Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Pure female id

I told you so. Women make patriarchy.

Heartiste has a good take.

Monday, January 29, 2018

A Warning. Don't create genetically enhanced African warlords: intelligence is not just IQ

Intelligence is not just IQ. It is also low impulsiveness and other traits that co-evolved with high IQ. Many people think that you can just dose the African water supply with gene therapies for high intelligence and get miracle Negros running all over the place. What you will get is actually a gang of genetically enhanced genius-level cannibal warlords who rise to rule the Earth. Please, for the love of God, don't just enhance African intelligence. Make them peaceful first. It would be far better to develop treatments for impulsiveness and propensity to crime FIRST before developing IQ enhancing gene therapies. Assume any gene therapy you develop will be used by EVERYONE. Work to make humans moral before you make them intelligent. It is better to have peaceful but dim Africans than violent psychopaths.

Mimic nature when you design gene therapies. Raise conscientiousness as you raise IQ.

Never go full tard

Sunday, January 28, 2018

How to be a successful alt-right trad thot/entertainer

Be a woman and play to misogynistic stereotypes of low IQ minorities.

For example;

Or just be a woman. Really just being a woman will work.

Or be gay and say homophobic/racist/sexist shit.

The pattern is simple: take whatever you are and play to the crowd that hates that thing.

Are you gay?

Then make flamboyantly anti-gay videos, or just say nasty stuff about women.

Are you a mulatto female? Then pretend to be dumb and show off your tits. As a bonus you get millions of racist white guys to thirst after your interracial body. And you get their money. You humor their superiority complex while basically cucking them. It's a win-win.

Or try being a libertarian Asian female, like the girl below, because they basically don't exist anywhere else besides the internet.

You can also try the Jewish libertarian female variant, like below.

Or the LESBIAN female libertarian version.

Even better you can being a BLACK CONSERVATIVE WOMEN. (They even got on Fox News!)

You can be a GAY JEW who argues for RACE REALISM. Just pander to everyone who hates what you are. It will always work, I guarantee. Humoring the truth about race and IQ will in no way ever lead to gas chambers being reopened. I promise.

Way better is to be a traswoman who is CONSERVATIVE.

Or you can be a self-hating bisexual atheist like me who writes for a reactionary Christian audience. Just remember, SELF-HATE SELLS. So pander, because no one likes an arrogant degenerate, or prideful feminist woman, or whatever.

Friday, January 26, 2018

The Righteous Indignation Scam

One of the great perversities of the left is how they sell outrage as a method of coning you out of your money. Below is an example of this technique from none other than Netflix. The first episode is about how companies like VW that make diesel cars were/are using special devices to cheat smog tests. What they don't say is that the smog standards are so strict that if they were complied with all auto companies that make diesel cars would go out of business. What they don't say is that the strict smog emissions were probably lobbied into law by the competitors of the diesel auto makers, and that the irrationally strict emissions standards are (a) a backdoor for outlawing diesel cars, and (b) designed to reduce market competition in order to raise profits for the remaining car companies.

The only episode worth watching in Netflix's series is probably the one on Martin Shkreli.

Episode 6 is about Donald Trump. What they don't say is that in a society where the government has its dirty corrupt fingers in everything it is impossible to make money without being "corrupt," since it becomes impossible to make money without violating some law or another. Or, to quote a certain author I have read, 
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
They want you to violate the law so that you can be controlled. They make it impossible to do business profitably without violating laws. There is always the basic bitch leftist game: rob people by making them outraged, enslave them in the name of freedom. Cheat them by misdirecting their rage. Craft a bullshit reality. Below is a typical lying documentary where the people making it blame the wrong cause. The The Pruitt-Igoe Myth is about how blacks were given affordable housing which they then proceeded to utterly destroy. Rather than blame them for destroying their own housing, they blame everyone else: white people, racism, etc. Because everyone knows blacks have no agency, and can't abstain from trashing their own space.

It's always the same. They demonize developers for environmental costs. What they don't say is that they are working to raise housing prices, and motivated by pure corrupt greed; that environmentalism is a ruse for a power grab. There is a scene in the movie below where the environmentalists basically mob the city council to bully it into compliance. They don't show that of course in the clip below, but it makes its way into the movie.

They make a documentary about antibiotics and blame corporate greed rather than the regulations that THAT THEY MADE that have made developing new antibiotics unprofitable.

They make a tear jerking documentary about a refugee crisis that THEY CREATED with endless globalist war, and then blame far right nationalists for opposing the destruction of their homelands.

They work to undermine Israel's ability to protect itself against Arabs that want to literally drive them into the sea.

FYI: Frontline is a fucking goldmine of evil documentaries designed to destroy shit. There was a similar hatchet job on Golden Dawn but I cannot for the life of me find it.

It goes on and on. The technique is unmistakable: produce a deliberate misrepresentation of reality designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction in order to deflect criticism/scam people/get power, etc. It's like a finger print. Look for it. It's the manufacture of outrage to control people. Remember: emotional self-control is a key to maintaining your freedom. Anyone who can control your emotions can enslave you for political purposes. They left gives you pain so it can harness that pain for political action. Those who say they want to "empower you" really just want power over you.

New Aggregator: Late Capital

Late Capital adds a new NRx/accelerationist aggregator to the already existing collection of aggregators the_arv and Unorthodoxy. Check it out.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Hacking hyperstition: notes on a Justin Murphy essay

Over at Vast Abrupt, Justin Murphy writes;
"One of the most paralyzing problems for those who have sought to continue the search for collective liberation in the face of techonomic acceleration (what many people call “left accelerationism” or “l/acc” for short) is that, so far, they have been invariably pitched at aggregate social entities which do not in fact exist, at a time when in fact one of the primary political problems is that the contemporary form of atomized human life increasingly lacks the capacity to maintain even low-level aggregates (friendship, marriage, social clubs, etc., all marked by entropic trends since WWII).2 The most obvious and widespread form of deceptive left discourse is any statement to the effect of: ‘the left should…’ because it presumes the existence of an aggregate body that in no meaningful way exists, other than as an apparatus interpolating a portion of the population with a particular complex of shared repetition compulsions. The most vexing problem for anyone who identifies with the left would appear to be the problem that ‘the left’ as a world-historical entity has gone extinct, but because of selection effects this problem receives no serious effort from left-interpolated subjects: in a world where ‘the left’ is objectively extinct, any remaining subjective leftism is best thought of as ‘consumer demand for the belief that the left still exists’. Capitalism’s devilish efficacy is that it fulfills this widespread consumer demand perfectly well. Many brands can still do quite well finding talented and good-spirited minds able and willing to say ‘the left’ is a currently existing entity that has potential to act. The right is perfectly happy for this belief to persist because no quantity or intensity of false beliefs can outsmart a system based on the manipulation of reality through intelligent exploitation.
I would like to clarify the above three underlined parts. First, atomization is caused by several forces that are rooted in technology and consumerism. It helps to describe these forces specifically and concretely, since without referring to the concrete we cannot really figure out how to deal with reality. We need to think abstractly to see the big pattern, but we also need to think concretely to work out the details so that we can solve the problem. Some detail are;
  • Cars move people apart from one another.
  • Video games isolate people by themselves.
  • Text messaging removes face-to-face communication, which people need to function socially.
  • Time on the computer is time away from people.
  • TV is socially isolating.
  • Air Conditioning gets people off their porches so they no longer talk to their neighbors.
  • Consumerism teaches people to treat others as things to be used, causing bad experiences, and alienating people from one another.
  • All of these technologies worsen people's social skills, which makes their interactions less fulfilling and saps their desire to have interactions, which in turn worsens their social skills.
Thus, a group that can get away from technology can get away from social isolation. This is important because phrasing the problem in the abstract obscures the fact that it has a real concrete cure; form a group to abandon certain technologies.

On the second underlined point, "consumer demand for leftism," is typified by the Che Guevara shirt, which serves quite perversely as a commodity fetish. I have said before that social justice is a kind of religious capitalism.

"Corresponding to the false belief in aggregates that do not effectively exist, the bête noire of modern leftism is the dreaded Individual. If effective aggregates appear not to exist, it is only taken as evidence that the inquirer is infected by Individualism. The modern leftist orientation to capitalism is, at its core, a game of three-card monte where signifiers are re-shuffled to perpetually defer logical-objective falsification. Belief in an untenably posited object is sustained by a new posited object, the only evidence for which is that it is presupposed to be the force that makes the first object appear non-existent. How to move from our current state of atomized individualism to an effective social aggregate capable of transforming capitalism? First, we are told, agree that atomizing individuals are bad. Second, insist at all cost that an effective social aggregate called ‘the left’ exists (it only needs to be enlarged in order to gain its power to act). Third, try to get others to transmit this set of beliefs until ‘the left’ is large enough to numerically overpower Capital.
"A rarely mentioned but seminal citation for modern left activism is, therefore, Plato’s infamous Noble Lie or “magnificent myth” (γενναῖον ψεῦδος): in short, a Noble Lie is a false belief that “would save us, if we were persuaded by it.”3 The activist privately knows that ‘the left’ is basically non-existent but believes it can be forged into existence by nobly telling enough people that it already exists. Activists admit all of this plainly, as they often speak of the need to generate hope in the masses; this is enough to justify the articulation of any particular idea, regardless of its truth or falsity. Only today has the deceptive core of modern leftism come into sincere self-consciousness. For instance, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams argue rather explicitly that one of the tasks of ‘the left’ is to design more sophisticated lures capable of propelling atomized individuals into effective, collective motion.4 Of course, it is true that creative flights from the rational-objective map of the world, such as fictional story-telling, can generate objective political effects on the world, but it is something else entirely to offer a rational-objective map for social change including a plank involving the deployment of fictions to create hopes and desires in others, expressly in contradistinction to what is scientifically valid within rational, probabilistic frameworks.5 Now, creative beings who are possessed by visions can and should express those visions; such ‘fictions’ will indeed reshape reality, but primarily because those ‘fictions’ are in some sense reality operating through the body that expresses them. That is ‘hyperstition’: fiction that produces reality but because it is in some sense real, some of the evidence for which consists in the demonstrable objective effects it produces. But producing effects is not the only characteristic; the con artist produces real effects, for instance, but does not transform reality so much as twist it, in a way that always ultimately snaps back.

 Hyperstition is a thing that becomes true when enough people believe that it is true. Hyperstition works because it exploits some cognitive bias. For example: there is a tendency (from evolution) of human beings to engage in what Patri Friedman calls "folk activism." This is the belief that with enough passionate argument we can change our society. Folk activism results in the siren song of "we." As in "we must do this," and "we must do that," and "we must make up our mind as a society." "We" is the root of "voice" over "exit."

Perversely, the only way to have a "we," is to exit. But "we" prevents exit and obstructs all attempts at escape. The basic dogma of the left is that you must never be allowed to exit from us. The problem with this is that societies made of 400 million or so individuals do not actually provide a tribe for people. There is no "we" in the "we" of millions. Thus, the cognitive insistence on voice over exit — on "we" over "fuck off!" traps people in atomization. The perversity of modernity is that the human monkey need for a tribe is turned against the human monkey. Your cognitive bias is to think in terms of "we" when you think of a nation, but nations can only ever produce atomized individuals. The super-tribe of the nation destroys and prevents the local tribe from coming into being with its very existence. The mere presence of a "we composed of millions" takes the cognitive slot that a "we composed of hundreds" would take, and only the "we composed of hundreds" can give you a sense of community.

Thus, the liberal rage against atomization guarantees atomization. The insistence of voice over exit prevents anyone from having a voice, since groups comprised of millions are too large to give voice to anyone. Only through exit into smaller social/political units can anyone be heard.

Since the super-tribe — the nation — is the only "we" people have left, they are incredibly hostile to losing it, and see only what they stand to lose, (the illusion of "we" in national form) and not what they stand to gain, (the concrete "we" of a tribe).

"Hyperstition is not a limitless capacity of social groups to produce new realities through shared enunciations. Hyperstitions only work to the degree they enter into feedback with an outside, issuing from contact with the chaos of objective reality and feeding into that objective reality. Effective hyperstitions are therefore creative truths, or real fictions, which are no less accountable to objective reality than scientific research. But rational-objective proposals to change ‘society’ (an outside of staggering complexity), by exploiting the hyperstitional nature of reality-circuitry, are nothing short of scams. They traffic in promises they cannot keep. Then they exhort others to promote the scam, to forever defer the admission of having been scammed. Srnicek and Williams perhaps represent a milestone in the modern left tradition, for it is as if they are, in some sense, coming clean: As if the last great hope of saving the modern left tradition is to admit that it’s based on trickery, but then share the source code and exhort the masses to use it. Unfortunately, an open-source con game is still a con game.

When hyperstitions work they work because they exploit cognitive biases. The nation state is a hyperstition built on the evolved tendency of human tribal communist primates to think in terms of "we." Property rights are a hyperstition built on the cognitive bias of the simple fact of jealousy and possessiveness. Our ape ancestors learned to use tools. Tools became valuable for survival so they learned to be possessive about them. Losing a valuable tool could be bad for ones survival so apes have an innate sense of property. From this possessive sense come the hyperstition of property rights where even land and non-tangible assets like bonds and money can be owned.

Stock market crashes are a hyperstition built on the ape tendency of fear to spread contagiously among a shrewdness of apes.

tool use ---> ape possessiveness ---> property rights
tool use ---> ape possessiveness ---> human consumerism
tool use ---> ape possessiveness ---> fascination with smart phones and technology
ape troops ---> human tribes ---> nation states
human language ---> traffic signals
tribal fascination with story telling ---> entertainment, video games, movies, radio
sex ---> porn, sex toys, sex robots

Hyperstitions represent an exploit of a human cognitive bias converted into capitalism.

"Aggregative leftist proposals could potentially change the world, but only if enough people trust in, and follow the dictates, of the proposers (e.g. some go off and make enough cool science fiction to constitute a new hegemony, engineers go off and make communist robotics, etc.) — but why should any of these actors trust the proposers’ claims that following this program will work to bring about a more desirable world? Ultimately the answer is: because that trust is necessary to make it work, so if you don’t trust it, you are guilty of being the cause of it not working. When the basic problem of contemporary capitalism is that we are all hyper-mistrusting atoms hell-bent on exploiting each other, a political project with this circular structure simply dodges the puzzle of irreversible atomization dynamics. Its degree of success is not measured by how well it brings about the better world (never) but by how adeptly it forestalls any ultimate reckoning with the puzzles it is essentially paid by capital to not address. A project with this structure cannot be operative for anyone other than the small number of already left-interpolated subjects, who are not themselves moved by this ‘vision’ so much as they are hopeful that it will move others (such as their apolitical friends, who are implicitly assumed to be dumber — enough to be moved by a lure which the already-initiated are not personally moved by because they know it is only a lure…).

The dynamic of "if we all believe it then we should be able to coordinate our actions" should work, but is does not. It only works at the tribal level where the group is small enough that everyone can monitor compliance. In a tribe, a pseudo-religious myth is propagated that builds tribal cohesion. The myth is acted upon and the tribe achieves some victory. This does not work in a society with millions of people because there is no way to guarantee compliance. Unlike in tribes, humans feel no real loyalty to millions of people, and so they will not voluntary comply with a liberation narrative. The act of attempting to force compliance produces a totalitarian state. Though it seems like it should work because it uses a fundamental characteristic of tribal human nature, it does not. This dynamic of "if we all believe the lie then we can accomplish something," always had war as its basis, and so it only tends to work at war. Tribes have egalitarian values, but that does not mean the "collectivism exploit" will translate to anything larger than a tribe unless racism is involved. Thus, National Socialism builds lasting unity but communism does not. Thus, war gets presidents reelected but communism collapses. (This is not to say I endorse Nazism. I'm just explaining things.)

Hyperstitions that cater to selfishness always work. Those that cater to xenophobia and tribalism can work, but require hysterical levels of propaganda. Those that cater to altruism break down since there is no way for an individual to connect their personal contribution to the group with the groups personal contribution to them at such a large scale. In a tribe you do something for your neighbor and the next week or month your neighbor does something for you. You see a direct consequence of your help. In essence you put someone into debt by helping them and they pay the debt, (or put you into their debt) by helping them. Tribal communism was never really communism abstractly but a kind of reciprocal social debt system.

"Ultimately, the only effective force in a hyper-complex social system more intelligent than any one of its sub-entities is some type of novel engineering realization that allows some actually existing entity to manipulate actually existing entities with a non-trivial probabilistic effect on the whole, where the novelty of the realization provides a demonstrable edge over those other, competing entities with the interest and capacity to thwart the novel manipulations.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"An exciting and inspiring ‘vision of the future’ may generate short-term interest and energy, but absent a genuine advancement in the engineering blueprint, producing ever more creative images of a hopeful future is, in fact, the most insidious, willfully perverse form of atomic hyper-exploitation conceivable. Srnicek and Williams should be applauded for becoming conscious of the fact that leftism is predicated on the fabrication of lures, which provides the genuine service of helping to close this entire, doomed trajectory. What would be willfully destructive would be to insist that this insight is an advancement of the engineering blueprint, so that if you believe in collective liberation you should promote the promotion of lures, and if one finds that this insight does not increase one’s powers to act then it’s only evidence that you’re an atomizing individualist! Collective liberation is not an emergent outcome of multi-level marketing schemes.
Underline is mine. This reminds me of Nick Land's piece on Atomization where he claims the force of resisting atomization only serve to drive it forward.

Atomic Liberation Pathways

"If the upward, aggregative presumption of left-modernity is, as I have argued, a meme-commodity supplied by entrepreneurial Noble Liars, for profit, to a small portion of consumers whose demand is that reality be other than it is, then it stands to reason that the objective diagram of collective liberation for n atomized individuals suggests projects of subjective disaggregation and objective recomposition. You think you are one and you suffer because you are disconnected from others, but really you suffer because you are many — a primordial commune — that has been bribed by the future to speak and act as if it is one.
This is very literally true in a biological sense. We each have 2 parents,4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, and 2,097,152 twenty-one times great grand parents. One is actually many. To think of individualism as a form of bribery is a rather interesting way to put it.
"Certain currents in the history of theory give some reason to believe that modernity’s atomization tendency is less gloomy than it seems. The atomization of pre-modern collectivities may give us the wretched bourgeois individual, but for the same reasons it will tear asunder the bourgeois individual.
"The entire modern capitalist legal order is predicated on this particular, fragile unit of aggregation (even the corporation is required to be an individual), but the forces it has unlocked are constantly chipping away at this temporary container. This is how one should understand Marx’s dictum about the relations of production coming to be contradicted by the forces of production. For more than a century this has been presumed to be an aggregative dynamic. As capitalist relations unlock economic productivity, this productivity exceeds the relations, which are now felt as fetters, resulting in “an era of social revolution”.6 Leftists generally have assumed this contradiction of capitalism generates aggregative effects: the class consciousness of the proletariat is a becoming-aggregate of once isolated, alienated individual workers. Class consciousness then aggregates to a dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on upward, to a vision of full communist ‘species being’. But one is hard-pressed to find theoretical or empirical evidence that this presumption is anything more than a kind of spatial-metaphorical supplement, i.e. a prejudice.
"If we apply the heuristic highlighted above — to read all modern activist discourse as encrypted by its sender to survive competition — it is easy to see Marx’s aesthetic reliance on grandiose aggregationism as a function of late nineteenth-century rhetorical conditions. When large satanic factories appear to be taking over the world, nobody is going to join your group unless the group promises to be big. But today, when large factories are disappearing from the wealthy Western countries, and production/consumption is now satanically atomic and unsubstantial, nobody is going to join your group unless it promises to be small (exclusively organized around specific identity dimensions, with strong walls). In short, only today are we are able to see the radically under-determined, schizophrenic undecidability at the core of all human political judgment and activity, the logical symmetry between fundamentally opposite conclusions regarding the good/bad, up/down, left/right movements of the world. Left-modernist metaphorics of aggregation are not sacred.
The understanding that the left facilitates its own enslavement.
"This, of course, was recognized by Deleuze and Guattari in their move to theorize ‘molecular politics’. They, perhaps better than anyone yet, recognized that when atomization also atomizes the individual into sub- or pre-individual energies, then everything changes. One point of Deleuze and Guattari’s project is to explore the capacities we gain simply as an automatic result of capitalism’s self-sabotaging gift of perpetually generating free atomic fission. ‘We do not yet know what a body can do’ in part because capitalism is never done surgically decimating every reachable particle in search of negentropy.
"It is possible that, at the end of the atomization process, there is nothing but cold, dead silence… some kind of techno-commercial vertigo of intolerable distances. It’s an open empirical question. But if the revolutionary intellectual tradition means anything, it means there are reasons to believe atomization is the material cosmic process for which the concept of liberation has been the ideologically encrypted signal. Cyberpositive, AI-aligned Communism (CAIC, pronounced kayak, cake, or kek, depending on the cyberregional dialect) solves all problems of oppression via splits and recombinations. It is diagrammatically equivalent to the neoreactionary mantra of exit, but socio-aesthetically distinct. That is, it is formulated and distributed through a different cypher, the keys to which are held by those particular meat machines spawned in a particular, contingent sociological lineage (the descent of figures such as Marx, etc.). The sociological interpolation of ideological subjectivities is, as we have seen, fully reversible given a correct decryption. All forms of differential socialization are outcomes of the same primordial cosmic signal animating meat to different rhythms due to the different encryptions imposed by historically-earlier receivers of the signal. The signal is one, no matter what we say; yet how we say it — the encoding — determines who will receive it. In turn, strategic consideration of potential receivers conditions how we say it (any anticipation of future rewards or punishments is an operation of capital or, more literally, visitation by an alien come to you from the future).
"The perpetuation of systemic inequality and violence has nothing to do with some classes or groups controlling or dominating others; it has to do with a continuous, ceaseless invasion of our bodies by attitudinal and behavioral programs that whisper to us in variable, evolved cyphers. Individuals can only decrypt so much, and intelligence is roughly equivalent to one’s power of decryption. To be a living human individual today means you are an ancestor of those who obeyed the alien dictates and in turn agreed to re-encrypt and re-transmit the signal. The highly undesirable megamachine (i.e. capitalism) persists because it is more richly encrypted than any human individual or group is capable of decrypting — and our survival requires that we execute its orders. The history of ideological orientations toward the megamachine, the evolution of variable mental and behavioral responses to alien visitation, is simply the entropic unfolding of the one true cosmic signal.
Translation: capitalism is an alien AI invasion from the future.
"The atomic liberation wager forgoes any claim to restructuring anything with a complexity greater than or equal to one’s objective processing power. In the absolute renunciation of this claim we maximize the energies available to being affected by the immanent cosmic tendency of atomization.
"Atomic liberation wager," "immanent cosmic tendency of atomization," ok, now we are just talking in religious terms.
"We do not yet know what will come of these energies, for the same reason we cannot manipulate the megamachine as such: we have not the processing power to know what we can do if we divide ourselves and test all possible combinations of interpersonal machinery. 10 humans who each atomize to 5 sub-agents each (n=50) before recomposing into a new group of 10 would already have to navigate a search space of more than 2 million possibilities, so nobody can assert a priori what would or would not become possible. Some of these potential combinations would function as novel, different encryption keys: the alien whispers would suddenly sound different, the rhythm changes.
And how exactly would this be done? How do you divide people? With a hacksaw? Or do these people all have multiple personality disorder? He goes from talking abstractly to talking about unrealities.

Oh sure, a human is composed of multiple parts. Cells have nuclei, organs are made of cells, bodies are made of organs, and brains have bodies. Economies, governments, and firms have people. Governments have firms, religions, and groups. Maybe in the future AIs will have governments. Nature builds in hierarchies, but at no time are the parts unbounded from the whole.
"One must recall that all of normal human life, especially in left-wing circles, is generally organized around arresting potential atomic combinatorics. Combinatorial explosion is the definition of unpredictability, fear, and danger, in their most mathematically pure form. When we forgo the pretension of selling to others a more preferable vision of the future, we become affected by a novel source of legitimate confidence in the empirical possibility of finding hitherto unknown, atomic combinations, that may deliver a higher-fidelity transmission of the same signal that the modern-left activist cypher transmitted only with extreme noise and data corruption: namely, something that would look, sound, and feel like what people really have in mind when they speak of liberation, triggered through the acceptance, rather than the arresting, of atomization dynamics.
Liberation is a spook, and it is not coming through the recombination of the parts of an individual, whatever that means. Everything is nested within tradition. Language is a tradition, law is a tradition, DNA is a tradition of survival. What a person is, is not separable from the history that created them and their culture. Such chaos is random mutation, is extinction, is death. Revolutions, like mutations, are almost always a disaster. And the fuel of revolution is always the same: envy.

Envy is a legacy emotion rooted in a chimp past. The true revolution would be to delete the genetics of leftism, which seeks always and everywhere to implicitly go back to tribal communism. Leftism is the true reactionary tendency: it is a reaction against the genocidal force of capitalism working tirelessly to reshape the human species in its own image.
"It has been suggested before that one way to summarize the accelerationist realization is: ‘It’s too late, always.’ But if time is a spiral,7 then traversing it to the end (arriving too late) is tantamount to arriving, finally, at something that deserves to be considered a beginning. Now that we admit it’s too late, the affective quality of everything changes, for all of our failed exertions can finally be comprehended. It makes sense why all of our attempts to change the world have only ever drilled the world deeper into fascist confusion: we were always a day late and a dollar short, all this time. CAIC consists in nothing more than an ‘assortative mating’ of those atomic, pre-individual energies that receive positive affective charge from this realization. And all of this is quite beside what can or cannot be established via critical philosophy; in the first instance, all that matters is that an idea finds joy, i.e. power, in a given body. If it can’t, test whether it might find joy in one of n molecular subdivisions of a body’s personality.
It is truly enlightening that Justin Murphy is learning to write just as badly as Nick Land. Again there is no subdivision of the individual. An individual may come out of a river of sperm and eggs but the body/personality/etc., is not divisible from the hierarchies it exists within.
"In later stages, we may advance our understanding of joy’s engineering — but the empirical justification of the present claim is established satisfactorily if it works on even one body. I can testify it works on my own. QED. Nobody needs to like or trust me for the mechanism’s empirical functioning to be assured. Unlike the mobilization-engineering diagram of ‘inventing the future’ through effective macro image-creation, the ethical auto-ecstasy of first-stage CAIC does not depend on convincing anyone, anywhere.
CAIC =  "Cyberpositive, AI-aligned Communism," or kek.

"It works on my own body." (here, let me convince you vaguely without proof).

"Nobody need trust me." (but I'm not convincing you, no really, I'm not!)

"Does not depend on convincing anyone." (You see, I don't even need to convince you!)
"In any event, it has been realizations such as this one that have led me to quit all the little doomed left-wing groups; not to ‘agree with’ capitalism but to simply acknowledge the objective degree to which the global capitalist cybernet has consumed reality itself, to the point of becoming for most intents and purposes coterminous with it.
Actually, if you listen to his podcast he pretty much got kicked out of all the little left wing groups.

"Consumed reality itself."

More vagueness. How? Why? I gave a better explanation to this when I said that technology imposes itself on the human race. See this.
"Therefore, one is released from a number of idiotic notions about some personal responsibility to change or resist what are effectively transcendental structures. What a sad idea. It now seems likely that all those who remain affected by this masochistically false notion of responsibility are impotent to change the world, in part because they believe they must. Alternatively, the Spinoza–Nietzsche-Deleuze liberation model can be reduced with reasonable fidelity to the maxim that one should do whatever makes one feel most joyous, so long as we have a sufficiently high-resolution and empirically tractable understanding of true joy. The naïve objection that such a maxim endorses evil or cruelty is wrong for the simple reason that evil or cruelty induces all kinds of negative feedback at the psycho– and socio-logical levels; i.e. it curbs the growth of one’s power/joy whereas genuine communist aggregation of particles will be known by its positive feedback on the growth of one’s power.
"Do what thou wilt be the whole of the law." Satanic. Chaging the world is a Christian idea that leftism appropriates. Here he rejects leftism. "But guys, the true communism will involve a positive feedback loop of one's own power. I swear! Will to power, bro!"
"Empirical Reflections
"Some pursuit of atomic liberation pathways can be found today with the interest in pre-individual or “dividual” phenomena.8 But beyond a small number of theoretical texts in the Deleuzean line, few human beings have been willing to update their operational attitudes and behaviors in the relatively drastic fashion that would be required of anyone seeking to take the accelerationist realization seriously. Full accelerationism, unconditional on any normative ideological preference or purpose, is a belief about the empirical world that generates no determinate political praxis — even foreclosing it, or at least anything currently recognizable as political praxis — but nonetheless alters its host body with politically substantial effects. Otherwise, it would be a distinction that makes no difference. But as with any set of ideas, it is easy and widespread for people to ‘adopt’ beliefs which never integrate with their real, revealed, operational beliefs. So when I speak of the political effectivity of accelerationism, I am speaking of dynamics triggered only to the degree it is integrated into one’s behaviorally operative neural nets, that is, when everything else you think and feel moves to equilibrate with this belief.
"One of the politically substantial effects of the accelerationist realization is that it concretely decimates bourgeois ego investments into their unformed, atomic components. Paradoxically, this empirical claim about technocapitalist reality, which forecloses all hope of praxis, triggers concrete affective changes that map quite precisely onto the atomic liberation pathway.
"Why? This occurs because the one individuated bourgeois ego that we by default inhabit is ultimately composed and attuned by the sum total of sad ideas that command our attention and behavior on a daily basis (that if only I didn’t have to work I would be happy; if only I could do some impossible thing, such as control more intelligent people, then I could possibly begin to live, etc.). The bourgeois capitalist ego is essentially the center of a spider’s web of sad ‘if onlys’, as a defining characteristic of capitalism is the postponement of desire for a greater, future return.
Hmm, that's interesting.
"Any thought that could destroy all sad ‘if onlys’ in one fell swoop is, in a very real sense, an immanent extraction of one’s vital energies from precisely the apparatus of capture that holds together so much institutionalized misery in a durable order over time. Human creatures who learn, even in the most groping fashion, to extricate themselves from this web in a reproducible and transmittable fashion will be the only true heirs to the revolutionary political tradition — and yet they will enter it through becoming politically unconditional.
Right. Capitalism gives you desire. Desire fuels capitalism. Anything that can liberate you from "if only" dreams fed to you by capital would be liberation from capital.

"Extricate themselves." So anarcho-primitivism then? Or something else?
"The knee-jerk objection of activist ‘materialism’ is to call what I am saying ‘idealism’ and to point out, mockingly, that people are oppressed by soul-crushing exploitation and poverty, not by their sad ideas. For many activists, this is a founding assumption of projects to change society, but from a scientific perspective it’s not at all obvious. First of all, there is a large body of evidence that suggests believing in the existence of systemic injustice is more oppressive than believing the system is just.9 In short, activism may have less to do with solving problems of human oppression than generating and amplifying them. The activist amplifications of tragic human existence are then cited as the increasingly dire and urgent reasons why one must commit to more activism.
And so capitalism feeds on the very resistance to capitalism that activism generates. Now we are getting somewhere.
"To think this through even further, consider a thought experiment. Assume we have some population of abjectly oppressed, poor, marginalized manual laborers with the typical portfolio of sad activist ideas (they are oppressed by a system they could potentially change; they are in every way just as able as every rich person, if only they were not oppressed, etc.). The Spinoza-Nietzsche-Deleuze hypothesis is that if this population could hypothetically be treated to a sudden massive cognitive reorientation, in which they only entertained mental phenomena that maximized their joy or power, and just ignored or skipped over all mental phenomena that made them sad, then this population would show more cognitive and behavioral indicators of collective political liberation than the activist workers. This hypothesis is far more plausible than activist wisdom is willing to admit. The social scientific evidence suggests to me that these workers would likely have more energy before and after work, they would have more openness to creative connections with each other, and they would have far greater immediate well-being than the activist workers who believe it is their obligation to work more after work trying to achieve a goal they privately suspect to be empirically impossible. The activist hypothesis is that such a cognitive reorientation would not produce dynamics of collective liberation, but that a massive restructuring of their material power in the economy in the workplace would.
So if we just gaslight the oppressed we can solve things. Right.
"Interestingly, we have some test cases of what happens when human beings are treated to hypothetical cognitive restructuring à la Spinoza-Nietzsche-Deleuze. They are highly imperfect as case studies, but they may provide some causal leverage. The first example is the well-documented causal link between pain and ecstasy: with the right attitude, abject toil under brutal conditions can generate exceptionally enjoyable and empowering affects, which figures such as Simone Weil have shown to be efficient motors of accelerative communist dynamics.10 We also have some examples of material restructuring à la activist wisdom. Lottery winners, for instance, are actually a relatively strong natural experiment for testing the effects of substantial, randomly assigned improvement of material conditions. And the data are quite clear that such changes to material conditions do not durably increase positive affect.11 So the Spinoza-Nietzsche-Deleuze model appears far more empirically plausible than many believe, and nearly universal assumptions in left-activist circles appear surprisingly questionable.
"Another interesting consideration from a scientific perspective is that activists may be ‘treatment non-compliant’, possibly leading them to systematically biased inferences and making them uniquely untrustworthy spokespeople for how social change actually occurs. In short, the strange human breed called ‘activists’ might be those particular creatures who are so far gone under the weight of sad affect that they privately decline to undergo available positive affective ‘treatments’ but publicly offer their experience as evidence of null effect. If subjects of a randomized medical experiment are assigned to take a pill, and they say they took the pill when in fact they refused or forgot — the results of this experiment will understate the real effect of the pill. Activist types who deeply believe and insist that only macro-material change can affect the probability of their liberation are likely treatment non-compliers, as this belief will lead them to become increasingly closed off to molecular experimentation. If affective variation along atomic liberation pathways does not produce results for these types, it does not necessarily mean that affective variation is impotent idealism. Humanity’s collective-emancipatory potential via the atomic pathways could still be an objectively explosive quanta; we might just be drastically under-estimating it due to the over-representation of treatment non-compliers, who self-select into the cultural organs possessed of cultural authority on this question (academia, journalism, activist theory, etc).
"The concrete revolutionary potency of the atomic pathways is therefore one of the best kept secrets of the global-cosmopolitan progressive catechism, and another example of why it is quite reasonable and useful to see this cultural formation as a Cathedral — replete with old-fashioned suppression of knowledge rightly seen as dangerous to social stability. To those who still might say that such acceleration-consistent micro-political liberation pathways could only be a kind of fake individualistic freedom enjoyable only from comfortable bourgeois stations, we need only recall that accelerating atomization means almost the opposite: the comfortable bourgeois individual disintegrating into a veritable party, comprised of the multiple and decidedly non-bourgeois agents the individual once repressed. This is not the masturbation of a comfortable individual, as some might allege. It is much more like an infinitely expanding commune of human and inhuman entities masturbating on oneself — an untenably uncomfortable individual finally learning to desire what desires it, having accepted that it’s far too late to do otherwise. 

An endless orgy of identity politics? Or what?

Thursday, January 18, 2018

The Bugman Series, post no. 1: Maze Runner/Lord of Flies Clown World

There are a thousand wrong ways to fix modernity. The Bugman Series is an explanation of every conceivable way to do it, published publicly, so that a sort of encyclopedia of bad ideas can be delineated. Hopefully a few good ideas will fall out in the process, or at least a few ideas who's disastrous consequences we have not foretold.


So you have a bunch of problems you are trying to solve when you construct a society. First, humans get delusional when they experience prolonged periods of prosperity. Witness every normie you know for an example of this. Second, capitalism, or at least democracy, seems hostile to human reproduction. Birth rates in developed societies have collapsed. Third, birth control warps human personality by causing insane people to proliferate unchecked. (I won't explain here. See this for explanation).

Easy solution: just make all humans between the ages of 16 and 25 live under tribal communism. The deal is that if you have at least 3 children you can leave the communist tribe and come back to capitalist society. You banish the young, (young people are all retarded socialists anyway) for a period of 7 years. They cannot come back before 7 years is up, but they can deliver their babies to grandparents at anytime by taking the baby to a collection point. The government puts a hospital tag on the baby's wrist and calls the grandparents who's phone number is stored in a database in advance. You have to stay in communist clown world but your kids do not. Once you have 3 kids, or fulfill your 7 year commitment, whichever comes last, you can leave. If you never meet the quota you can never leave. Fuck you.

The entire center of the United States is turned into a giant national park spanning from Kentucky to the border of California. The government flies you into TRIBELAND by helicopter and drops you off in the middle of nowhere with a compound bow, flint, and other survival gear. You go through extensive survival training all through your youth to prepare you for this. In Tribeland murder is perfectly legal, along with every other crime. It's anarchy dude. Every city between the east and west coast has to be demolished to make way for the great continent-spanning national park that is Tribeland. Sorry, we have to dynamite Denver.

This solves countless problems. First, there are no feminists in Tribeland. Women rapidly realize the value of strong protective men. There is no birth control, no fast food, and no degenerating entertainment. Humans evolved under tribal communism so of course they can survive and reproduce under it just as long as they have the proper survivalist training. All social diseases of the modern world are cured. Survival requires you to be physically fit. Hardship makes you realistic. Lack of birth control combined with a desire to eventually leave makes you reproduce. Since people get to experience communism first hand it cures them of a desire for communism. Anyone who does not like modernity does not have to live in it anyway. Bums can simply be banished to the wilderness. It basically solves every social problem that a society has. When people return to civilization they have an immense appreciation for everything capitalism has to offer. They are realistic, they have children, they know nature sucks, they know how to survive, they understand the value of law enforcement, they hate crime, and they are hardened for reality. They are all k-selected because the frivolous people died off, and they have wise prudential habits of saving, investing, and behaving intelligently.

Furthermore, no one can claim society is forced on them. A true exit always exists, and anarchism is a real option. Last but not least, leaches tend to be culled with real literal murder so that those who return to civilization have a low level of parasitism.

If space in Tribeland begins to run out the government just goes in an kills all the elderly. Forming alternative governments is also illegal.


Problem: you are breeding humans under tribal communism. That means that you are breeding them to be violent, since study after study shows that violent men out-reproduce peaceful men in these societies. Thus, you are undoing the work of human domestication originally produced under conditions of monarchy and making the human race regress genetically. Eventually the human race will become so violent that capitalism will collapse in on itself, or you will wind up with a civilization that resembles Venezuela, but maybe with a higher intelligence level. Maybe. It could take centuries though. With every generation of men being selected under tribal condition to get more violent, your crime rate will skyrocket to unsustainable levels.

Given enough time this envisioned clown world would probably destroy itself, unless you already have gene therapies that can reduce violent tendencies.

Jordan Peterson Refuses to Debate Ethno-Nationalists

I have always had a bad feeling about Jordan B. Peterson, and could not quite put my finger on why. Millennial Woes breaks it down, explaining why Peterson is being dishonest.

My instincts are like a dog's instincts. If Axel McKibbin hates you, you trash, and I very much dislike Peterson, even if he is less of my enemy than the SJWs.

P.S. I am working on several large articles and should be done with one of them within a couple of weeks. I want to take my time and give it the appropriate precision. Til' then...

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Trump's Haiti Comment got me thinking about how there are four forms of information, and two motives


Recent events had me thinking about the nature of society to truth, and I thought I would put my thoughts on the subject to paper.

p1. There are four forms of information.
1. offensive truth
2. polite truth
3. offensive lies
4. polite lies

There may be more forms than this but this is enough categories for the purposes of our discussion.

p2. There are two motives: the desire for morality, and the desire for truth. We will talk about the desire for truth first.

p3. The four forms of information are not treated identically by human agents.

p4. If you tell a polite truth you will annoy people as you are being completely obvious. Everyone knows the inoffensive truth.

p5. In general, offensive lies are never told unless to insult someone.

p6. Inoffensive lies are told all the time, since misrepresentation of reality, (or its hiding), is the key to maintaining power.

p7. Society has a bias in favor of the inoffensive and against the offensive, since the average man, having limited information, is not qualified to judge the truth or falsity of something, and so just favors the inoffensive. Politicians practice the art of saying as little as possible with as many words as possible , to minimize the chance of being caught in a lie.

p8. Society tends to become move towards greater lies over time, especially during a prolonged period of prosperity, which delays confrontation with Gnon. In a highly prosperous society consensus reality can lag behind actual reality by decades. (For example, there is widespread belief that minorities are oppressed, which was true 40 years ago). The longer prosperity lasts the greater the lag.

p9. Elites manufacture stigmatization around certain subjects in order to conceal their parasitism.

p10. Therefore, what is offensive (tends) to be true, (but not automatically), and also what challenges power.

p11. He who would say the offensive truth is usually on the side of the little people, and should be given a wide latitude under a forgiving disposition.

p12. If everyone was honest atrocities would be impossible.

p13. It is only through self-deception that immoral acts are possible.

p14. It is not good versus evil but one deluded son of a bitch against another.

p15. Trying to be moral will make you self-deceptive. Self-deception will eventually make you evil. Hence, the most morally motivated wind up being the most evil.

p16. Striving towards the truth will make you moral.

p17. Only through pathological honesty can you become moral, since you need public stigma to keep you honest.

p18. Honest forces you into a "box" of morally acceptable options. Only through deception, (self and/or others), can you expand the range of options to the immoral. This is because humans evolved to be self-deceptive.

p19. If you are honest people will persecute you. Therefore you should remain anonymous whenever you wish to tell the truth, and be as polite as possible when you cannot, to convert offensive truths into polite-sounding truths as much as possible.

Of course in a society of barbarians sometimes the only way to get noticed is to offend them.

This covers the four forms of information and the first of our two motives: the motive for seeking truth. But there is a second motive: the motive for morality itself. This also needs discussing because it treats truth in a radically different way. What if a person cares more about morality than truth? Or equality than truth? Or any higher value over truth?

p20. Striving towards truth makes you moral while striving towards morality makes you self-deceptive, and thus, eventually evil. But why?

Because a commitment to an idea of what constitutes morality at a lower level of awareness will subvert a higher level of awareness. Or put it another way: let us suppose that you decide that X is moral at level Y awareness, but then you acquire information that says that X is no longer moral because you level of awareness is now Y + n. What do you do with the new information? You suppress it. You forget it, or rather, you "memory hole" it like it never existed. The problem with trying to make the world conform to a moral value system is that if your level of awareness rises, if you acquire any new information that throws your notions of morality into doubt, then you have to reject that new information. Moreover, since doubt is experienced as psychologically painful the new information is perceived as an assault, or an attack. Your pre-commitment to a low notion of morality gives you a tremendous incentive to demand censorship. If you pre-commit to X morality then you can never achieve X + n morality.

There is a basic liberal idea: if we all believe in the proposition that all people are equal then equality will materialize. Thus, anyone who refuses to believe in equality will prevent utopia from being achieved.

This enables every sort of tyranny to be enacted. After all, if the only thing stopping paradise is one jerk who refuses to reform his bigotry then anything can be done to that one man, right?

Of course, in a society of millions it is mathematically impossible that all people will agree on anything. I mean, if you get a hundred people in a room at least one of them will believe the Earth is flat, right? What chance do you have on getting them to agree on values when you cannot even get them to agree on simple facts? Like the roundness of the Earth?

And yet people still do it. It should be completely obvious that any political program that depends on universal agreement to achieve its aims is hopelessly doomed to fail, so why, why the hell to people believe this nonsense? Why do people believe in the nonsense of universal agreement? That it is possible?

Because children make-believe. Because the invention of unrealities is a fundamental part of the human psyche derived in childhood. And why do children make-believe? Because childhood delusions are practice for the adult delusions of religion and politics. Humans are tribal monkeys. In a tribal environment the society is small enough that universal agreement is possible. And it is isolated enough that no one is going to tell Mr. Bone-through-the-noise that forest spirits are bullshit.

Because make-believe doesn't scale. Therefore no agreement on values is possible at the level of millions of people. "Ah," you say. "But nations had common values in the past." Yes, and they did not have the internet, and their populations were smaller.

And so an early commitment to values will produce a permanent stupidity. The longer one can endure truth the higher one's morality will rise.

Sunday Music

Read this thread

Take your privacy seriously. ice9 on twitter has some pretty good privacy advice.

Thursday, January 4, 2018

The problem with reactionaries

Problem 1: the study of political problems is fiendishly complex.

Problem 2: people react to complexity by throwing up their hands and demanding simple solutions, (communism, monarchy, fascism).

Problem 3: simple solutions don't work. Only fiendishly complex solutions work.

Problem 4:  no one is willing to take the time to understand a complex solution with many weird interlocking parts. They object to any one solution on the grounds that it needs support from other solutions to work.

Problem 5: the only way to design a comprehensive solution with many interlocking parts is one solution at a time.

So people reject the only method of problem solving that works.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Aesthetic Judgement Services: or how to make architecture great again with artificial intelligence

This is part of a series focused on technologies and systems.

You create a learning algorithm for recognizing architecture. You feed it millions of pictures of buildings. You have users all over the world answer simple questions about buildings from photographs.

Let's say you have the following categories;

Civic Buildings, (museums, court houses, etc.)
Small and Medium Churches
Cathedrals and Large Churches
Large Malls
Box Retail Stores
Strip Malls
Gas Stations
Automotive Facilities, (car washes, auto parts stores, mechanics, car dealers).
Warehouses and manufacturing facilities
Manufacturing Plants
Self Storage Facilities

First every building gets put into a category. The AI learns how do do this as users are presented with pictures of buildings and asked to categorize.

Then two pictures of each kind of building are presented to users who are asked: "which one is better looking? The one on the left or right?"

This trains the AI to have a sense of aesthetic "taste."

You repeat the second step over and over again so that you can teach the AI to have good taste in architecture. Moreover, the AI's good taste is the same as the public's good taste, so most people will like the architecture it approves of.

Now you have a computer program that recognizes good taste for each category of buildings. It knows what a good looking warehouse looks like, a good looking mall, house, skyscraper, etc.

You approach a local government and get them to write into their building code;

"For a building to be approved it must be uploaded to the website run by our contractor, Aesthetic Judgement Services, (AJS), where the AI will decide if it meets aesthetic qualifications for the 1 % most beautiful buildings."

Or if that is too strict then maybe the 10% most beautiful , or the 20 % most beautiful.

An architect can upload his building renderings to the website and receive approval or denial in minutes by email. The AI encodes the aesthetic standards of the community.

The AI can even give feedback on why the design was denied, thusly;

"Too boring."

"More ornamentation."

"Too cookie cutter."

"Are you seriously using Revit windows?"

"Too cheep."

"Brutalism has less than a .001 % pass rate."

Don't think a manufacturing plant can't look good?

What about a gas station?

What about self storage? Do you think that has to be ugly?

What about the humble strip mall?

Churches of course can be amazing too. Even when they are modern.

The point is that you actually can encode aesthetics into law. You just need the proper machine.

Oh, and modern architecture does have its place for things like gas stations and strip malls.

Most of these buildings are still fairly cheep to build too. The storage facility above uses polycarbonate (plastic) for god's sake.

Now some may say, "oh but a king would do a better job and judging things." Oh yes, he might. But until then. . .

There is also the issue of corruption. An AI cannot be bribed, and it's results can be transparent and examined by looking at its code. Humans can have poor taste, weird taste, no taste, and monetarily flexible taste. Machines are neutral.

Moreover, you can have different AIs for different cities programmed with different ideas of "good taste." For example;

AJS: Rivendell Edition

Or AJS: Japanese Edition

You can customize AJS services to your local values and culture.

Think about it.

Monday, January 1, 2018

There is no outside: notes on how to build a popular website, and media bias

People don't normally talk about their blog stats publicly, but I want to help this movement grow and I don't care if you see my numbers. The main advice I want to give prospective neoreactionaries is that if you don't promote your blog, nothing will happen.

You absolutely have to promote.

Look here.

The stats are a little misleading. I never wrote anything in 2010. The only reason the graph goes back to that era is because I like to reclassify low quality posts by changing their publication date to a day in 2010. This moves the post off the main page without generating a broken link. Sometimes though I just delete something that I regret publishing later. Sorry for that.

This blog started in 2011 as "Modern Conservative Philosophy," (yes, the name is awful). Back then I was not a neoreactionary or anything like it. You can dig around in the archives if you want to read some basic bitch conservative stuff. Fair warning, my spelling and grammar were even more atrocious back then. I had not yet discover the spell check button 5 inches above this text in the blogger interface.

Nothing happened for 5 years.

For the first year I averaged 0 hits per month on my website. Then for the next 2 years I averaged about 30 to 50 hits per month. I was really excited about reaching 50 clicks per month at the time.

Then I started to promote my blog on Reddit by submitting links to articles. Reddit has this annoying feature where it says, "you are doing that too much," when you try to post a bunch of links in a row. The highest rated article on this site was submitted to the atheism subreddit. This has nothing to do with atheism itself. That subreddit is simply very very popular. Thus, a link posted there gets more hits than one posted in r/dark enlightenment.

Once I started to promote in December 2015 my numbers exploded.

List of tips;

  • Posts with pictures get more hits than those without.
  • Posting links to subreddits with lots of members is more efficient than smaller subreddits.
  • Don't rely entirely on Reddit. Diversify your links to multiple platforms; Facebook, Twitter, Gab, My Posting Career, YourTube, PewTube, etc.
  • Videos will get more views than articles. Consider a video blog over a written blog.
  • Photo essays will get more hits than just text.
  • Get listed on an NRx aggregator by emailing the webmaster and asking nicely. This would include sites like UnorthodoxyAlt Right Portal, r/Dark Enlightenment, r/neoreacton, r/nrx offical, r/neoreactionary, r/nrx, the Xenosystems comment section, etc.
  • Network with the most popular alt-right websites and ask if you can write for them. Having a byline on one of their sites will help generate clicks. Some of the most popular are;
     Taki's Magazine     The Right Stuff     Red Ice Radio     Chateau Heartiste     Vox Popoli
  • Make a generous donation to the Right They will mention your name on the air which can give you some clicks.
  • If possible, have someone dedicated entirely to promotion and nothing else.
  • Solicit articles from other people. To create a popular website you need to post about one article ever hour at least. Your need as many volunteer writers as you can get.
  • Cover current events in real time.

Of course I haven't done even half the things on this list, which is why my blog has never gone above 14,026 monthly hits.

Also of note is the subject matter. Articles about new technologies will generate lots of hits. So will "insight" articles that shed some light on a difficult or mysterious topic. You can become the IEEE Spectrum of the alt-right. There is a huge market for identity politics-based and "niche" writing, whether you are talking about the lesbian magazine Autostraddle, the (misogynistic?) A Voice For Men, the racist The Daily Stormer, the anti-white racist , Slate and Salon Magazines, the cuckservative National Review, the grievance-mongering Ebony Magazine, or the libertarian Cato Institute.

Racism sells. There is no getting around that. Whether you are shitting on white men or pissing on minorities any discussion about race will generate clicks, and the more vitriolic the more clicks. I have looked in vain for a limit to this, but with The Daily Stormer being the most popular alt-right website there apparently is no low that is too low to limit your website growth. One explanation is that capitalism is racist, but I find this unconvincing because capitalism just gives people want they want. Part of the reason this website stagnated at 14,000 monthly hits was my unwillingness to pander to racists. Oh yes, I have made racist statements of my own, yes, I don't believe in equality, and yes, I think racism is basically unstoppable, but my racism is more of a passive, "ok so people are not really equal, meh" and not a "gas the kikes race war now!" kind of racism. I have passive racism and not an active desire to hate people. I simply don't have the hate within me to pump out hate-filled article after article that would allow me to monetize this site.

But hate sells, and sells well.

The only limit is moral and practical. If you are as hateful as the Daily Stormer you will be chased all over the earth by censorship and that will obviously interfere with keeping your clicks up. And of course, ya know, conscience or something?

Since I don't run advertising I have no incentive to run this site beyond my own edification.

Humans are genocidal monkeys. Capitalism will sell genocide because it will sell you anything. My conscience requires that the profits for that go to Andrew Anglin instead of me.

The media gets a lot of flak but there is a basic feedback loop with the media that goes like this;
  • You give them ratings according to your biases.
  • They tailor their content to the ratings you give them, reinforcing those biases.
Whether algorithms or filter bubbles, search engines or ratings, clicks or play time, the media company or even blog has an incentive to cater to your bias. You give more ratings/clicks to a certain set of topics. In turn, the editor or blog author writes more about those subjects.

For example, people watch (give ratings to) news stories about unarmed black men getting shot by the cops. A smart producer at CNN will select stories about black guys getting shot by the cops and not select stories about white or hispanic guys getting shot by the cops. It gets more ratings. A segment of the US population comes to believe that cops are racist. Actually, statistically, these other races are more likely to be shot on a "per interaction basis," (though blacks have more interactions relative to their numbers), but the stereotype of the murdering cop is created anyway because that is what the audience will give ratings to.

Now try convincing a member of that audience that cops are not racist and watch them call you a racist, even though it was they who helped generate a racial obsession. 

Is CNN racist against cops? Well yes. Though technically cops are not a race. But they are pursuing ratings. Who is giving them the ratings? Their audience. So who is to blame?

But CNN reinforces that bias with biased coverage. So is the audience to blame or CNN?

Point is, there is a feedback loop between the media and its audience. A bias can "live" in that loop like a living organism, independently of human will. The cognitive bias of anchoring within the minds of the audience will combine with the pursuit of profit by news producers/editors to produce a loop of living bias that transmits down through the generations. A version of this also helps perpetuate progressive morality plays in fiction on TV. While living biases create racism on the internet, other living memes rant against in them our fiction, just like the Star Trek Enterprise episode aptly named "Stormfront."

The meme has a life of its own.
The meme reinforces itself.
The meme transmits itself to new generations.

Of course this isn't to say that racism is just some construct. There are deep biological reasons for it, and racism will always exist for the same reason that power and inequality will always exist: because someone will make sure of it.

There are other biases inherent in media, such as;
  • Missing white woman syndrome
  • The false stereotype that a disproportionate number of mass shooter are white males, (63% are white men, 62% of all men in America are white, and 100% of mass shooters are men). This is proportionate, and exactly what you would expect to see.
  • All television tropes.
Just because you don't live in a dictatorship doesn't mean the media is "morally neutral," or "unbiased." Media companies have all kinds of screwed up incentives. 1. Don't piss off the advertisers even if they are criminals, 2. Cater to the biases of your audience, 3. Generate ratings, 4. Ensure access to politicians by skewing reporting in a way they approve, 5. Hate sells, 6. Upsetting people with bad news sells, 7. Sex sells. 8. The worse society gets the more money you make.

This begs a question: "how much of what you know about reality is real?" How much of reality is even knowable? If ALL reporting is biased then "reading outside your bias," isn't enough. Outside your bias is just someone else's bias. You can't even escape the problem by being open minded. On top of that it's all skewed in a negative direction, because negativity sells.

Joke: "muh read outside your bias."