Friday, December 29, 2017

Exam results and answer key


If you got a low score, don't worry. The average score was 57%. The purpose of the test was to measure what I need to talk more about. The test implicitly tests for whether or not you have read certain books, and it does this while minimizing the ability of the test taker to guess the correct answer, and without tipping off the taker to which books they need to read.

Here are the correct responses.




1. The nominal selectorate, the real selectorate, and winning coalition are the;
the named, the real players, and the rulers.
the ones who can chose, the ones who do chose, and the essentials. <--- Correct
the selected, the selectors, and the winners.
If you have read The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita you would get this one right. The third answer sounds correct until you realize that "the selected" cannot be a valid response.

2. Legislative accumulation is defined as________and occurs because________.
the tendency of law to increase over time, <--- Correct = 10 points
of the collective action problem.
the increase in backlog for legislative committees,
work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion.
state growth, <--- Partially Correct = 1 point
of rent seeking.
If your read this blog a lot, or read The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, by Mancur Olson, you got this answer correct.


3. Negative versus positive liberty consists of;
hate versus love.

harming others versus being protected.

rights to be left alone versus rights to resources. <--- Correct
If you had read Two Concepts of Liberty (pdf), by Isaiah Berlin you would get this one right.


4. Adaptive fictions are;
a type of literary style.

widespread societal beliefs that enable the power structure to reduce security costs. <--- Correct
fictions that facilitate adaptation to natural selection processes.
If you have read much of Mencius Moldbug, or his essay Democracy as Adaptive Fiction, then you got this question correct.


5. The collective action problem is;
related to the difficulty of organizing a labor union.

the greater ability of small groups to coordinate for power in politics. <--- Correct

the tendency of individuals to do actions that while individually rational are collectively destructive.
If you have read The Logic of Collective Action (pdf), Mancur Olson, then you got this right. Really any public choice theory would have gotten you there.


6. True or False? "a government can solve its way into crisis."
True.
Because government solutions can create problems, and because those problems can be worse than the solutions, government may indeed make society worse by solving problems. Venezuela is an obvious example of people in power generating crisis by thinking they are solving problems. If you got this question wrong it is because you were too nitpicky about language, or you failed to read The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, by Mancur Olson.


7. Anarcho capitalism is;
an impossible system of government.

a functioning system of order. <--- Correct
What is anarcho capitalism?

If you have read Legal Systems Very Different than Ours, by David D. Friedman, you got this question correct.

Originally, the answers were were phrased as follows;
a delusional pipe dream.

a workable system of government. <--- Correct
What is anarcho capitalism? 

A test taker objected to this phraseology, claiming that it was biased. I can understand how it would seem biased, but consider that I was testing your bias. Anarcho capitalism exists right now in Somalia, and has existed in the past in Medieval Iceland. Can something that exists be a "delusional pipe dream"? It also works as a system of government, even though it is not technically a state. There is nothing technically inaccurate about the phraseology of the question. Even Scott Alexander over at Slate Star Codex admits that it is a functional system of government, and he is a liberal who is hostile to the idea.

If you had read the book and were unbiased then you got the answer correct, regardless of which version you were presented with.


8. The Chinese government consists of;

a combination of single party supervision and nested elections. <--- Correct

a dictatorship supervising all aspects of life.

a national democracy with balance of powers.
The second answer might be consider factually true, but it is not correct. Remember that this test says choose the most correct answer at the beginning. There is no written reference for this question. Any study of Chinese politics can point to the right answer.


9. How many branches of government are there in the US and what are their functions?

Five branches: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Control

Three branches: Presidential, Bureaucratic, and Congressional

Three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial <--- Correct

Two branches; Parliament and Lords

This is about the US system of government. The first answer is somewhat "truthy" for Taiwan (they have only 4 branches of government though these days instead of 5). The last answer is still false for the UK. Scholars disagree of whether the UK has any meaningful separation of powers, but the ones who say it does give the same number of branches as the US: 3, or Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. There is no such thing as the "bureaucratic branch," or the "congressional branch."


10. Why is the Westminster system more effective than the Presidential?

Because MPs have to face off in Parliment.

Because party discipline is enforce by control of the purse. <--- Correct.

Because the UK elects a slate of candidates and not the Prime Minister separately.

If you have read Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, by Francis Fukuyama, then you know that the reason US democracy is so much more ineffective than UK democracy is because budgets originate in congress rather than the bureaucracy itself. Prime Ministers can withhold funds from an MP's district to punish him for going against the party line. Thus there is a tight relationship between a PM and his party, so that he needs their votes and they need his funds.






Tuesday, December 26, 2017

The pile





Are you afraid of the pile? Do your knees tremble when you think about it? Do you get hard, (if male) or wet, (if female). The pile is life, the pile is us, the pile is where you want to be. A thousand rhythmic bodies grinding in sexual ecstasy. The pile calls to you.

Are you listening?

The fascist fears the pile, its warmth, its penetrating power. He covers his butt hole nervously. His fascism is the insistence that he must always be the one to penetrate, and never be penetrated. Of course as a male it is his destiny to be the penetrator most of the time anyway, but he resists even the occasional bumping of someone else's junk against his body. Even a brush of another mans cock walking past scares him.

When all races blend into one there is the pile. When your Asian gf calls you to her tight pussy the pile is there. When you conform and have normie opinions the pile is wining. The pile is life, conformity, happiness, agreement — it is temptation itself. The pile is wet and sweaty, dirty and smelly. When you play in the mud that is pile. When you stand in a river the pile has you. When you don't bathe and don't care you are in the midst of pile. When you are popular you are the pile. When you live in a tiny house and smoke weed all day and hang out with dirty hippie girls and get laid you are living the pile life.

Each of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and 1,048,576, 17-times great-great grandparents. That's right: over a million people fucked so you could exist. Wrap your mind around that. You a a drop in an ocean of protoplasm, a small piece of a massive pile. The pile made you and you owe it, and that is why there can be no exit. Look man, the only exit is biological. If you can't separate your protoplasm from the pile of all humanity, if you initiate a speciation event, then you are bound to its fate. To exit is to betray your pile.

And why exit when you can *enter.* That's cuck logic. Why cede an ounce of pile to your enemies? Why the fuck should they have all the fun? The pile is yours broheim, along with all the women in it. DOMINATE. And if someone tries to put a dick in your ass then a knee to their groin will fix that. Don't be afraid of other men's junk. It's all good. The pile is yours for the taking. Stand up and defend your people, your race, and your culture. Your culture is your pile. Don't retreat from it.



Saturday, December 23, 2017

Exam results will be posted after Christmas


Don't worry if you did bad. The average score was 52%. I made it deliberately hard!

The purpose of the test is to help me figure out what my readers know and don't know, so that I can focus more on the topics I have overlooked. The purpose is not to give people a fun quiz, though if you had fun that is great.

After Christmas I will post the correct answers and discuss why questions are phrased the way they are, and what exactly was being tested.

Question 7 (about anarcho capitalism) has been modified due to reader input. Some spelling has been cleaned up too.

Friday, December 22, 2017

Take the McKibbin Political Science Exam

I have decided to create a text for knowledge in the field of political science. This exam is not for the faint at heart. The first part in a series is out now and you can take it. Right now there is only part 1. But in the future there should be others. Test your knowledge. Do you know as much as me?

Click here to take the first part.


Thursday, December 21, 2017

Responding to Imperial Energy, December 21st 2017


IMPERIAL ENERGY asks;

"On the subject of moral responsibility, what is your take on the argument made by Bruce Waller than since we do not have (libertarian) free will, moral responsibility must go by the board?

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/against-moral-responsibility"


The assertion is often made that because free will is a non-entity that moral accountability is wrong. This is paradox on multiple levels. First, how can moral accountability be "wrong" if "wrong" does not exist? This is like the liberal that says he has a right to advocate censorship. He believes that he has the right to use his freedom of speech to advocate against free speech. "You cannot censor me while I advocate censorship" is his essential assertion. Oh but we may, and the intelligent thing for a state to do is agree with the censor and kill him, (thus censoring him and giving him what he wants).

If a man is the sum of his genetics + environmental inputs then there is no rational claim that we cannot modify his inputs or even genetics. Saying "we should not hold people accountable because it is wrong," is using notions of right and wrong to support the abolishment of notions of right and wrong. It is akin to using the logic of monarchy to support democracy, so that the "divine right of kings" becomes the "equal rights of the people." It is using the logic of a prior system to support overthrowing that system, like how communists are all atheists and yet believe in the "salvation" of equality, and the "original sin" of inequality — thus practicing a kind of heretical secular crypto-Christianity, complete with notions of rapture in the form of historical destiny, while believing they are not.

If there is no free will, then we just wind up recreating all notions of accountability again as notions of inputs.

"Negative inputs" replaces "deterrence," as the logic that supports punishment. Even if the punishment does not work it is acceptable because without any system of right and wrong there is no reason NOT to give the victim, (or even the public) satisfaction, since this provides the public with positive inputs.

Similarly, we should not allow innocent people to be punished because that provides an incentive, (negative input) to disrespect the law, which generates social disorder. Thus we recreate the rule of law.

Without morality, might becomes right and the state's legitimacy goes from being one on the basis of religious logic such as divine right, or based on popular sovereignty, to one based on "because it has all the guns dummy."

Basically, we wind up doing everything we are already doing because what we are already doing works. All of the logic of "rights," "freedoms," "moral obligations," etc., simply gets recreated with pragmatism "because it works," or "because there is no moral reason not to because morality itself is a spook," or "because might makes right." The only thing that might change is that we would probably be much more willing to use genetic modification on prisoners, and eugenics in general. Bruce Waller's argument does not lead to where Bruce Waller wants it to go; it does not lead to a morally permissive utopia. It leads right back to the reality we already live in: to violence being the ultimate source of sovereignty, and to there being no reason not to.




Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Suggest a topic please


I am looking for suggestions for topics to write about. Leave your ideas in the comments section please.

I am considering writing about the moral exemption of women from responsibility. I have an entire counter-thesis worked out that explains everything feminism explains while placing the responsibility on women rather than men. Trouble is, the thesis takes equality as a given. The recommendation that comes out of it is holding women to a standard of extreme and radical accountability. It is called "the exemption hypothesis," and it explains everything from the wage gap, to the rape hoax epidemic, to feminism itself by positing that women are systematically held to be morally exempt from responsibility, and that this exemption is the source of ALL social ills. Basically, it is straight anti-feminism.

I have another potential topic that I am considering called the "tripartite system" that treats the trial by jury system, elections, and markets as three aspects of a single system characterized by (a) competition of elements, (b) a jury of judging function, and (c) a system of rules such as a constitution to govern it. It postulates that there is an historical process that brings the "tripartite" forward throughout history. It's kind of a "End of History and Last Man" thesis. It takes the idea of historical destiny and upholds markets as the ideal result of that process.



Tuesday, December 19, 2017

The story of Elagabalus: perverted trannie emperor, and virtue signaling zealot



In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 6, Gibbon writes;

"To this temple, as to the common centre of religious worship, the Imperial fanatic attempted to remove the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred pledges of the faith of Numa. A crowd of inferior deities attended in various stations the majesty of the god of Emesa; but his court was still imperfect, till a female of distinguished rank was admitted to his bed. Pallas had been first chosen for his consort; but as it was dreaded lest her warlike terrors might affright the soft delicacy of a Syrian deity, the Moon, adorned by the Africans under the name of Astarte, was deemed a more suitable companion for the Sun. Her image, with the rich offerings of her temple as a marriage portion, was transported with solemn pomp from Carthage to Rome, and the day of these mystic nuptials was a general festival in the capital and throughout the empire.

"A rational voluptuary adheres with invariable respect to the temperate dictates of nature, and improves the gratifications of sense by social intercourse, endearing connections, and the soft coloring of taste and the imagination. But Elagabalus, (I speak of the emperor of that name,) corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitude and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronized by the monarch, signalized his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit of magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonored the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband.

"It may seem probable, the vices and follies of Elagabalus have been adorned by fancy, and blackened by prejudice. Yet, confining ourselves to the public scenes displayed before the Roman people, and attested by grave and contemporary historians, their inexpressible infamy surpasses that of any other age or country. The license of an eastern monarch is secluded from the eye of curiosity by the inaccessible walls of his seraglio. The sentiments of honor and gallantry have introduced a refinement of pleasure, a regard for decency, and a respect for the public opinion, into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and opulent nobles of Rome gratified every vice that could be collected from the mighty conflux of nations and manners. Secure of impunity, careless of censure, they lived without restraint in the patient and humble society of their slaves and parasites. The emperor, in his turn, viewing every rank of his subjects with the same contemptuous indifference, asserted without control his sovereign privilege of lust and luxury.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference of age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction. The licentious soldiers, who had raised to the throne the dissolute son of Caracalla, blushed at their ignominious choice, and turned with disgust from that monster, to contemplate with pleasure the opening virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The crafty Mæsa, sensible that her grandson Elagabalus must inevitably destroy himself by his own vices, had provided another and surer support of her family. Embracing a favorable moment of fondness and devotion, she had persuaded the young emperor to adopt Alexander, and to invest him with the title of Cæsar, that his own divine occupations might be no longer interrupted by the care of the earth. In the second rank that amiable prince soon acquired the affections of the public, and excited the tyrant's jealousy, who resolved to terminate the dangerous competition, either by corrupting the manners, or by taking away the life, of his rival. His arts proved unsuccessful; his vain designs were constantly discovered by his own loquacious folly, and disappointed by those virtuous and faithful servants whom the prudence of Mamæa had placed about the person of her son. In a hasty sally of passion, Elagabalus resolved to execute by force what he had been unable to compass by fraud, and by a despotic sentence degraded his cousin from the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was received in the senate with silence, and in the camp with fury. The Prætorian guards swore to protect Alexander, and to revenge the dishonored majesty of the throne. The tears and promises of the trembling Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life, and to leave him in the possession of his beloved Hierocles, diverted their just indignation; and they contented themselves with empowering their præfects to watch over the safety of Alexander, and the conduct of the emperor.

"It was impossible that such a reconciliation should last, or that even the mean soul of Elagabalus could hold an empire on such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon attempted, by a dangerous experiment, to try the temper of the soldiers. The report of the death of Alexander, and the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, inflamed their passions into fury, and the tempest of the camp could only be appeased by the presence and authority of the popular youth. Provoked at this new instance of their affection for his cousin, and their contempt for his person, the emperor ventured to punish some of the leaders of the mutiny. His unseasonable severity proved instantly fatal to his minions, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was massacred by the indignant Prætorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber. His memory was branded with eternal infamy by the senate; the justice of whose decree has been ratified by posterity.

"In the room of Elagabalus, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Prætorian guards. His relation to the family of Severus, whose name he assumed, was the same as that of his predecessor; his virtue and his danger had already endeared him to the Romans, and the eager liberality of the senate conferred upon him, in one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial dignity. But as Alexander was a modest and dutiful youth, of only seventeen years of age, the reins of government were in the hands of two women, of his mother, Mamæa, and of Mæsa, his grandmother. After the death of the latter, who survived but a short time the elevation of Alexander, Mamæa remained the sole regent of her son and of the empire.



From La Wik;



"Elagabalus /ˌɛləˈɡæbələs/, also known as Heliogabalus (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperorfrom 218 to 222. A member of the Severan dynasty, he was Syrian, the second son of Julia Soaemias and Sextus Varius Marcellus. In his early youth he served as a priest of the god Elagabalus in the hometown of his mother's family, Emesa. As a private citizen, he was probably named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus.[1] Upon becoming emperor he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. He was called Elagabalus only after his death.[2]

"In 217, the emperor Caracalla was assassinated and replaced by his Praetorian prefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. Caracalla's maternal aunt, Julia Maesa, successfully instigated a revolt among the Legio III Gallica to have her eldest grandson (and Caracalla's cousin), Elagabalus, declared emperor in his place. Macrinus was defeated on 8 June 218 at the Battle of Antioch. Elagabalus, barely 14 years old, became emperor, initiating a reign remembered mainly for sex scandals and religious controversy.

"Later historians suggest Elagabalus showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos. He replaced the traditional head of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, with the deity Elagabalus, of whom he had been high priest. He forced leading members of Rome's government to participate in religious rites celebrating this deity, over which he personally presided. Elagabalus was supposedly "married" as many as five times, lavishing favours on male courtiers popularly thought to have been his lovers,[3][4] and was reported to have prostituted himself in the imperial palace. His behavior estranged the Praetorian Guard, the Senate, and the common people alike. Amidst growing opposition, Elagabalus, just 18 years old, was assassinated and replaced by his much more favorable cousin Severus Alexander on 11 March 222, who ruled for 13 years before his own assassination which would mark the epoch event for the Crisis of the Third Century. The assassination plot against Elagabalus was devised by his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and carried out by disaffected members of the Praetorian Guard."



Sex/gender controversy


"The question of Elagabalus' sexual orientation is confused, owing to salacious and unreliable sources. Elagabalus married and divorced five women,[47] three of whom are known. His first wife was Julia Cornelia Paula;[45] the second was the Vestal Virgin Julia Aquilia Severa.[45][50]

"Within a year, he abandoned her and married Annia Aurelia Faustina,[45] a descendant of Marcus Aurelius and the widow of a man he had recently had executed. He had returned to his second wife Severa by the end of the year.[47] According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband.[38]

Elagabalus practiced ghey marriage

"The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[51] Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, depilate his body hair and wear wigs before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels,[52] and even in the imperial palace:

He was a "sex worker."

"Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by. There were, of course, men who had been specially instructed to play their part. For, as in other matters, so in this business, too, he had numerous agents who sought out those who could best please him by their foulness. He would collect money from his patrons and give himself airs over his gains; he would also dispute with his associates in this shameful occupation, claiming that he had more lovers than they and took in more money.[53]

"Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[45] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[39] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender.[54][55][56]"

And a trannie.

Back to the first part of the Wikipedia entry;

"Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence, and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and with writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury".[6] According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life".[7] His unstable reign has also been marked as a major point leading to the eventual Fall of the Western Roman Empire."


Monday, December 18, 2017

Only four problems?


There are only four problems in the world;

(1) People are cognitive misers. They cannot think, will not think, and desire to be told what to think. Propaganda/education works because there is a market for it.

(2) Humans ritualistically convert their incentives (typically created by power) into moral imperatives, reacting thoughtlessly, to comply or rebel. Weirdly, they consider anyone who wants to change their incentives, and therefore change their morals, a sociopath. They believe they have a moral imperative to obey incentives, and are outraged by anyone who doesn't.

(3) People are too stupid and emotionally volatile to control/change the incentives that control them. Their minds always exist within the system or framework that they find themselves; they never envision how new power structures could produce new morals, how incentives could be changed to generate moral codes different than the one they find themselves in. They instinctively react against all alternative social configurations with hostility, unless the alternative is totally delusional. They can only embrace impossible ideas of perfection. They refuse to fully understand the low origins of morality in power, to then anticipate how a power configuration would produce a moral configuration, and to step outside their own notions of the "sacred." When they do reject the sacred, (in this case equality), they go running to the profane, (in this case racism). Before, when they rejected the divine-right-monarch they went running to atheism. They never control the incentives that control them, and never step outside false dichotomies to reject both the sacred, and profane concepts of their era.

(4) They cannot transcend the Christian cultural template that finds its way into everything. In all Western thought there is a template composed of several identical elements, those being; original sin, Satan, apostle, and God. This template pollutes everything, becoming alternately inequality, The Bourgeois, the comrade, and historical destiny, (communism) or white privilege, Hitler, educator, and equality, (regressive liberalism) or, religion, Christianity, atheist educator, and equality, (militant atheism), etc. In Western civilization, no one can transcend the religion of transcendence. It's template shows up in everything. Like corn, it is in every molecule of your body.



Thursday, December 7, 2017

Don't hang on my every word


More and more I am coming to terms with my own cognitive limitations. I am used to being the smartest person in the room, but since the general IQ of reactionaries is higher that is no longer the case. I have certain biases that I refuse to shake because of past epistemic lock-in and path dependence. In other words, my 18 year old socialist, former Scientologist, and (later) libertarian past inhibits my willingness to consider alternatives. No iron logical proof will ever make me a monarchist. I'm too biased.

The more I study the more I think the solution to everything that ails Western civilization is a religion. Progressivism infiltrates because it has a religious characteristic. Capitalism co-opts everything through getting people to adopt its immoral value system of use-value as a moral and religious code. Islam is a threat because of its religious nature. Everything threatening and dangerous is religious. From one perspective this is a reason to try to abolish religion. But then you realize that religion is an integral part of the human brain, that it is going nowhere, and that human nature will always produce an incentive to exploit the religious part of people's minds. Something has to occupy the religious position. Abdicating that responsibility will simply invite someone else to take up the position and use it against you.

Spandrell has said that we need a new religion. If you can do it then by all means go ahead. But in the mean time what we need is something far older than a religion; we need a living tradition of story telling, mythology, and philosophy. We need something constructed as a group so there is less chance of making a mistake. A decentralized body is also less prone to attack or cooptation by entryists. And we need modern versions of men like Thomas Aquinas to give us a theological reinterpretation of existing faith to accommodate the role of nature's laws and processes of natural selection. Modern Christianity is basically Thomas Aquinas's invention. He came in a provided the standardized interpretation of the Gospel that became what we know today as Christianity.

If you are not willing to build a new religion, if that would make you feel like a fraud, may I recommend theological reinterpretation? Perhaps you could take an existing religion like Christianity and strip it of its progressive heresy? Then start a reactionary Bible study groups focused on developing an interpretation of the Gospel congruent with Gnon and the harsh nature of reality. Focus on the role of self-improvement, tradition, morals, and good breeding. It is difficult for people to change their habits once grown up, unless they have a habit of self-improvement. Teaching a child to improve themselves and educate themselves are the two most crucial life skills. Some of the worlds strongest alpha male leaders are autodidacts. In fact, are there any who aren't? A religion of self-improvement could conquer the world. Scientology is a religion of self-improvement, and though it is a poor example with many flaws, it has a massive influence for a group with only about 30,000 estimated members. Your local credit union probably has more members than Scientology. A religion, or just a Church, that requires its member to set a goal — any goal — and work towards it, will automatically tend to have more productive and more powerful people. An internalized cultural virtue of self-improvement, taught from a young age, was what I was given. This was reinforced both by Scientology and by my families addiction to Star Trek.

Most people would interpret the clip below as a rant against capitalism, but what I internalized was the notion of improving yourself, since that was what my religion was all about. The key part happens around 2:48. The man says, "then what's the challenge?" Picard: the challenge is to improve yourself."




Julia Galef notices something interesting





From Twitter dot com.






































A modified version of this thesis explains the entire behavior of women towards alpha males.



Monday, December 4, 2017

Hooting, prancing, cannibalism


































"It is a structural inevitability that the libertarian voice is drowned out in democracy, and according to Lind it should be. Ever more libertarians are likely to agree. ‘Voice’ is democracy itself, in its historically dominant, Rousseauistic strain. It models the state as a representation of popular will, and making oneself heard means more politics. If voting as the mass self-expression of politically empowered peoples is a nightmare engulfing the world, adding to the hubbub doesn’t help. Even more than Equality-vs-Liberty, Voice-vs-Exit is the rising alternative, and libertarians are opting for voiceless flight. Patri Friedman remarks: “we think that free exit is so important that we’ve called it the only Universal Human Right.”

"For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption. The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten.

"Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites. It accepts that governments are made out of people, and that they will eat well. Setting its expectations as low as reasonably possible, it seeks only to spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauch. From Thomas Hobbes to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and beyond, it asks: How can the sovereign power be prevented – or at least dissuaded — from devouring society? It consistently finds democratic ‘solutions’ to this problem risible, at best."
The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land




Sunday, December 3, 2017

You can't respect Tara McCarthy, and that is why you will lose


It's all about incentives, bitch.

Democracy requires large coalitions to win anything. The larger the coalition the more political power you will command, and the more you can control things. Say what you like about tolerance, but enforced tolerance has the beneficial effect of creating an incentive for cooperative behavior. If people are forced to be nice to one another they will at least be able to cooperate to achieve power.

Everything the right does sabotages itself.

Supposedly there are "reasons" for hating Tara McCarthy. The reason being that she does not have a bunch of children, (yet). But Wife With a Purpose has lots of children and received plenty of hate from the right. The notion that women on the right "do" anything to deserve the hate they receive is laughable. The men on the right have plenty of flaws too; porn habits, homosexuality, Asian banging, etc. Even hating women is an indulgence in the sin of either wrath or gluttony: pick one.

You may not like liberals, but they are right about one thing; hate is anterior to the object that is hated. Conservatives, especially the alt-right types, just have free-floating "hate." The hate they feel needs an object to latch on to, and it will find some reason, any reason, to hate something. If there is nothing to hate it will hate boredom itself.

The Christian mental pattern can manifest in at least 3 ways; (1) pathological guilt, (2) pervasive political/religious anxiety, (3) all-consuming hatred. The pattern is always the same, and exists in the minds of all White Western people. It is the pattern made of concepts like transcendence, original sin, salvation, utopia, worship, and pervasive anxiety about some evil, hatred of some sin, or guilt over some imperfection in the self. Western people never escape it, never rise above it. There is no "transcendence" from the pattern itself. A person who loses their faith will simply go from being a raving lunatic about Christ to a raving lunatic about White privilege, or go from being a Progressive lunatic anxious about inequality to be a racist lunatic anxious about White genocide. In the end there is no escape; you will always come back to the thought pattern you know, and the version of the Christian madness that is obsessed with guilt, (liberalism) will only be opposed by the madness obsessed with hate (conservationism), or anxiety, (alt-rightism), such that the total inability of people to escape the Christian mental pattern enslaves them to the hate that fractures their political coalition and causes them to always lose.

Since none of you can step outside the pattern, and since the left occupies the thought territory composed of pathological guilt, it is your destiny to live immersed in the pattern of rage or anxiety; both of which are less popular and seen as less virtuous than guilt.

Hating any woman on the alt-right is just the manifestation of this.

The second habit of defeat on the right in the learned helplessness typified by Land and Xenosystems. Worshiping the process of technology itself so that any horror can be excused in the name of evolutionary progress. Mass extinction of Whites? No problem, the ones that survive will be more intelligent. Globalism sucks? That's just capital acceleration dude. Needless to say, if you worship the void your culture falls into you probably can't do anything about it. The right is inhibited by its love of capitalism.

And by its fear and disgust towards power. Any suggestion of getting power leads to some rightest saying, "what are you? A sociopath?" Getting power is a vile and disguising process that is totally corrupt, and morally bankrupt. Yet rightists seem to think moral power is possible. Nonsense.

Lastly, there is what we may call "the principle of ignorant salvation." Which is the principle that people will prefer totally disastrous plans for getting power as long as they are unwilling or unable to envision the side effects, over a plan that is more intelligent and less destructive but whose side effects are obvious. For example; futarchy is a far better idea than communism, but billions of humans the world over have heard of communism but not futarchy. The problem is that futarchy outlines its political program in concrete terms, and by doing so people can anticipate the potential negative consequences. No one who supports communism "anticipates" any negative consequences.  The program is always vague enough to gain political support, even though it has failed before.

"Ignorant Salvation," is always preferred over "Known Salvation." Neoreaction basically says, "we will put a king in charge and everything will work out." (Ignorant Salvation) While I say, "some form of licensed anarcho capitalism is preferable." (Known Salvation). Problem is, that anyone can examine the flaws of my program so they reject it. While the monarchy program will have far more flaws, will be a total disaster, will require civil war, etc., it will still be embraced. Despite the fact that it is a far worse idea to anoint a king, kings will be preferred because reactionaries can be vague on the details, and they have already created a sunk cost bias in their own mind by reading hundreds of pages in support of it. None of this is rational. A beta test is more rational than a restoration. A Known Salvation is more rational than an Ignorant Salvation.

In summary;

Hate will divide you, and drive away your allies.
Excuses for capitalism will make you worship the thing that destroys you.
Disgust towards realpolitik will inhibit you.
The cognitive bias of Ignorant Salvation will guarantee your political program is a catastrophe, if it ever happens.