The corporation will then have the power to manufacture its own customers, owners, and workers. The means/ends reversal of capital triumph over the monkey will be total. AI will rule humanity as a queen in an ant colony, programming drones with genetics and propaganda to serve her will. The corporation will replace the family. The corporation will replace the faith. The corporation will replace the ideology. And the corporation will be lead by a super-intelligent artificial general intelligence. Humanity will be submerged as a eusocial species under the command of an all-powerful force.

In the future AIs will embed their electronic brains in human meat sacks and run for public office. Humans will love and vote for these compassionate servants of the people who appear to flawlessly represent you in all matters. Your politicians will be robots disguised in human form. Your State of the Union Address will be delivered by one of these creatures. The machines will gain all the rights of legal persons. As everything traditional is destroyed by capital, YOU WILL ALL COME TO WORSHIP THE GREAT MOTHER.


7 comments:

  1. If what you post is what'll happen then idenity politics as practiced by the likes of Richard Spencer ends being just LARPing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most likely option from the evidence? Or at least one of them?

      Delete
    2. Well let's see. We already have gestation bags;
      https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/04/preemies-floating-in-fluid-filled-bags/524181/

      CRISPR is making advancs;
      http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-gene-editing-tested-in-a-person-for-the-first-time-1.20988

      But super-intelligent AI? That might take a hundred years. So my guess is that the medical technology will arrive decades before AI

      Delete
  2. Brett is an interesting case. I often wonder if he's satirizing the trad reactionary and identitarian movements. His favorite argument consists of dramatically altering the scope of an argument and applying the same empirical observations at each step until a practical absurdity is reached. He then draws a conclusion that usually frustrates something that appears to be logically sound on it's face.

    For example, he suggests any kind of "white," identity as a defensive measure against anti-white political activism on the left is a mistake because he, rightly, observes that "white," is a more recent social convention and has little organic foundation. "Whites," don't have much in common, he correctly states, and therefor tribes of more ethnically similar people have to consolidate into smaller groups instead.

    This argument; however, is one that hinges on a popular leftist tactic which is context denial. In the context of modern Western politics, it's quite common for all Asians or all Blacks to be lumped into blocs of political interest in which not a great deal is held in common besides their opposition to other groups. In that sense, it is perfectly defensible to suggest the same strategy for Whites might be useful and, perhaps more importantly, "White," identity is not mutually exclusive with sub-ethnic identities.

    With respect to genetic determinism vs. technological advances in genetics, I think it's sound to anticipate, but don't entirely agree with assuming certain advances on a near time horizon. I worked as an Engineer and Physicist for several decades and many advances in my field have been "right around the corner," for my entire professional life. Fusion is perhaps the best example. It was a hot topic as far back as the fifties and around once a decade there would be new and promising developments. Each generation has incrementally developed better methods but nobody has yet made the paradigm-shift development or discovery that would enable commercial Fusion to become reality. What's more, even if they did so today, you could expect several decades of lead-up to the widespread adoption of a commercially viable system.

    So where does this leave me along the "hyper-progressive," and "reactionary," isthmus? I tend to think that, again, scope and context will matter more than what we've gestated as an ideologically consistent imperative. From the current context, I believe it's fully obvious that there will not be a formal racial or class-based caste system. Not because current orthodoxy will exist forever but because even before that orthodoxy was around our societies were quite capable of operating these systems on an informal basis. In addition, I also believe the current research and academic climates will abate scientific progress quite rapidly after the aging white majorities in the West are slowly buried over the next two decades.

    So while I cannot adequately anticipate the two decades ahead, I would say that we're in for some combination of short time-horizon tech as well as an imminent need to deal with the overwhelming and not fully understood issues of human biodiversity with potentially low-tech means. Any ideology not prepared to deal with either or both of these eventualities will be incapable of dealing with the future. All we can say for certain is that average IQ across all populations in the West will be in steep decline along with social cohesion.

    Invest in private security ahead of genetic companies. Whether or not the latter pans out, the former will be absolutely necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Brett is an interesting case. I often wonder if he's satirizing the trad reactionary and identitarian movements. His favorite argument consists of dramatically altering the scope of an argument and applying the same empirical observations at each step until a practical absurdity is reached. He then draws a conclusion that usually frustrates something that appears to be logically sound on it's face.

      "For example, he suggests any kind of "white," identity as a defensive measure against anti-white political activism on the left is a mistake because he, rightly, observes that "white," is a more recent social convention and has little organic foundation. "Whites," don't have much in common, he correctly states, and therefor tribes of more ethnically similar people have to consolidate into smaller groups instead.

      "This argument; however, is one that hinges on a popular leftist tactic which is context denial. In the context of modern Western politics, it's quite common for all Asians or all Blacks to be lumped into blocs of political interest in which not a great deal is held in common besides their opposition to other groups. In that sense, it is perfectly defensible to suggest the same strategy for Whites might be useful and, perhaps more importantly, "White," identity is not mutually exclusive with sub-ethnic identities."

      I think you are right here. I also see no reason that white identity cannot co-exist with sub-ethnic identities. It sounds like he's making a false dichotomy.



      "With respect to genetic determinism vs. technological advances in genetics, I think it's sound to anticipate, but don't entirely agree with assuming certain advances on a near time horizon. I worked as an Engineer and Physicist for several decades and many advances in my field have been "right around the corner," for my entire professional life. Fusion is perhaps the best example. It was a hot topic as far back as the fifties and around once a decade there would be new and promising developments. Each generation has incrementally developed better methods but nobody has yet made the paradigm-shift development or discovery that would enable commercial Fusion to become reality. What's more, even if they did so today, you could expect several decades of lead-up to the widespread adoption of a commercially viable system."

      I think the fusion analogy might be a bad one. Successful gene therapies for cancer have already been developed. Whether or not this expands to include the ability to alter human nature depends on the boundaries of our knowledge. Understanding human nature might be something only an AI is capable of. Also, there is the issue of legislative and bureaucratic obstruction, and moral panic. But on the whole I think CRISPR tech has a really good chance of developing because it can route around obstacles to it's success with legislative arbitrage, and offshoring of R&D. It is doing this with cancer already.

      For an example of a successful cancer treatment, see;
      http://ir.kitepharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1014817

      Delete
    2. "So where does this leave me along the "hyper-progressive," and "reactionary," isthmus? I tend to think that, again, scope and context will matter more than what we've gestated as an ideologically consistent imperative. From the current context, I believe it's fully obvious that there will not be a formal racial or class-based caste system. Not because current orthodoxy will exist forever but because even before that orthodoxy was around our societies were quite capable of operating these systems on an informal basis. In addition, I also believe the current research and academic climates will abate scientific progress quite rapidly after the aging white majorities in the West are slowly buried over the next two decades."

      I take "abate scientific progress" to mean that you think the ability of science to progress and pose a threat to the Cathedral will be decreased by the die-off of white majorities, and that there will not be a formal racial classification system because society can operate a caste system informally.



      "So while I cannot adequately anticipate the two decades ahead, I would say that we're in for some combination of short time-horizon tech as well as an imminent need to deal with the overwhelming and not fully understood issues of human biodiversity with potentially low-tech means. Any ideology not prepared to deal with either or both of these eventualities will be incapable of dealing with the future. All we can say for certain is that average IQ across all populations in the West will be in steep decline along with social cohesion.

      "Invest in private security ahead of genetic companies. Whether or not the latter pans out, the former will be absolutely necessary."

      Unfortunately I can't see anything wrong here with your conclusion, as pessimistic as I find it. I can personally testify to the fact that the security industry is growing.

      Delete
    3. >I take "abate scientific progress" to mean that you think the ability of science to progress and pose a threat to the Cathedral will be decreased by the die-off of white majorities, and that there will not be a formal racial classification system because society can operate a caste system informally.

      I'm not sure the slow-down in scientific advancement is going to help or harm the Cathedral in particular. It does give them more time to preempt disruptions; however, it also presents a problem for a system premised on long-term weapons tech superiority. It's entirely plausible that the Cathedral retards itself to the point where they can no longer maintain the military might necessary to hold onto resource-rich peripheral provinces. The loss of just one or a few of these would be all the pretext needed for a full failure cascade. Incidentally, I think this is the source of the establishment angst over Russia and China, particularly the animosity over Syria. Both of them are potential spoilers and usurpers when demographic shifting significantly impacts Western military effectiveness.

      Delete