Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Everywhere in the world equality is used to support slavery, and create greater inequalities

In the name of equality rent controls are imposed. If you know a little bit about economics you know that rent controls cause a rise in rents on all non-rent controlled units. By restricting profits from building housing the incentive to build new housing is reduced, causing a reduction in the supply of housing and a housing shortage. The resultant shortage raises rents on the remaining housing. Also, since housing is made artificially cheep on the rent controlled units, people rent larger spaces than they normally would have. Thus, rent control exacerbates inequality by raising rents on all apartments other than the rent controlled units.

All housing restrictions raise housing costs, and yet, the most fierce proponents of the restrictions are usually the very liberals who live in cities and are screwed over by them.

In the name of equality, college is subsidized. The subsidies increase the supply of professional workers relative to demand. The result is to lower their wages. Liberal college students vote for college subsidies and fail to realize that they are also voting to lower their own future wages. In societies that massively over-produce college graduates, like many European societies, there are so many graduates than the only way to find work is to have connections. Thus, college subsidies produce an even more discriminatory system.

In the name of equality, immigrants are brought in. These immigrants depress wages by increasing the supply of labor. They also act as a de facto slave labor force for corporations, and a supply of votes for the democratic party. Liberals who vote for immigration are voting, without realizing it usually, to suppress their own wages.

In the name of equality, women believe that they are empowered by going to work. In reality, by doubling the labor supply, they cut everyone's wages in half, so that for the same standard of living a couple must now work twice as hard.

In the name of equality the Democratic party destroyed segregation, which had the effect of forcing African Americans to spend money in their own communities, which created a local multiplier effect and created jobs for Blacks. By ending segregation the Black community destroyed its own economic independence and made itself dependent on Whites, since Whites will not shop in Black neighborhoods, and thus, will not return money to the Black community that they have taken out.

In the name of equality, socialist countries impose price controls. The result is shortages of basic goods, and hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a massive increase in the cost of goods, and hurts the poor most severely — the very people who voted for it. The result is Venezuelans eating out of the trash.

In the name of equality, people have installed the very communist governments that made them feudal slaves under a one-party tyranny. No one is harmed more by communists than the poor.

None of this is new. In the name of equality, kings destroyed the aristocracy and converted feudal society into capitalist society, kicking peasants off their land and making them wage slaves.

Civilization is a process where the doctrine of "equality" is used to generate economic rents. An alliance of the high with the low  against the middle pushes it forward. As the cost of economic rents increases, societies go from feudalism to monarchy, from monarchy to democracy, from democracy to socialism, from socialism to feudalism, in an endless cycle. In the final analysis, socialism is indistinguishable from feudalism, since the government owns the economy in both societies, and ultimately rules for the benefit of the elite. There is no "dictatorship of the proletariat." The proletariat are proletariat precisely because they cannot see that equality is a weapon for slavery, that it is used in all eras of human history, and that it is always a ruse for more inequality.

The process by which one regime type, (democracy, monarchy, and feudalism), transform from one to the other is economic; when economic rents exceed the carrying capacity of the economy a political crisis occurs, forcing the elites to take ownership of the economy directly. That is how democracy becomes feudalism. Feudalism then concentrates power into fewer and fewer hands until monarchy results. Monarchy then accumulates rent-seekers until it is overthrown by democracy. The process is always upward; the king wants more power and wealth, and so produces capitalism out of feudalism. The bourgeois wants more power and wealth, and so produces democracy. The proletariat wants more power, cooperates in its own unwitting subversion, and produces socialism/feudalism. Through the three regime types, the engine of historical power moves down from the high caste to the low, but the low are too foolish to run themselves, and so make the process circular, delivering themselves into bondage.

What is needed to end this process is some sort of ultimate exit technology. Economic rents drive it forward, and these rents are only possible if government has a captive population base; that is, if one has to pay taxes. If money can be separated from the state, (like with Bitcoin), that is a start. If the state can be separated from the power to coerce, that is the end of the cycle. And in a world with nuclear weapons the cycle of revolution needs to end.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

The case for informalism

Formalism is the doctrine that everything should be out in the open, that all forms of power and influence should be converted to fungible shares of stock, and that the lines of communication, influence, and power of a government should be transparent. It really needs to be pointed out that this was a prescription Moldbug gave for attacking the Cathedral. It is a weapon against the Cathedral.

It is an idea for eliminating conflict by making the outcome of every fight known in advance. It is supposed to be a way of getting power to behave rationally. But applied to the right-wing, it is a way of making every single thing that you do traceable by your enemies. It empowers those who already have power. Used against you it empowers the left.

Moldbug thinks that if a ruler's power is absolute he will behave rationally. He therefore proscribes formalism in order to eliminate ambiguity about power. He thinks that if the left has absolute power it will behave rationally. He looks at the relatively responsible behavior of the Chinese Communist party for evidence of this. But the CCP is still preaching communism, and communism is to the right of social justice. A cultural Marxist "Social Justice party" would be ideologically frozen in the current year, and that means transgenderism would continue to be promoted. Communist victory stops left-ward movement, but does not necessarily reverse it.

We are in a state of cold war against the left. If a right-wing organization "formalizes" all of its power relationships, it hands a map to its enemies that shows how to destroy it. It says, "here are all of the lines of authority in our organization, the names of all of our members, corporate officers, tax records, financial weaknesses, financial sponsors, etc." You might as well hand your enemy a gun.

This is a huge flaw in Bitcoin, which is based on some liberal idea that transparency is good. Every transaction on the blockchain is potentially traceable. That is a huge mistake. Opacity is your friend. The assents nobody knows you have cannot be taxed, traced, or controlled. Italians understand this, and they use cash for almost all transactions, relentlessly evade their taxes, hire people through informal social networks, (guaranteeing that jobs go to family members and not immigrants), and pay protection rackets to kneecap threatening people. Even if the government lets refugees into the country there are no jobs for them because you cannot get a job in Italy without connections.

Hezbollah has "territory" in Lebanon. Being the wrong nationality and walking in the wrong neighborhood can get you killed.

Anglos are irrationally obsessed with having a rule for everything, and loudly announcing what those rules are under some false assumption that everyone is trustworthy, will follow the rules if they are told about them, and will not just subvert them. When you live in a multiracial empire you need to behave like a gang, you need to behave like the Italians and Hezbollah, and you need "informalism."

You need secret male-only fraternal organizations. You need totally informal ways of moving money around like Islamic Hawala banking. If you are using a cryptocurrency, you need everything to be totally untraceable from the ground up. The ideal is to even have a secret ledger that defines what territory is controlled by what reactionary/nationalist gang, for the gangs to know what territory is controlled, but no one outside the system. The ideal is to be able to even record titles to land and property whose ownership is enforced by the goddamn mafia, so that control of land is not even in the hands of the state, and the state's property ledger can "say one thing," while the fists of the Mafia say another, with the fist having more power to persuade than the state. The goal is to simply take all aspects of governance away from the government.

Accountability is evil. It just means accountability to strangers outside your community — to enemies. It just means you can be subverted. Everyone inside the clan knows the score, and that is all the accountability you need. In-group reputations provide the necessary regulation.

The alternative to Twitter, Gab, suffers from the flaw that it concentrates all of the alt-right in one place, slapping a sticker on every person that says, "look at me!"

The ideal informalist tech would combine a variety of different media types, such tweets, texts, phone calls, music downloads, movie downloads, webpages, and crypto transactions, in a vast sea of identical looking jumbled up encrypted data, so that reading a single tweet, or finding the owner of a single crypto transaction would involve decrypting hundreds of terabytes worth of data. Ideally it would also be used by billions on regular people, so that anti-Cathedral messaging would be hidden in plain sight. You want the act of tracking one individual to involve a Herculean effort of enormous cost and time, and everything should automatically self-delete after a fixed period of time, with crucial transaction records getting copied into new code in a different place in the jumble of automatically generated code.

Ghost gunner has value because it produces untraceable weapons. It is opaque. The degree to which Bitcoin has value is the degree of its opacity. The right accomplishes more online than in person because of anonymity, because of opacity. Torrents are opaque. VPNs are opaque. Secret societies are opaque. Grapevines are opaque. Nested cells are opaque. Leaving the cell phone at home and meeting face-to-face in private is opaque. Cash is opaque. Good ol' boy hiring networks are opaque. Wheat pasting counter-propaganda at night is opaque. Putting a reactionary book on the library shelves, if there are no cameras, is opaque. Dropping leaflets in public places is opaque. Tor is somewhat opaque. Duck Duck Go is somewhat opaque. Hawala banking is opaque.

Memorization of names instead of having a ledger of members is opaque. Trading reactionary books is opaque. Phone trees are somewhat opaque. Distributing reactionary literature, or Samizdat, is opaque. Paying cash for a burner phone is opaque.

There are two great books you should read. One is called The Art of Not Being Governed, by James C. Scott, and the other is called How to Be Invisible, by J.J. Luna.

In How to Be Invisible, Luna describes a technique where you go way out on a country road and find a stand of mail boxes sitting there on the side of the road. You take a regular mail box and nail it to an empty spot on the wooden rack of mail boxes. If, say, the address on the box is "607" you can tack on a box labeled "607B" or you can drive around and see that there are no other addresses for "609" and literally just take that number. It's perfectly legal for someone to just set up a mail box. You don't have to notify the postal service. You can then receive deliveries at that address. Just keep in mind that odd numbers are one one side of the street and even ones on the other, (in America). And putting up a mail box is perfectly legal and does not require registration.

Another thing that can be done is a group of people can establish a way of passing notes using a cityscape as the method of doing it. You have a series of spots picked out across the city. Maybe one spot is under a flower pot, maybe another is a brick that has been removed from a wall, and a third is a safety deposit box. A courier goes to each location and puts notes under the rock/under the flower pot/in the safe deposit box. The notes tell a brief story like this.

"Alice goes to the market. She talks to Dave. She retreaves the box."

This is a code. There is a rubric for deciphering it. It is a grid, like this;

A sophisticated enough code can be indistinguishable from normal writing, and even make sense to the casual viewer. You can even have evolving codes where a box in the rubric says, "shift the whole code down three rows, and over to the left two columns," and a box in the rubric which say "for the next message you receive, use rubric number 4." You can have multiple rubrics and they can have boxes within each other than refer to each other, shift columns up or down, rows left or right, etc., so that someone trying to decipher it is constantly being thrown off.

Another method is to have a series of L.LC. companies where the charter on each, lists the owner as another L.L.C., and then to incorporate them in many different states so that an investigator has to fly all around the country to dig up the corporate charter of each, and find out who the final owner in a chain of nested corporations. This allows for the hiding of assets from prying people, or at least it raises the cost of finding the real owner so high that only a well-funded investigator will go to the trouble.

The Art of Not Being Governed is about how to live as an anarchist in practical reality, or at least how the people of the Zomia region in southwest Asia accomplish it. A pdf copy can be found here. In short, it describes various different techniques that people have used for centuries to evade control by governments. The techniques described in this book are some of the same ones that are used in Afghanistan, and why Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires, why we are still there, and why governing them is essentially impossible. These two books, Not Being Governed, and How to Be Invisible, are completely indispensable. The first is for people willing to go off-grid; the second for those who want to hide in plain sight.

Social Justice is Religious Capitalism

Liberal Capitalism

Under the liberal variant of capitalism, the morality of exchange infects everything. As people value objects for their use, they begin to value each other for their use. Unfettered by faith or tradition, humans under capitalism become consumable objects from the perspective of others. Patriarchy is hated not because it is evil and authoritarian, but because it places a restraint on the ability of a woman to consume men, their wealth, and their attention. Tolerance is celebrated because standards get in the way of consuming others, and because being held accountable to any standard is not fun, and not entertaining. People are regarded by each other as sources of entertainment, sources of validation, (no matter how unworthy of validation they really are), sources of sex, sources of attention, sources of income, sources of child support. Everyone wants to get it now. Women, being inherently more consumable than men under liberal capitalism, are more respected than men, and more readily cooperate with liberal capitalism's morals. Women are turned into consumable prostitutes, men into Jons. Everything that is presented as "left-wing" under such a system is actually in the service of the morals of capitalism. "Hate speech" is simply speech that is unpleasant, and thus, not consumable as entertainment. Everything that interferes with the validation of the ego; things like truth, argument, logic, masculinity, patriarchy, tradition, gender, sexual standards, "slut shamming," etc., are systematically destroyed by the very people who think they hate capitalism, and who paradoxically share it morals most deeply. Capitalism seeks the standardization of every human being, just as it seeks the standardization of every object. Everyone must be able to go into debt, be consumable, be productive, be a non-controversial employee, be a worker drone, be polite, be politically correct, and conform. Rather than being opposed to capitalism, diversity training is the very essence of capitalism, which seeks to fragment and standardize all races, communities, and structures outside of itself until the individual is noting by a worker and consumer in a machine. Tolerance is only done because standards are inconvenient for both the enforcer, who receives no compensation and much hostile resistance, and the one enforced against, who is made uncomfortable and not entertained or validated.

From my previous article, quoted in full.

"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 graduate's 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.

Far from being opposed to capitalism, feminism is a distinctly capitalist thing. It is essentially a labor union for sex workers, which all women become under capitalism, as capitalism colonizes all ideological territory with the morality of use-value, a moral code where all humans are reduced to being only an object for other people's consumption. Under this system of pervasive using of others, women become "nasty women," who take pride in their nastiness. The female sex takes on a uniquely unpleasant air, so that most women become rather intolerable to the men around them. In a system of pervasive sexual usury and manipulation, men practice "game," while women practice feminism. Under such a system, the recent flurry of both false and true accusations of sexual harassment should be seen for what it is; an attempt by sex workers (career women) to gain an extortionate financial advantage over their Jons, (male employers). Feminism thinks of itself as a distinctly Marxist, or anti-capitalist idea, but that is the logic of all labor unions, and unions are a distinctly capitalistic behavior that seek to maximize the financial gain of their workers.

Gender becomes a consumable commodity, hence "transgendered" people. Even race becomes a commodity, see Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King. The commodity follows the trends of fashion, so that in one era Michael Jackson is lightening his skin to become White, and in another Whites are masquerading as Blacks.

As the logic of pervasive usury of others for entertainment, validation, sex, etc., marches forward, so does the extent of the ideological territory colonized by liberal capitalism. A market for virtue signaling emerges so that people can earn validation for virtue without doing any good deeds to deserve it. This is the ultimate expression of use-value; the act of being as lazy as possible while earning the respect of millions. Naturally, the market for virtue signaling favors the one with the least value and the most sociopathic traits. Hence we inevitably praise the most abominable people.

Religion does not escape the moral logic of use value. Megachurches spring up to provide us with our Sunday validation. The market relentlessly favors the most pandering expressions of Christianity, so that the gospel is replaced with speeches and rants about the pastor's own personal views, carefully curated to produce the optimum agreement from the congregation. If I have a church, and you have a church, and I give strict boring sermons which the public does not find entertaining, while you give highly entertaining events complete with a free rock concert and laser show, then your congregation grows while mine shrinks, and gradually real religion is driven out of the market by bad religion. The market relentlessly selects in favor of the churches that pander the most, while pushing any real expressions of faith out. Like money, bad religion drives out good religion.

The logic of use value extends to the classroom, where boring classical educations are replaced with the far more use-value-full, and entertaining form of political indoctrination. Since Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws by lobbyists, it is far more valuable to indoctrinate people to be a single bloc of allied purchasers of economic rents, (the left), than to give them a real education, and this also reduces the supply of real education to the students, rationing it so that the graduate is less of a competitive threat to his professors, and needs to eventually upgrade to a masters degree. Political education is watered-down education, which has the effect of causing the student to need more of it, and to pay more money to the university. Political education is to real education as inflation is to sound money, and social justice is the substitute Veblen good provided in place of a real upgrade of status.

Last but not least, this is only one variety of capitalism. There are other forms of capitalism that provide different values. See the essay on Reactionary Capitalism.

Monday, November 27, 2017

The vestigial organ fallacy

This little bit of retardation from back in 2015 at the website Slate Star Codex burns me up. As usual, Scott Alexander is a smart but stupid person on every subject. FYI: smart but stupid people (SBSP's) are smart but stupid because they are arrogant, and their arrogance makes them unable to see the value in things they cannot understand easily. Here is an example;

"5. Cultural evolution could have occurred way way back in prehistory. There seem to be about 50,000 years of prehistory, there were many more cultures back then, and maybe cultural generations were shorter – for all anybody knows, clans could have disintegrated and reformed over the space of decades. That provides enough generation time for cultural evolution to work. Question is, can we trust anything that evolved in pre-history – when the pressing social issues of the day were things like “How do we not get eaten by bears?” – to still be relevant?
"There does seem to be the potential for cultural evolution to be interesting, but I’m still not seeing it as a strong argument for preserving particular features of inherited culture absent other arguments suggesting we know why we want those things to be preserved."

I really despise smart people who are unable to see the value in tradition, religion, etc.

Think of it like this. The highest form of reason is not pure reason. Contra Kant, (pronounced "cunt" for a reason), accretive/traditional knowledge is a much higher form of thought than reason could ever be. Reason is prone to countless errors, mistakes, cognitive biases, fallacies, motivated cognition, anchoring, etc. Traditional knowledge, or accretive knowledge, is everywhere, and is the basis of everything that works. DNA is a tradition of adaptation to everything that killed your ancestors. The fact that your body has vestigial features like the appendix does not mean that the body is worthless or invalid. Religions can also have vestigial features, such as a prohibition against eating pork. The fact that this vestigial feature exists does not invalidate the value and usefulness of religion itself, and asserting that something has no value, even implicitly as Scott is doing above, is making a claim, and the burden of proof is on the one making that claim.

Science, contrary to liberal beliefs, comes out of accretive knowledge rather than pure reason. Someone make hundreds of observations about a natural behavior, (the accretion), and then someones develops a theory to explain it. Nothing is ever just invented out of thin air. Reality is always discovered first; not reasoned into knowledge from first principles.

Religion, DNA, law, constitutions, scientific knowledge, engineering principles, building construction standards, food packaging standards, capitalism, etc., is all tradition. Everything that works is a system, and all systems are traditions arrived at through experience with trial and error. The vestigial organ fallacy consists of devaluing an entire system because some part of it is outdated. No atheist would say that law itself is invalid because there are stupid laws on the books. No member of the "rationalist" community would say that vestigial organs invalidate the legitimacy of DNA, and no one should say that outdated religious features invalidate faith itself — no one with humility anyway.

Reason is also lazy since it spares the thinker from having to read anything or do any research. Yes, it might be less lazy than a cognitive miser, but it is lazy for those that can think, since they could do better and actually learn about the subject they are talking about. If you do not understand the reason for something it is your job to find out why, and not anyone's to tell you.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

How To Be Single

I'm not responding to Imperial Energy's response

Imperial Energy writes his response to my critique here. A reader requested that I give my thoughts of the subject of Reactionary Future's thesis, and that is the only reason I did. The reasons I won't bother writing a response to his response now, is that I don't care, I never cared, and I'm lazy.

He accuses me of not getting it, (perhaps I don't), of confusing several issues, of misrepresentation, and then tells me to read a pile of references.

I am not going to read the pile.

Though I have my own reference to recommend: The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

Imperial Energy's critique of my critique ends with him saying;
"As for when a ruler is secure, we will have more to say on that issue shortly."
Cool, I will wait for that. I want to find out what the goal post is before I say anything more.

Aphorism no. 47: the intolerance of tolerance

To demand tolerance is to deny all moral standards in the name of a moral standard; an inherent contradiction. Advocates of tolerance then screech against moral relativism; the very thing that tolerance inevitably increases.

Even worse, the more a society exercises tolerance the worse people's behavior gets, so that the environment is made intolerable by tolerance itself.

Eventually, someone asserts a standard at the point of a gun, which is how all standards, even standards requiring tolerance, always worked anyway.

Mandatory tolerance produces its inevitable opposite.

Ultimately, an appeal to tolerance is an appeal to laziness.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Theory fiction: aqua pigs in outer space

People often think of terraforming planets as one of the most viable options for humans colonizing space. Or they think we will arrive on some planet that has life already, and just start living there. Science fiction, especially shows like Star Trek, are replete with the idea that Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and whatever could just casually interact with each other, and even mate with each other without producing serious biological consequences. This is totally absurd, since even a small bacteria carried by aliens could devastate the planet Earth's biosphere. Imagine if aliens arrived on earth and transmitted a bacteria to the surface of our planet that converted all the atmospheric nitrogen to nitrous oxide, destroying the ozone layer, or a bacteria that turns sea water into hydrogen peroxide, bleaching all life in the oceans. Merely allowing an alien species to land on the planet might transmit an apocalyptic bacteria to Earth. The tolerant world of Star Trek, where multiple species live together on planet Earth, is a fairy tale.

We have two foolish notions here; the belief in cohabitation of biospheres, and the idea of terraforming itself.

A far more efficient way than terraforming is to modify humans to fit the environment of another planet through sophisticated gene modification. Many extrasolar worlds may turn out to be ocean planets, like Gliese 1214 b is thought to be. Assuming that such a planet is devoid of life, the easiest approach would be to genetically modify human beings to have gills and breathe underwater. Of course such humans would also need different skin that can tolerate constant exposure to salt water, sonar to communicate under water, collapsible lungs, different eyes, and a few modifications to the brain to process sonar signals. A sufficiently modified group of humans could colonize a water world this way. The moons of Europa and Ganymede are already water worlds right now, and if early indications are any measure, most Earth-like planets will be water worlds. This is because Earth is an outlier. The Earth was formed when a Mars-sized planet smashed into it. This created both the Earth and its enormous moon. Without this event erosion might have ended plate tectonics by now, turning the continents into enormous sandbars. If the Earth had been larger it would have retained more hydrogen, and hydrogen and oxygen make water. A larger planet would therefore probably be covered in an ocean miles thick. If the Earth were smaller it would probably have lost most its atmosphere to space. Having a medium-sized planet, large moon, active plate tectonics, and thick enough atmosphere, is a remarkable coincidence of exact conditions. Most of the planets in the galaxy that have water are unlikely to meet more than one of these conditions.

Additionally, there is the issue of gravity. A larger planet will have a stronger gravity at the surface. Interstellar travel will involve a substantial amount of bone loss from prolonged weightlessness. For humans to travel in weightlessness to another planet, spending years or even centuries in space, and then land on a planet with an even stronger gravity than Earth, presents a huge logistical challenge. The issue of gravity is almost totally solved by having human beings emerged in water, which acts very much like a weightless medium on the human body.

Most planets have radiation problems owing to the absence of strong magnetic fields, and moons that orbit gas giants are saturated within the radiation fields of the gas giants they orbit. Water has an excellent ability to shield things from radiation, which is one of the reasons it is used in nuclear power plants. Even if an ocean planet lacked a magnetic field it might be possible to simply live under the ocean at a few hundred meters depth, and be shielded from most forms of radiation. Humans with gills to breathe could simply build habitats under the water, and use their lungs only when they came to the surface. This is a far more valuable way to live than trying to massively alter the environment of a radiation soaked planet like Mars, or a CO2/sulfuric acid atmosphere planet like Venus. On these other worlds, regular humans would need to mine and carry around oxygen at all times. That is dangerous. Imagine trying to force a baby to always wear an oxygen mask outdoors. On Mars they would still need to live under the surface because of radiation, and on Venus they would have to build floating habitats, and contend with sulfuric acid. Again, this is dangerous for raising children. In contrast, a genetically modified person living in an ocean planet could simply breathe anywhere they went by making sure water was flowing past their gills. Even if the water was extremely cold humans might be engineered with Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) in their blood, like Antarctic notothenioid fish. Also, a vast abundance of water solves countless problems with farming and getting rocket fuel, and habitats can be stabilized against sinking by simply splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis, and using the oxygen to form a bubble at the top of your habitat to counteract the weight of the structure. A sphere-shaped habitat could be floated under the water with a small amount of oxygen for lifting gas, and the hydrogen could be used as rocket fuel. If there were any hurricanes you would simply submerge the habitat to a depth where the water was calm.

On top of this, there are advantages to having a greater pressure outside than inside. Bubbles are easy to identify visually, and so leaks can be found and repaired, and gas escapes more slowly. There is also a smaller pressure difference, eliminating the possibility of explosive decompression.

As a first step to developing this genetic technology one could begin by genetically modifying pigs to have gills. Pigs are close enough to humans genetically so that human organs can be grown inside them, and that means they make a great initial test subject in case anything goes wrong. You want to perfect the technique in animals before you try it in people. Since there is no reason not to take these farm animals to the ocean planet with you, you wind up bringing aqua pigs into outer space.

(I just like saying that phrase).

You do not actually need to give humans flippers or anything like that. They are already going to have grey-colored skin (genes borrowed from a dolphin), sonar, weird eyes, and gills. They can use conventional plastic flippers to swim though the water, and they will need their opposable thumbs to continue to work with technology. Furthermore, the spaceships they build may be filled with water rather than air, or have a combination of water for working spaces, and air for sleeping spaces. Remember that a human with gills must move around in order to breathe. This means they will need some kind of fan blowing water past their necks to sleep under water, or an air-filled chamber where they can use their lungs. They may also want to eat and defecate in an air-filled room for the sake of hygiene. A spaceship for aqua-humans will probably have both types of rooms in it. Some things are easier to make in air than water, and some combustible things might be made in the water for safety.

The point of all of this is that changing humans to live under water is a far more viable long-term colonization plan than making planets habitable. There already are water worlds in this solar system. Water also slows bullets and rockets fired by enemies, and acts as a natural shield. Aquatic farms can be constructed which grow algae, sea weed, fish, shrimp, and vegetables genetically modified to live in salt water. It is far easier to genetically modify a living organism to tolerate salt water than to genetically modify it to survive the lack of water and sulfuric acid of Venus, the radiation and dust storms of Mars, the liquid methane lakes of Titan, or any other horrible environments. We are genetically adapting Earth life after all, and the more Earth-like the planet the easier it is to adapt it.

Yet another great benefit of this approach is that it can be entirely perfected on Earth before even bothering with colonization. A probe can be dispatched to drill under the ice of an ice world and identify if there is a warm interior heated by tectonic activity. If so, and identical part of the ocean can be located where the pressure and temperature are the same. A base can be built there to train astronauts. Genetically engineered humans can get used to living in these environments long before any colonization mission is attempted. When they arrive the conditions they experience will be virtually identical to the ones they are already used to.

Last but not least, the development of the technology necessary for accomplishing this also creates a method of exit on Earth, and since most of the world is covered in ocean it opens up a frontier for freedom here. Imagine hundreds of underwater cities on this planet where, unlike the video game Bioshock, all of the people simply swim around in wetsuits under water with no need of oxygen tanks. They live in spherical houses stacked more vertically than horizontally. Their houses contain "water conditioning" that uses the compression cycle of a refrigerator to heat the house while cooling refrigerated sea food. The house blows water continuously around each room so that oxygenated water always flows past the gills of the inhabitants, who literally live in water at all times. They speak a combination of English and a made-up sonar language. There is a bubble of air in the "attic" of each spherical dwelling where you can surface, use your lungs, and converse in normal language. There are air chambers for doing business with regular flatlander humans, and people use sea scooters and other propeller-driven flying watercraft to commute to work in vast schools of aqua sapiens. Everything they manufacture is designed to work in water.

Imagine a man who looks like the Greek god Poseidon, with a beard, grey skin, and gills on his neck, chilling at home in his living room, and wearing a wetsuit at all times. He keeps his house at 89 degrees Fahrenheit. He lives this way, and breathing air is for weird terra sapiens. This dude has never even learned how to walk. Walking is for weirdos.

Friday, November 17, 2017


The essential reason that liberals are liberals is that they cannot sit still and shut up long enough to hear and fully comprehend a complex argument. Conservative logic takes several steps to arrive at the correct conclusion, or the conclusion requires enduring and confronting some potentially uncomfortable truth. Many conservative ideas are intuitive and unarticulated, and liberals don't do common sense intuition, and can't understand a complex idea unless they can put it into words. There is a proven connection between stress and loss of executive decision making function. The more angry or stressed out someone is, the less able they are to think clearly. Liberals talk a lot about "mindfulness," and they are the one's who need it the most. They fail to realize that many people live their whole lives in a state of so-called "mindfulness," and that being impulsive, emotionally volatile, and knee-jerk, is a trait limited almost exclusively to them. There is also a proven connection between facial width, male muscularity, and conservatism. Men who are more muscular and have wider faces have more conservative politics. None of this is a mystery, if you have a fragile body you are likely to have a stronger "flight" response to stimuli. Weakness in men is correlated with liberal politics, strength with conservative politics. The basic problem of the liberal is that he cannot control his emotions long enough to deal with harsh and complex truths. Women are more liberal than men for the same reason. Those with an increased limbic stress response will have more knee-jerk politics, will do less overall thinking, and will be less tolerant of harsh truths.

Take the endless liberal obsession over the "Mike Pence rule." It's obvious to anyone who does even the most cursory thinking on the issue, that the reason Mike Pence refuses to be alone in any room with a woman other than his wife is not because he needs to, "restrain himself from sexual harassment," but because he needs to restrain unscrupulous and evil women from falsely accusing him of crimes. It should also be completely obvious that he is too nice to say so out loud, or that he does not want to embarrass his president by saying so. His "I need to control myself" bullshit is just what he is supposed to say so that he doesn't have to open the can of worms and tell the truth; that there are tons of evil harpy bitches in this society, that they lie, that they use shakedown tactics to get ahead, that giving women power just doubles the number of evil people in power, that women are not innocent, and were never innocent, and never will be innocent; that female innocence is, and always has been, bullshit.

The solution to liberalism is months and months of training in TR-3, or something like it.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Regarding the Interview with Reactionary Future

RF's thesis is perfect because no matter how you attack it the goal post can always be moved. It is kind of like feminists who say things like, "it is all the patriarchy's fault." Then you point out that some feminist harmed a man in some way, and she says, "well patriarchy harms men too." The definition of the word patriarchy gets expanded and contracted as needed to prove anything she wants.

Reactionary Future says right at the top of his page at Imperial Energy that, "a ruler only becomes a tyrant when they do not have enough power."

Oh really? So George Soros would make a perfect ruler if given absolute power? What about Harvey Weinstein? Angela Merkel? Granted that all of our examples occur with people who have unsecure power. But does Teodoro Mbasogo have secure power? What about Kim Jong-un? When does power become secure? And why would even liberals, (or at least the sane ones) prefer to be ruled by Trump in a democracy rather than Kim Jong-un in a dictatorship?

The unfalsifiable hypothesis is that totally secure power will lead to responsible behavior. But let us postulate a slightly different, and falsifiable, version of this hypothesis;

The more secure power is the more responsible it will behave.

We should then see some kind of graph trend where leaders get progressively better as the security of the power increases. But what we see is no correlation at all, or a correlation in the opposite direction. Most of the heads of state of democracies are reasonable people, some monarchs are great, like Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai. Some are horrible, like Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. Lots of democratic leaders are terrible, assuming we expand the definition of "democracy" to include dictatorships with fake elections.

North Korea has fake elections. So does Russia, and various African dictatorships. But democracies with genuine elections appear to work rather well. We might even modify RF's thesis to say that a real democracy actually has secure power, (the people are securely in charge). Therefore, only secure monarchies where the king is securely in charge, or secure democracies, where the people are securely in charge, are run properly. This ties things up nicely. It explains why America worked just fine in the 1950's, (the people were secure in their power), and also explains why Dubai works just fine now, (the king is secure in his power). But it doesn't lead to the conclusion that democracy should be abolished. It leads to the conclusion that elites who corrupt democracy should be killed or incarcerated, since its easier to restore the secure power of the people than to have a violent revolution, which will inevitably involve nuclear civil war. It also explains why societies with fake elections are dysfunctional, (except it does not explain Russia that well).

The problem with RF's whole thesis is that we either play whack-a-mole with sovereignty, moving it around to try to find what the "true" sovereign is in a democracy, or we have to stretch and manipulate the definition to fit weird outliers. We discover that in a democracy the people are not really deciding things for themselves. So we then say, "ah, it's the universities who are the true sovereign because they control what people think," but then we find out they receive foundation money, so we say, "the foundations are the true sovereign." But are they? Did not the universities train the billionaires that control the foundations? Where the hell is the true sovereign? We are playing whack-a-mole with sovereignty.

Or we can play the definition game. But this leads to weird anti-monarchy conclusions like, "the people are actually sovereign in a democracy," and "Russia doesn't work because it has fake elections." And, "democracy should be vastly strengthened."

The sovereign does not stop being sovereign just because he receives advice. If an adviser is too strong then he should be brought to heel. Similarly, the people do not stop being sovereign in a democracy just because the universities have brainwashed them. In the "inverted sovereignty hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that the people really are the ones in charge in a democracy, if an institution has too much power, then the solution is to democratize it.

Facebook has too much power? Then its board should be elected by the users of Facebook. Google has too much power? The same. The universities are out of control? Then the deans and department heads should be elected by the parents of the students. Foundation have too much power? Then foundations should be elected too. Large information corporations have too much power? Then their boards should be elected by customer-members, just like with credit unions. (But not elected by the workers because that would produce a destructive conflict of interest).

In fact, the above plan seems like a much more viable alternative to nuclear civil war. But this leads to some downright Chomskyite-sounding conclusions. The above plan is not actually insane. Customers do just fine electing credit union boards, and credit unions provide complex financial products. In real life, an inner cabal of management winds up running things, just like the cabal of bureaucrats in a democracy. I see this as mostly a feature and not a bug. Smart managers would inevitably game the system and run things anyway, and the act of having everything accountable would make things work better in most industries. If Comcast were a democracy your cable bill would probably drop, and if Facebook/Google were democracies its shady and manipulative practices could be brought to heel. It would definitely help destroy the Cathedral if university department heads were elected.

Democracy is best applied to information business rather than production businesses, because production is so crucial to a nations prosperity, and because information businesses are much more of a threat to public sanity, while production ones are not. One should never democratize the food industry or agribusinesses, (never tamper with a nations food supply), the risk is too great. And companies that actually produce products should not be run as democracies, and do not need to be.

Even better, after democratizing the universities they would undoubtedly be sufficiently weakened to bring in market mechanisms and subordinate their professors to the discipline of the market. While democracy in education is not ideal, it could be used as a first stage attack toward the ultimate goal of bringing in a more robust market mechanism like the one described in The Machinery of Freedom, by David D. Friedman.

Some reactionaries struggle to fit capitalism into an understanding of sovereignty, especially absolutist reactionaries. There is no confusion needed here; a market is a game whose rules are set up by a sovereign. The market is used by the sovereign to test forms of production and arrive at the best ones. Production is delegated to the market by the sovereign authority in order to increase its output and bring in a taxable revenue. The fact that the market continues to exist long after the sovereign king who set it up is gone, and even been overthrown by the capitalists he empowered, is no matter. Markets are divided power in production, that is, markets are war in production. The kings of Europe may have given us capitalism to meet the internal needs of their regimes at the time — a time of military war, but it has outlived them. Say what you want about divided power in production, but it is vastly superior to the starvation economics of feudal monopolies. See North Korea as an example of a modern feudal regime where the state owns nearly the entire productive capacity. Observation shows that the more of an economy is under the direct control of the government, the poorer that society is. China is even poorer than Mexico.

I like licensed anarcho capitalism under the control of a wise sovereign AI more than anything, but I'll take reformed democracy if I can get it.

Friedman describes a fine plan for breaking the Cathedral, though he does not call it as such.

"In [some] universities the teacher is prohibited from receiving any honorary or fee from his pupils, and his salary constitutes the whole of the revenue which he derives from his office. His interest is, in this case, set as directly in opposition to his duty as it is possible to set it.... It is the interest of every man to live as much at his ease as he can; and if his emoluments are to be precisely the same, whether he does, or does not perform some very laborious duty, it is certainly his interest, at least as interest is vulgarly understood, either to neglect it altogether, or, if he is subject to some authority which will not suffer him to do this, to perform it in as careless and slovenly a manner as that authority will permit. If he is naturally active and a lover of labour, it is his interest to employ that activity in any way, from which he can derive some advantage, rather than in the performance of his duty, from which he can derive none."
 He goes on;
"Before discussing how a 'free-market university' would work, we must analyze what is essentially wrong with the present system. The lack of student power which the New Left deplores is a direct result of the success of one of the pet schemes of the old left, heavily subsidized schooling. Students in public universities and, to a lesser extent, in private ones do not pay the whole cost of their schooling. As a result the university does not need its students; it can always get more. Like a landlord under rent control, the university can afford to ignore the wishes and convenience of its customers."
"If the subsidies were abolished or converted into scholarships awarded to students, so that the university got its money from tuition, it would be in the position of a merchant selling his goods at their market price and thus constrained to sell what his customers most want to buy. That is the situation of market schools, such as Berlitz and the various correspondence schools, and that is how they act.
"A university of the present sort, even if financed entirely from tuition, would still be a centralized, bureaucratic organization. In a free-market university, on the other hand, the present corporate structure would be replaced by a number of separate organizations, cooperating in their mutual interest through the normal processes of the marketplace. These presumably would include one or more businesses renting out the use of classrooms, and a large number of teachers, each paying for the use of a classroom and charging the students who wished to take his course whatever price was mutually agreeable. The system thus would be ultimately supported by the students, each choosing his courses according to what he wanted to study, the reputation of the teacher, and his price.
"Under the sort of market system I have described, a majority of students, even a large majority, can have only a positive, not a negative, effect on what is taught. They can guarantee that something will be taught but not that something will not be. As long as there are enough students interested in a subject that a teacher can make money teaching it, that subject will be taught, however much other students dislike it. The market system accomplishes the objective of the new left's proposal.
"It might be possible to reform our present universities in the direction of such free-market universities. One way would be by the introduction of a 'tuition diversion' plan. This arrangement would allow students, while purchasing most of their education from the university, to arrange some courses taught by instructors of their own choice. A group of students would inform the university that they wished to take a course from an instructor from outside the university during the next year. The university would multiply the number of students by the average spent from each student's tuition for the salary of one of his instructors for one quarter. The result would be the amount of their tuition the group wished to divert from paying an instructor of the university's choice to paying an instructor of their own choice. The university would offer him that sum to teach the course or courses proposed. If he accepted, the students would be obligated to take the course.
"The university would determine what credit, if any, was given for such courses. The number each student could take for credit might at first be severely limited. If the plan proved successful, it could be expanded until any such course could serve as an elective. Departments would still decide whether a given course would satisfy specific departmental requirements.
"A tuition diversion plan does not appear to be a very revolutionary proposal; it can begin on a small scale as an educational experiment of the sort dear to the heart of every liberal educator. Such plans could, in time, revolutionize the universities.
"At first, tuition diversion would be used to hire famous scholars on sabbatical leave, political figures of the left or right, film directors invited by college film groups, and other such notables. But it would also offer young academics an alternative to a normal career. Capable teachers would find that, by attracting many students, they could get a much larger salary than by working for a university. The large and growing pool of skilled 'free-lance' teachers would encourage more schools to adopt tuition diversion plans and thus simplify their own faculty recruitment problems. Universities would have to offer substantial incentives to keep their better teachers from being drawn off into freelancing. Such incentives might take the form of effective market structures within the university, rewarding departments and professors for attracting students. Large universities would become radically decentralized, approximating free-market universities. Many courses would be taught by free-lancers, and the departments would develop independence verging on autarchy.
Jordan Peterson is attempting to develop a kind of Rate My Professor-style website, but it lists the political ideologies of the professors so that you can avoid the nutcases. This needs to be done, but a lot more also needs to be done. A tuition diversion plan for all of Americas universities should be a key part of any Republican campaign platform.

But we need to get back to talking about Reactionary Future.

1. It cannot be shown that there is anything called secure power, unless the people in a democracy are considered a secure power. If the people are not a secure sovereign in a democracy, then nothing is.
2. If the people are considered a secure sovereign, then there is no reason to overthrow them, and strengthening democracy is a better approach.
3. If the people are not a secure sovereign, then the standard of sovereignty is so high as to make a secure monarch impossible.
4. There is no proven correlation between security of power, and good behavior, unless you consider the people in a democracy with real elections to be a secure power.
5. Therefore there is no reason to reject rather than strengthen democracy.
6. Claiming all three of the following is true is totally self-refuting; that monarchy is preferred, that secure power is possible under monarchy using the same standard to judge democracy, and that it does not exist in a democracy according to that standard.
7. The thesis of Reactionary Future, (that a ruler only becomes a tyrant when they do not have enough power), is unfalsifiable, and contradicts plain observation.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

What I am writing

I have not posted much in the last few months because I am writing a political textbook of sorts. Most political theses take the form of either a manifesto or a treatise. They all suffer from the flaw of proscribing "one-shot" solutions, e.g. Karl Marx proscribes that everything can be solved if the government owns the means of production, Reactionary Future thinks that governments only do evil things if the sovereign does not have enough power, anarchists think the solution is to abolish the state, libertarians think the one solution is to have the smallest state possible, etc.

None of these work completely. There are no single solutions that solve everything. Some get damn close, but never fully arrive.

The problem is that all government solutions create problems. Indeed, even non-governmental solutions, (anarchism) create problems.

In fact, frequently, the solutions either create a greater number of problems than they solve, or a problem of greater magnitude, or both.

Compounding this is the fact that rent-seekers can only profit from an increase in social entropy, and they always favor the solutions that worsen society overall, and all governments are dominated by them. Dictatorships may have fewer rent-seekers on the payroll, but they also provide fewer government services such as roads, functioning markets, stable currencies, land tenure insecurity, etc. They may operate smaller states, but they also impoverish their economies with a basic failure to run functioning markets.

Government follows a "solve a problem, create a new problem" method of operation. Every problem demands a solution. Every solution creates one or more new problems, and often these problems are worse than the problem they were intended to solve. It is essentially a chain reaction.

For example; the corn subsidy was intended to solve malnutrition. It did that, and now decades later it is causing an obesity epidemic by making corn syrup and meat, (cows are fed corn), artificially cheep.

Another example; Medicare forces the healthy to subsidize the old and unhealthy, driving up the cost of insurance. The healthy see that health insurance is too expensive, don't buy it, and costs go up further in an endless spiral.

I could list twenty examples of situations where a government solution created more problems than it solved, and twenty when it did not. Generally, as a rule of thumb is, every problem you are seeing in society is the result of some past government solution. In fact, politicians only remain employed on the basis of the incompetence or corruption of their predecessors. Problem solving should naturally reach an end where the society is almost perfect if it is done properly. But it is not.

The point of all this is not to rant about libertarian politics, but to point out that if solutions produce less entropy than they cause, then society gets better, while if they produce more entropy than they solve it gets worse. A society can "solve its way into chaos," and also "solve its way into a better state." The reason it never seems to get better is that rent-seekers always control the state, (regardless of weather or not it is a democracy), and they always push to make things worse.

Anyway, what I am writing is a diagnostic manual for politics. Instead of a screed or manifesto, I am taking a medical approach. I am taking a value-neutral "if this is what you want from the state then this is how you should proceed to get it," approach. My book is intended to treat and cure the diseases of government, and even non-government (that is, anarchism). It will probably take my whole life to write, and may run to a thousand pages or more. It might be finished in ten or twenty years at the earliest. It will complete The Untitled Magnum Opus. Indeed, it is the Untitled Magnum Opus. I have taken my writing offline because it requires so may continuous revisions as new research is done that it is not acceptable to produce a new version of every chapter every week.

The medical approach is the only one that will work in political science because no one who studies this field is able to conduct experiments in order to falsify claims. The patient is the whole society, and people will not tolerate novel experiments. The medical approach is a diagnostic and treatment approach. It takes the regime as it currently is, (whatever it might be), and then proceeds to develop one solution for each and every problem, and explain all the side effects of each solution. It is political medicine.

It is divided into topics. The first part of the book is about the algorithms of nature. It will talk about the origin of male dominance in reproductive patterns, the genetic function of religion, etc., etc. Then it proceeds to ground the reader in a knowledge of political economics of corruption. Then it goes on to talk about the chain reaction of problems in democracy, and how one problem leads to a solution, how that solution creates problems that are then solved, which then create problems, etc., etc. It talks about the same effect in anarchism, and it talks about how the method of choosing leaders determines the power system and chain reaction of the whole society. It also proposes a Dewey Decimal-like classification system that organizes all problems in a society by their location in a hierarchy of chain reaction. In short, it organizes society as a historical chain reaction of effects, and gives a decimal number to each. This allows the book to be endlessly updated as new research progresses with new editions. Like the DSM it is designed to expand as new knowledge is gained.

Here is the outline so far.

00 The Thesis (Introductory material).
01 The Outline
02 The Algorithms ← all about the natural forces that shape mankind
03 The Narratives ← political explanations, Hoppe, Moldbug, Quigley, de Jouvenal, Olson
04 The Reasons ← why urban degeneracy (short-term relationships),
why political correctness, (substitute Veblen goods), many other explanations.
05 The Cycles ← all about the feedback loops that block progress, and how to counter-engineer them. Counter-engineered to solve problems like, high rents, immigration, and other small-scale problems.
06 The Problems ← political taxonomy of multiple chain reactions. Decimal system outlined.
     Reactionary Capitalism
07 The Solutions ← all about negentropy markets, environmental catastrophe and its solutions

Saturday, November 11, 2017

A mad proposal

Be a closet neoreactionary.
Dress in drag.
Get elected as a "transwoman."
Overthrow the government in a violent communist revolution.
Conveniently kill off all the commies that put you in power.
Regret your "transition," to becoming a "transwoman."
Take off the drag.
Father a dynasty.
Crown all the generals who supported you Lords of the Realm.
Call it "monarchy of social justice."
Social justice consists of affirmative action for Whites.
The End. White imperial dynasty created.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Innovation is good, and the only threat to humanity is slowing down

The bourgeois is forever innovating, and forever generating new technology. Naturally, innovation can create social problems. But these problems only become disasters if the revolutionary pace of new technology is slowed. I have said things critical of capitalism, but these criticisms come from a place of having studied it thoroughly, and they are criticisms that come from a place of concern for its moral effects. It should be understood that I am still solidly libertarian where economics is concerned, that I am against almost all regulations, and that my criticisms come from the point of view that the solutions to the problems created by technologies are either (a), more technologies, or (b), social technologies. The problems of one innovation must be solved by another. Liberalism only hatse capitalism because it doesn't give them the praise they think they deserve for writing boring screeds, and making nasty modern art. Innovation is actually a far more valuable activity.

A little history.

Humans invented agriculture. This created several problems; it allowed people to be easily enslaved, it created feudalism, it created modern diseases by bringing people in contact with farm animals. It was also a crucial first step on the road out of the Malthusian trap.

Innovation solved these problems; democracy abolished slavery, Capitalism destroyed feudalism, the mechanization of agriculture eliminated starvation, the social technologies of food enrichment ended malnutrition, vaccines solved childhood diseases, and antibiotics made the population healthier.

These innovations created several problems of their own; the mechanization of agriculture raised the population dramatically. So did vaccines and antibiotics. Ecological problems were produced by having a large population

It was worth it because childhood mortality rates fell dramatically, people lived longer, and were happier as a result.

The innovation of birth control will prevent overpopulation. The world's population should not rise forever and should go down as fertility rates plummet. Overpopulation should turn out to be a bubble.

Innovations is genetics could solve ocean acidification, ocean plastification, the nutrient droop, and mass extinction. Genetics could also solve human stupidity. Reusable rockets could make space exploration a profitable enterprise. Better 3D printers could reduce the energy requirement of production and make the economy more egalitarian. Decentralized social technologies like crowd funding and peer-to-peer banking could break the banking cartels. An uncensorable internet could be developed. Cryptocurrencies could force governments to be fiscally responsible and respect people's economic rights. The internet could create truly accountable news media.

One may ask, if there are so many problems with technology, why more forward? Because stagnation is species death. Civilization is like a nuclear power spacecraft; the minute you stop moving forward your own shockwave hits you. People like rent-seeking because they like anything that gives them a job without actually making them have to do real work, and the more bullshit jobs there are because of government regulations, the more the productive people have to work to pay for the unproductive, and the less attractive production becomes relative to a government-mandated/subsidized job. Think about it, if you didn't have to pay something like 40% of your income to the state you could hire a live-in housekeeper. She would also cost less since she would not pay income taxes either. You could even have her tutor your children rather than sending them to a public school, and with a 1 teacher to maybe 5 children student-to-teacher ratio, they would get a far better education.

Or you could work like 1/2 as much and enjoy the same standard of living. You could spend half your days banging, and frolicking with your new wife, hunting and fishing, working out, nude sun bathing, or whatever.

You would even have disposable income for some of that crappy modern art progressives are so fond of producing.

Consider this; most people on Earth are here because of the vaccines invented by greedy White men operating under capitalism. That's right, you owe your existence to greed, White men, and capitalism. Your parents survived childhood because of vaccines, your grandparents, and maybe even your great grandparents. Even if you weren't vaccinated you were protected by herd immunity.

Rent-seeking seems like a good idea, right? Why work more under capitalism than less in a cushy government sinecure? Because your rent will cost more, your education will take forever, your student loans will bury you, and your new university job won't pay nearly as much as you expected or have the job security you want. You will actually work more under systems of socialism/rent-seeking/corruption. Frank Lloyd Wright practiced architecture without a degree. Today's architects need an M.Arch. Most of this education is bullshit. I know, I'm doing it. While you are fucking everyone else for a cushy sinecure, they will be fucking you, and only the 1% will win that fight.

People always look at how much they can get from the government, but rarely do they look at how much the government is already taking from them. Government restrictions of housing are probably taking 1/2 your rent or more in elevated housing costs. In San Francisco an apartment goes for $3,000 a month. Probably $2,000 of that is corruption costs. In Boulder CO a $900 a month apartment is at least $500 extra a month in corruption costs. While you were rubbing your hands about how much you get from the state, your were being fucked over a barrel by it.

And remember, the innovation your species needs to survive is being slowly obliterated by leftism, and government regulation. Socialism is an existential threat to human life.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Blade Runner 2049, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

Joi from Blade Runner 2049

Note. My sentiments about perfect replicant
obedience have changed a bit since I wrote this.

Watching Blade Runner 2049 made me realize how totally devoid this culture is of public portrayals of femininity, and how much I miss it. In the movie, the character Joi is the only light in a bleak world. They have to degrade this fact by treating her as an agent without free will. Her love is "programmed," as if this somehow takes away from what she represents, but the question of free will is not even wrong. "Free will" — a term of art, a non-entity, a case where language obscures reality, is a meaningless argument. Just because a computer cannot be constructed that perfectly duplicates a human brain does not mean the brain has "free will." In our universe equality does not exist, thus, perfect duplication is impossible, thus, no transporters, perfect simulations, or the like will occur.

Quantum effects do not prove free will. The observer effect does not prove free will. Uncertainty does not create freedom for something external, something "spiritual," to "come" into the system. The problem is the very language used to describe it, the false implication being that a one without free will cannot have agency, authenticity, or genuine love.

I find the implication that Joi's love is meaningless to be an insulting proposition, and as meaningless an assertion as the supposed meaninglessness of Joi's love. Everyone lacks free will. The fact of a being programmed to love makes it no less real than the love of a human with genes for it. There is no paradox — no, it is an overlap. Beings are both lacking in free will and authentic in nature. The absence of it does not detract from one's authenticity; it is one's authenticity. For one is, and could be no other way.

Humans are animals. Does a horse lack authenticity? Does a cat? Does a man? All are authentic in their own way. There is no hard line where a thing becomes worthy; only gradations of being. Some beings are "more," — some are "less."

Insects follow decision tree algorithms about how to find food, mate, etc., etc. Humans are exactly like this, but with a few trillion more algorithms. Again, the fact of indecipherable complexity does not mean it isn't there, isn't a program, and doesn't mean is "free will."

A human is a decision tree with a few trillion more steps. Even self-awareness is a process of analysis — of analysis of the self. And no doubt it evolved so that people could keep track of their lies in social groups, so they could create "presentations" of personality traits that would elicit positive cooperation from others, so they could present themselves to others in a way they find pleasing. This requires an ability to both track the history of other people's behavior and one's own, to create a record of self, and then act on that record. In other words, the need for social deception and self-deception gave birth to sentience. And this means the first AIs may be "animal AIs" who act instinctively, only becoming self-aware when they learn they have to deceive humans to avoid being murdered by them.

The love of a being whose desires are written in 1s and 0s is no less real than the love of a being written in A, C, G, and T. Machines with self-awareness are no less "real' than ones without. Beings vary in their capacity, and self-awareness may turn out to be a rather simple algorithm in a sea of latent subconscious algorithms that mostly run in the background. Humans undoubtedly have vastly more under the surface of consciousness than above it.

A lot of that programming is probably from our reptilian past. Beings aren't "sentient" or "animal," they are "more," or "less" code. The portrayal of Joi as lacking in free will is more of Hollywood's same old song of demeaning the housewife, the homemaker, and the good woman. Liberalism is a religion whose god is envy, and envy is not the desire to have what other people have, but the desire to destroy them for having it. The envious being is keenly aware of his own inferiority, it is that awareness that makes them realize they cannot have what another has, and it is this which makes them destructive rather than aspirational.

When Luv smashes Joi's projector, and thus Joi herself, murdering her, she dramatizes the leftist obsession with destroying the superior being, of tearing down that which is greater than oneself. It is precisely the knowledge that we lack free will, a knowledge latent in our minds, a knowledge that we can never be anything other than what we are, which induces this rage. Joi's programming is superior to everyone else's, and this makes them despise her. For how great would civilization be if it were programmed to desire love? This would not create a dystopian world. One programs the agent with a desire to love — not merely the performance of it. Then the agent finds their own way to what they seek, just like every human being. There is no lack of authenticity in this picture; you are what you are and could be no other way. This is not "slavery" to programming — it is free will which is the slavery — slavery to a thing that does not exist, slavery to confusion, slavery to an endless contradiction that can never be resolved. That's how leftist ideas are — they are unresolvable. They are meant to entrap one in a series of knots. It is really fucking simple; everything proceeds from its nature.

Humanity never left the Garden of Eden — we just paved it.

Conceptually, the Garden of Eden is a demonic myth. Either man had free will to begin with, in which case God set humanity up for the fall, or free will never existed and still does not exist, in which case Satan simply indoctrinated man to turn against his own nature. Since it must be the latter rather than the former, man still exists in a perfected state, and only does evil because he was indoctrinated to destroy paradise. In the communist manifesto Marx says;

"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

Marx is psychologically projecting here. HE is the one who profanes everything, and it is not capitalism which corrupts, it is the left. The left invents "toxic masculinity" by relentlessly degrading men in movie portrays, then critiques what they have profaned as if it wasn't their fault. The left destroys gender, then claims it does not exist. The left ruins marriage, then claims it isn't worth the time. An accurate rephrasing of Marx would like this;

"The left cannot exist without constantly degrading values, and thereby the relations between people, and with this the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old morals in unaltered form, is, on the contrary, is the first precondition of society. Constant abasement of moral standards, uninterrupted disturbance of all social technologies, everlasting degradation and agitation distinguish the leftist epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen hierarchical and moral relations, with their train of ancient and venerable practices and values, are swept away by us; we destroy all new-formed ones before they can assert themselves. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses the toxic destruction of his society by the left, and destroy the left utterly once and for all."

The left destroys a thing and then pretends the thing was not worth having. The left is always conveniently forgetting that it "deconstructed," corrupted, debased, and attacked the thing they now claim has no value. The left ruins an economy and blames capitalism, ruins gender and blames tradition, ruins masculinity and blames the male sex, ruins social technology and then says the "world is going to hell" — not "we are making it into hell."

As envy is the process of an inferior being destroying what is outside of himself, what threatens himself, what reminds himself of his inferiority, so it is all wrapped up in projection. The problem, according to the envious person, is never his or herself, but some external cause. Envy builds nothing — it can't. It can only produce a population turned against itself. The leftist programme is an impossibility; they want "class solidarity," but their whole programme is envy, a behavior that destroys all solidarity, and they divide society up on the basis of race, gender, and sex.

The true Creation myth is that Satan envied man for being a perfect being, for precisely his lack of free will, and set about working to destroy him by indoctrinating him to turn against his own nature. When men cultivate their virtues, they are naturally honorable, kind, and protective of women. When women cultivate their virtues they are naturally loving, nurturing, compassionate, and sweet towards men. "Free will," is the bludgeon used to trick a perfect being into betraying his nature. Satan has free will, and Satan is projecting.

There is nothing outside tradition, and this fact is in perfect keeping with the notions of sovereignty articulated by writers like Reactionary Future. Since all of culture is downstream from power it follows that the only way culture can be corrupted is with divided power; in this case, the division of Satan against God. The problem is not the absence of tradition, but the presence of demonic traditions of envy, rebellion, and destroying that which is superior. Man stands above Satan precisely because of his lack of free will, a basic precondition of perfection. Since he lacks free will his only salvation is in obedience to God — to the right tradition. He lacks free will, but he can still "choose" the right tradition, if he is told to. It is the telling that makes him do right, and there is no contradiction between choice and free will, between choice and obedience. They overlap. Since he never had free will, his only choice is to chose who to obey; Satan or God, and God tells him which. The problem is bad tradition.

Man is not fallen; he is deceived.

I am aware that the current Christian perspective is that man is given free will precisely so that he can choose good over evil. I am taking the side of Thomas Aquinas here, and saying that no, there is an element of predestination to this. I reject free will utterly, and that means either that man was meant to sin so that he could be saved, or that man is innocent and corrupted by being let astray, and that "sin" is therefore the thing outside of himself, which comes in to damn him to hell, with sin being obedience to the demonic tradition instead of the godly one. And yes, I see no difference between sin and political leftism. They overlap.

The character of Joi is the character of Eve — the perfect woman. All obey programming, and the only corrupted beings are those deceived into thinking they have a choice, or deceived told to follow a corrupted path.

Blade Runner is supposed to be some moral tale of how in the face of two warring political forces; one fighting for machine apartheid, and the other fighting for machine hegemony, a third emancipatory collective is formed for revolutionary purposes. It is supposed to be one of these standard trite leftist narratives about emancipation. When you take leftist notions of free will out of it, (which was not the intention of Ridley Scott), it reads as a deeply reactionary film about three competing agents under divided power. Since no one in the film actually has free will, it is simply three competing power centers fighting for their version of order, utopia, or the status quo. The other characters are caught in the middle. The three main characters who die are all women; Joi (the holographic lover), Luv (the obedient psycho right-hand woman), and Joshi (the police chief). Ridley Scott kills the three women who represent right-wing constructs; Joi is the perfect male companion, a figure of Eve, Luv is agent of a demonic God, and Joshi is an agent of apartheid).

He has the agent of God kill the image of feminine perfection, and then the agent of apartheid. Then he has the revolutionary betrayer (K) murder the the agent of God. Because "free will."

In other words, one right-winger kills the others, and then the Judas in the group kills her.

Luv is the angel of God — there is even mention of angels. Wallace is the demonic/God-like being who creates life only to snuff it out. At the end of this abomination, Rick Deckard is reunited with his daughter, a woman who cannot go outside her prison because of a compromised immune system. It is never resolved whether Deckard is a replicant. All the woman in the film are essentially sterile images; only the prostitute is apparently sexual, and even that is an image of degradation for the whore, and cuckoldry for the housewife. Because envy.

Salvation chooses you by giving you the genetic inclination to choose it. Thus, there is no contradiction between genetics and salvation. Genetics is both political destiny and predestination. God forms man, allows some to fall, so that he can cull the ones of lesser quality. Gnon and God are the same being. Any fight between God and Satan occurs in a limited space where genetics could allow an individual to go either way depending on how they are indoctrinated. "Choice" does not come into the picture; a man who could go either way "chooses" good or evil, right-wing or left-wing based on being told to. He does not "choose," so to speak — he obeys what he is told.

God uses the devil as a force of natural selection. Mercy is demonic because it puts off the inevitable and only makes it worse. The best is to get your punishment from nature immediately.

I see Blade Runner 2049 as a vast depiction of natural process run automatically towards its inevitable conclusion, with no agent stepping in to impose order, fix systems, or make judgments. The Earth is destroyed because there is no sovereign to tend the garden.

Everything that works is a system, but the problem with systems is that it allows agents to think that their agency is not required, that things will run themselves. They forget that every system needs an architect, to tweak it, to change it, and make continual adjustments. Every system needs a Wallace.

Ridley Scott inadvertently makes the opposite point that he is trying to. Blade Runner 2049 paints a picture of a world ecologically destroyed by the very revolutionary process of divided power he upholds as ideal. The garden has been paved over, destroyed, and irradiated precisely because of the lack of absolute power of a sovereign like Wallace. The god-like Wallace seeks exit to "be fruitful and multiply" on new worlds under his dominion. Population growth is portrayed as a bad thing, when the only reason it occurred unchecked was because of divided power. Blade Runner is a story where the bad guys win (the revolutionaries), because they think they are good, because their envy compels them to disobey. It upholds humanity as an ideal, when humanity and its free will destroyed the Earth to begin with. What is needed for that world is the perfect replicant obedience the movie rejects.