Friday, September 22, 2017

Musing on the end of the world

I have a tendency to conflate "negative" with truthful. Maybe this is just because I don't want to be disappointed by anyone. I figure that if my standards are low enough then no one can disappoint me. But this has a cost. If standards are low you never see the good in people. If standards are low people will tend to live down to them. If standards are low people detect your low standards and become shittier as a result. And if standards are low you are negative which repulses a lot of positive people that could be of benefit in your life. Low standards have and rather extreme cost, and negativity isn't cheep.

It's one of those things that only affects the people who care deeply about the world. You think you have a moral obligation to society, to be realistic and truthful no matter where it leads. You believe that it is your job to fix the problem of your country. You think you are required to care. Or at least I think that I am required to care.

Is this a "white thing?" or does it affect a small percentage of every population? This, compulsion to care? It that even an acceptable question to ask? What I do know is that it is a "Scientology thing." You are hammered relentlessly with the idea that the entire fate of the world is on your shoulders. Quite literally, you are indoctrinated to believe that if you do not "clear the planet" (save the world) everything will implode and your spiritual destiny will be fucked. Scientologists literally believe that they will have to come back to the world in their next life. If things are not fixed now you will have to endure them again. If the world decays, you will have to personally endure the decay — as a baby in your next life. If you die today you will be a 5 year old child in 5 years. Literally.

What a hell of a way to motivate people!

This is a really hyper version of Christian missionary zeal. But instead of working for the next life you are working for this world, and your own future existence. Reincarnation also factors into the political calculations of other cultures. Westerners may find it odd to realize that East Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese think like this. In the East some people pray to their ancestors. The belief in a future in this world connects them to the future. The veneration of ancestors connects them to the past. Consequently, there is nothing like the extreme disregard for history that exists in atheist progressivism. Progs act like the world began in AD 1963. It's a really incredible hubris. Asian societies have a much better conception of deep time than the west. When you grow up you are supposed to realize that there was a world before you existed, that your parents have their own lives and are their own people, that ancient wisdom has its uses even if no one quite understands why, and that there is "nothing new under the sun." —Ecclesiastes 1:9

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."

Even the Bible supports the notion of nietzschean eternal recurrence. Or shall I say that Nietzsche supports the Bible, since it preceded him.

The alt-right/neoreaction shares this feature with my birth cult; the feature of caring what happens to the world; the feature of believing that YOU are responsible for it. This mentality is so familiar to me it comes across as obviously true. Since most of society seems narcissisticly self-absorbed in feelings ("that offends me!"), materialism (treat others like consumable products), and solipsism (choose your own gender, "lived experience," etc.), IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE THE WORLD is the alternative to the well of meaninglessness.

This idea of totality is shared by Islam. It is a symptom of our time that "totality" appears the only thing that stands against the breach, obstructing mental decay. Where did the "great chain of being" go? What happened to "clean living," the "protestant work ethic," "American optimism," "frontier spirit," and classical liberalism?

Perhaps totality only works because it places the individual at the center of things. After all, if its your job to save the world then you take the place of Jesus within the ideological pattern. That's narcissistic right? And so the one thing that resists decay is built on decay? Or am I missing something? It seems a true reversion to a non-decayed form would be a veneration of something outside of oneself. NOT sex, products, technology, the "singularity," flesh, self-expression, love, or any other idols. No, you have to go full God-worship to step outside your own solipsism. Maybe the trads are right.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized

This looks interesting.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Scientology, training routines, and the post-rationalization of abuse

In Scientology there is this thing called Training Routines, or TRs for short. It is like meditation but not. In the first training routine, (TR Zero), a person is trained to sit still with their eyes closed. They are not allowed to fidget, sneeze, giggle, laugh, scratch themselves, shift their weight around a lot, fart, or fall asleep. They have to sit quietly for hours on end without any nervous behaviors or falling asleep. It they so much as giggle, the whole exercise starts over again. This goes on and on and on day after day. If you fidget in any way the coach yells "flunk!" and you have to start over again.

The point is NOT to suppress your emotions. The point is to learn to be there comfortably.

After you have mastered TR-0 you move on to TR-1. TR-1 is the same thing, but with your eyes open. You sit there in a chair with your feet on the floor and LOOK at another person for hours on end. You are not allowed to fidget, squirm, giggle, laugh, or anything. It you do any of these things the "coach" yells "flunk!" and you have to start over. If you flunk too many time you have to go back and repeat the previous level.

Next comes TR-3: bull-bait. This is where things get interesting. Now your coach makes jokes, perverted remarks, reads from Alice in Wonderland, whatever. They can even joke about your mother. If your fidget in anyway, laugh, or get pissed off you flunk and have to start over. If you flunk too many times you have to repeat the previous level.

I went through all of this at the age of nine when I took the Children's Communication Course. As a result I had a batter ability to sit still and shut up than most adults.

Here's the point. TR-3 is basically conditioning a person to accept abuse. The TRs vastly raise the threshold for your fight-or-flight response so that nothing bothers you. It basically eliminates your fight-or-flight response. You need your fight-or-flight response. It tells you when you are about to get your ass beaten. It tells you when everyone hates you. It tells you when you need to stand up for yourself.

And there is a second reason.

Human beings post-rationalize their bad behavior. If someone does something bad to you they will rationalize their behavior by dehumanizing you. They will find fault in YOU so they don't feel so bad about what they have done to you. As a result, if you tolerate abuse you are unwittingly training the abuser to abuse you even more. You must stand up for yourself or the abuse will just continue. If other people see that you are willing to take abuse they might try to take advantage. Standing up for yourself is a matter of survival.

Whether L. Ron Hubbard knew this is what he was doing when he came up with TRs is anyone's guess. But the inevitable result of TRs is a population of people who take abuse passively without resistance, and a managerial culture where people with power relentlessly dehumanize their subordinates. Whether intended or not, the consequence of TRs is to eliminate the fight-or-flight response, and create a cycle of post-rationalization of abuse and dehumanization. This is exactly what we see in Scientology. The ruled passively accept the abuse of the rulers.

Never accept abuse. It trains your abuser to abuse you more.

This is also why you should not passively accept the dehumanization of White people. You should stand up for your race. Otherwise you are allowing future generations to be trained to abuse you with a cycle of post-rationalization.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Political correctness as a substitute Veblen good

I keep saying that there is nothing outside capitalism, except maybe North Korea. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. It is a subset of capitalist behavior. Dictatorships and oligarchies are essentially giant corporations that own countries. Democracies are markets, and all other countries are firms. China is just one big firm.

Cathedral PR says that tolerance is the highest virtue. In reality it is a moral value of capitalism. Tolerance is really indifference. Our tolerance is supposed to be love. In reality, by indulging you in your gender neurosis we are assisting in your destruction. Caring is too expensive and brings no profit/social status to the one who does it. Even worse, "intolerance" costs the one who does it status points as the person who is inhibited from acting out punishes the person who is inhibiting them. All of this follows from a pure logic of status profit maximization. The one acting out earns status though self-destruction. (The self-destruction of others is enjoyed as entertainment by other human monkeys). The entertained pay status points to the self-destroyer, who destroyers herself for status. (It's usually a White female who is destroying herself). The process is not inhibited because it would cost the surrounding people status points. Gender neurosis is a gift economy for trading on the self-destruction of others.

There is a double aspect to this. The gender neurosis is also a "shit test" for the surrounding males. (The only one that sterilizes the female tester). It is also an updated version of classic female attention whoring.

Veblen goods are goods that become more desired as they get more expensive. A Rolex is a Veblen good. The purpose of Veblen is to give status to the owner. These type of goods are consumed for their status rather than their usefulness. Social justice is a poor woman's substitute for Veblen goods. This also explains why the SJWs hate ostentatious displays of wealth, (like Trump).

Lots of people crave higher status, especially university educated people. But the oversupply of education means that a degree is not what it used to be. Hard work does not lead to the wealth necessary for acquiring Veblen goods. Political correctness is the poor college graduates substitute. The more one virtue signals the more it superficially appears that virtue signaling has value. But the more other people virtue signal the cheaper one's own virtue signaling becomes relative to theirs. The only way to maintain high status is to out-perform the ritual relative to others with an even greater display of ritual perfection. Status is acquired through superior ritual recitation of the words of political correctness.

Social justice is religious capitalism. Universities are now in the business of selling political perfection or the ritual because they can no longer sell higher status though direct knowledge transfer. People go to college to be trained to recite the ritual better than others.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017




Whenever disscussion of property rights come up people interject with mumbo jumbo about "God," "natural rights," or the so-called "state of nature." Meaningless nonsense ensues. These platitude-based arguments only serve to obscure the real discussion about the origin of property rights. Even worse, the arguments made by natural rights libertarians and anarchists actually interfere with their ability to accurately see the big picture, to think strategically, and to design system that actually work. Their hysteria over the notion that government is the source of their property rights, instead of some figmentary higher principle of mythical moral nonsense, actually sabotages the hyperstitional realization of their anarchist dreams.

Essentially, there are two competing theses about property rights. One is the anarchist thesis, which states that property rights are magical and defend themselves. This position is best articulated by the blogger Alrenous‏ as follows;
"Property rights are self-enforcing. The state spends most of its time intervening, preventing them from being enforced. The state is officially defined as the locus of legitimized coercion. Coercion can only be coherently defined as anti-property. Property is the reasonable expectation of control. You control things despite the state trying to take them from you, not because of it.
"If the state weren't 'protecting' my rights, I would be able to see to their protection myself. And then they would actually be protected.As a matter of fact, the state completely fails to protect your property. I can remove trespassers myself — but I'm not allowed to. If my valuables are stolen, the state will neither retrieve nor replace them. If my property is vandalized, the state will not help clean. If my person is threatened — when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Any security I have is despite the state, not because of it. Not only are police only minutes away, but were I to end the threat myself, I'm apt to face criminal charges for doing so."
The other argument is the statist argument of property rights; which is simply this; the police are the ones that enforce your property rights when someone trespasses on your land, therefore your property rights come from the state as enforced through the police. End of discussion.

But which argument is correct? Superficially it may appear that the anarchist argument is correct and the state really is nothing but an infringement on rights. But this cannot be true, because anarchism does not work in reality. Does the state create property rights or the individual? Anarchist property rights are not hyperstitional; that is, they do not make themselves real. But why?

Two words: commitment limits.

Yes, you may be able to protect your property rights. Let us assume that your property is small enough to be viewed from every point by yourself. In that case it is most likely possible that you could deter a single intruder from seizing your property. But what about twenty intruders? Or a thousand? What about an army of fifty thousand? The essential difference between the state and the individual is that the state can ratchet up its commitment to almost infinite limits relative to the paltry power of individuals. And thus, your property rights come from the state, because the state says so, and because the state can bring to bear any measure of force against you in order to overwhelm your opposition. Might makes right. The state wins. You lose. Therefore your property rights come from it.

Notions that rights are "natural," that they "come from God," or are "self-enforcing" are simply a rebellion against reality. The group that can scale violence beyond its enemies oppositional commitment limit is the source of property rights, nothing more or less. Sovereignty lies with the winner in the fight. And this is important, because if a project like blockchain is ever to defeat statism in the game of defending property rights it must be able to overwhelm any competing force. The refusal of anarchists to simply accept reality inhibits their ability to succeed.

Until a superior anarchist force is developed that can scale its commitment to violence beyond anything a state can bring to bear, or is willing to invest, ideas about self-enforcing property rights are just that: ideas. In the real world the state only defines property rights so it can generate a taxable surplus which it can harvest. In this world, the action of property and expropriation are the same; rights are only defined so they can be infringed, with the level of infringement ratcheting up over time.

Sunday, September 10, 2017




Central Assertions:
1. Common values are impossible in large societies. In large societies widespread value systems can only be manufactured by power.
2. A leftist definition of freedom is impossible if it includes all four left-wing ideals of representation, voice, common values, and equal participation.
3. Three of 4 design criteria can be met with patchwork.

Instead of challenging the leftist definition of freedom, let us take it as a given and see where that line of reason leads us. Let us steelman the left-wing argument that voice is necessary for freedom, and look at the logical conclusions of that.

Let us define the word "freedom" as;
(a), having a state that represents the values of the people contained within its borders.
This is of course a very Whig definition because it makes no reference to God or commandments. Leftists value voice, and this is the definition they use. They also hold other premises: they believe that (b) the people should have a voice in politics, that (c), society MUST agree on a common set of values, that (d) every person must have an equal say in what those values are.

These premises make each other impossible — as we will see in a second.

Proof of impossibility.

The number of relationships in a group is defined by R = [(N (N-1))/2], where R is the number of relationships, and N is the number of people.

A group of 3 people has 3 relationships.
A group of 4 people has 6 relationships.
A group of 30 people has 435 relationships.
A group of 1,000 people has 499,500 relationships.
A group the size of the population of America, with 400 million people has 79.8 billion relationships.

It is exponential.

If it takes 5 minutes for ever person in a group of 400 million to negotiate with every other person in order to arrive at a "common set of values" then it will take 79.999 quadrillion years for them to arrive at that common set.

The amount of time required to argue over a common set of values would then exceed the lifespan of the nation. Obviously, a non-hierarchical system where common values are arrived at is mathematically impossible at any scale above the tribal level.

If you impose a one-to-many system where every member of the public must argue with a central authority over what the common set of values must be, then you can greatly cut down on the amount of time necessary to achieve this. Unfortunately anytime you have a one-to-many relationship you have power, because the one person sitting at the center has more control over others than they have over him. Power is the opposite of equality; it automatically implies that some are "above," and some are "below." To even have a one-to-many relationship is to have power, and to destroy equality. One-to-many relationships render (d) impossible (every person must have an equal say in what those values are), since the one at the center of the one-to-many relationship will have more power than those on the periphery.

  • If the lifespan of a nation is assumed to be 1,000 years, and if every political conversation takes 5 minutes, then the time required for a non-hierarchical communist society to negotiate on a common set of values will exceed the lifespan of any nation at a population of greater than 14,499, assuming they debate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with no breaks for 5 minutes each person.
  • ∴ non-hierarchical systems cannot function at super-Dunbar levels.
  • Common values are impossible at large scales without the imposition of power.
  • Equality of power is impossible at large scales of political organization, since the one-to-many relationship define an inequality in power.
  • ∴ large nations cannot have freedom under the Whig definition.
Per the Whig definition of freedom, freedom is impossible.

Since it is functionally impossible to divide society up into units as small at 15 K or less, (a) either centralized tyranny must give way, or (b) only a political patchwork of microstates that creates a "menu" of political values can ever hope to express all political opinions, and therefore represent individual values per the Whig definition. Only patchwork can create freedom.

The point of this discussion is not to assert the validity of the Whig definition of freedom, but to point out two things; first, the complete definition renders itself realistically impossible; second, 3 out of 4 conditions can be met by dumping the requirement of equal voice, (d), and replacing it with a menu of political systems. In other words, a due concern to for right of representation concludes that only forms of patchwork are up to the task; forms like micorstates, private law, agorism, and others.

Edited 09/11/2017 at 3:36 pm

Friday, September 1, 2017

Everything that works is a system

Americans use to starve and go blind from malnutrition. A hail storm would come, wipe out your crops, and your children would go blind. This is what happened to the real life character of Mary in Little House on the Prairie. Then a man named Dwight D. Eisenhower came along and created the aptly named Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.


Monarchies have constant civil wars. Oligarchies, (like the US now is) have endless political struggles between mad elites that threaten to produce open civil war. As a principle, the more concentrated power is in the hands of a few, the larger the payoff for controlling it, and the more insane and destructive politics becomes. Once upon a time, a group of men called The Founding Fathers created a system called The Constitution that laid out the design for a republic. It worked really well for a long time.

A system.

Now democracy has been destroyed by an oligarchy of elite financial power that buys the result of every election by funding some candidates and not others. Our politics has noticeably gotten a lot more insane as these elites have concentrated power into fewer and fewer hands. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a system for defeating this? Imagine that campaign contributions are taxed. The taxes are then used to pay for campaign contribution vouchers. These vouchers are given to the small business owners of America — to the bourgeois. The bourgeois like political stability because it is good for capitalism and profits. They also tend to have sensible attitudes of thrift, investment, and long-term thinking. Now we have a system for ensuring that the majority of money for all campaigns comes from the most stable and centrist group in society.

A system.

The markets that put bread on your supermarket shelves are a system. They run a transportation network on top of an interstate highway system, using a monetary system, a credit system to finance it, transportation logistics systems to plan the movement of goods, running on top of computer systems, constructed using manufacturing systems, using chips designed by artificially intelligent chip design systems.

Is this starting to get redundant?

What keeps Ebola at bay? The National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). What prevents architecture from falling down? The countless local building inspection systems, and international building codes. What ensures food quality? The ISO 22000 family of International Standards for food and medical safety and the USDA system.

It goes on and on.

There's a huge resistance to systems of government in neoreaction in favor of kings.

Everything that works is a system. Everything else is just monkey screeching madness. The solution to madness is not more human monkey screeching. On the left there is this profoundly childish and delusional idea that if we just change everyone's mind people will stop being evil a wacist.

*As a side note.*

Only a system of genetics could change human nature, and that extraordinarily dangerous. There is the possibility that what we might call Recursive Iteration Towards Extinction (RITE) might occur. Imagine that you change human nature to make people care more about equality. Then the next generation, because it cares more about equality, also changes human nature to make people more egalitarian. This process continues until you have humans that are so obsessed with equality that they cannot walk down the street because the fear of stepping on a bug, (discriminating against the underlumpenproletariat) is so dreaded that the human race becomes unable to function: so it goes extinct. Modifying human nature can get you into a trap where extinction sneaks up on you by exaggerating some human pathology, need, desire, whatever, over multiple generations. That is RITE: a recursive trap caused by modifying human nature. The solution is either to (a), never modify human nature, or (b), avoid standardization of human beings so that "naturals" still exist as a backup in case something goes wrong.

Systems must be constructed CAREFULLY. They must not burn themselves out over time. They must not produce the conditions of their own collapse. For example; democracy may destroy itself when its own immigration policies lower IQ sufficiently to render democracy impossible. The whole point here is that systems are not evil per se, but they must be constructed with foresight to their long-term secondary and tertiary consequences.

*End side note.*

Once a system is in place it almost never gets destroyed. It becomes too useful to everyone and thoughts of destroying it encounter extreme resistance. An old system is almost never dismantled unless a new, far better system already exists, has a proven track record of working, and can be dropped into place.

In summary;
  • Everything that works is a system
  • You have to be careful what systems you build
  • Once constructed, they are impossible to get rid of