How Patchwork Could Happen Naturally

The only chart I could find

The world, right up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, was dominated by forces of consolidation & empire. A simple dynamic existed in that world: the larger your nation the more threatening it is to its neighbors. The tendency was to grow as big as you could, as fast as possible. Tribes were conquered to make kingdoms. Kingdoms were conquered to make empires. A lot of nations that we wouldn't now call empires were called just that back then: the Ethiopian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, etc. Everyone got an empire.

Imperial colonization meant that the number of countries in the world steadily shrank. If the atomic bomb had never been invented it is quite conceivable that we would now be living under a one-world government of some type, and that a third world war would have produced it. Global communism maybe?

Einstein sent a letter to FDR about the possibility of building a nuke in 1939. The US then dropped 2 of the things on Japan in 1945.

After the bomb ,the force of consolidation was replaced by the force of fission. Endless proxy wars helped to divide the empires that formally existed, though the fissional process may have stalled a little with the end of the Soviet Union. Will China restart the process? All it takes is a new Cold War.

Given enough time proxy war may turn the whole world into patchwork of city states. Only way to stop this is to end proxy war by giving every nation the bomb. All nuclear armed states will work to prevent that of course, and thus, they will guarantee that the process produces the maximum number of countries possible.

The world becomes a patchwork. Everyone gets the bomb. War becomes impossible. Nations switch to financially manipulating each other's internal politics. "Diplomacy markets" take over. Final stage of human history = world ancap patchwork.

Then maybe one of the city states does full anarcho capitalism. Maybe it out-competes the regular patch. So the final stage of human history becomes world ancap.

Terrorism might actually be putting a break on the whole thing by delegitimizing secession movements. A genomics arms race could speed it up. As the number of countries with nukes increases the number of ways to have a cold war increases exponentially. Cold Wars led to colonization/expansion in at least two eras of human history: the European conquests and the Space Race. Perhaps North Korea adopts state capitalism and enters the space race. The more parties that participate in a Cold War the more irreversible it becomes. That is why the Moon Landing went no further while the European colonizers conquered the whole world. A two party Cold War ends when one of the parties withdraws, (The USSR), while a multi-party Cold War can only end if everyone withdraws, joins into a union, (like the EU), or gets conquered, (like the Chinese wars of unification).

All of this brings up another point: the gap between getting a bomb and getting a launch delivery vehicle is extremely dangerous. If you have a nuke but no way to delivery it then you have an incentive for someone to invade you. If you don't have a delivery vehicle, like an ICBM, you have little counter-incentive for them to leave you alone. But this creates an uncertainty, because you might be able to pull off a nuclear counter-attack against an invader. You want to have the launch vehicle figured out and the nuke procured on the same day, that way you go from being a subject power to a world power instantly.

Uncertainty is the basis of war. More uncertainty of outcome = more probability of war.

The intelligent strategy would be to make ICBMs available to every country, but nukes incredibly scarce and expensive. This preserves the power of large states while limiting their ability to get themselves destroyed. They won't do it of course, but they should. And no, all the world's nations should not be given nukes at once as that would throw everything into crisis. The collapse of an empire is always met with an increase in global conflict. Sometimes this even leads to world war. The transition to patchwork is best managed as a slow boil that disintegrates everyone's geopolitical power gradually.

Patchwork may be more of a prediction than a normative formula.

Women and the "anchoring tactic"

I have been doing some thinking on women's behavior and I have decided that we need a term for the way women habitually invent drama, and I have decided to call it the "anchoring" tactic.

The theory is simple: men and women have different reproductive strategies. Men want to spread their seed as far and wide as possible while women want to gain the largest possible resource base for a limited production of children. A man's genetic interest is to favor production of sheer numbers of children while a woman's interest is to favor the best provider for a limited number of children. "Anchoring" does not refer to this fact, but to a strategy women habitually adopt to overcome this problem: the strategy of deliberately producing drama and problems in order capture male attention.

The strategy is simple: habitually give a man problems in order to keep his attention fixated on her.

Her assumption is that without this drama production the man will lose interest and go plant his seed somewhere else, and the women will lose access to a provider as a result. "Anchoring" simply gives a term to this behavior, and says that this behavior is an evolved strategy for getting resources and commitment. Literally, the assertion is that women evolved to create emotional drama for men in order to prevent them from leaving, and that they do this habitually without even thinking.

Why is your girlfriend such a drama queen? Because she is working to "anchor" you to her.

Fundamentally, the production of children is the production of a problem that women give to men. "Shit tests" are a form of anchoring to see if you can tolerate drama; the more tolerance for drama you exude the more she thinks she can count on you to stay. Anchoring even bleeds over into active subversion of society, such as when women vote for re-distributional policies, big government, censorship, and refugees. The production of drama is the woman's prerogative. Everything she does is to try to force a confrontation that produces commitment from a man. When she votes for refugees she is shit testing the men of her culture, saying, "demonstrate your commitment to civilization or else." Don't agree? Consider the following quote;

"But again, this impulse to enter the “space race” isn’t simply the embodiment of the American spirit of invention or forward-thinking entrepreneurship. Neither is it driven by the kind of nationalist Cold War fervor that inspired the creation of America’s space program in the 1950s.

"Rather, the impulse to colonize — to colonize lands, to colonize peoples, and, now that we may soon be technologically capable of doing so, colonizing space — has its origins in gendered power structures. Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new. 

Or sex. Promiscuity. The male prerogative.

"The Friday before SpaceX’s launch, legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin reiterated to me over lunch that it is imperative that we talk about space exploration in terms of “migration,” rather than using words like “colonize” or “settle” when talking about going to Mars.

"Through a feminist lens, Aldrin’s deliberate word choice revealed an important reality of the space race: This 21st century form of imperialism is the direct result of men giving up on the planet they have all but destroyed.

Fear of abandonment.

"As if history hasn’t proven that men go from one land to the next, drunk on megalomania and the privilege of indifference.

Indifference to the women they "conquered" by impregnating them.

"The raping and pillaging of the Earth, and the environmental chaos that doing so has unleashed, are integral to the process of colonization. And the connection of the treatment of Mother Earth to women is more than symbolic: Study after study has shown that climate change globally affects women more than men.

'“Women in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because they are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihood,” a 2013 United Nations report noted. “Women charged with securing water, food and fuel for cooking and heating face the greatest challenges. Women experience unequal access to resources and decision-making processes, with limited mobility in rural areas.”'

Consider how insane this logic is. The assertion is essentially being made that no progress can be tolerated out there in space because of a problem here at home. This woman is literally jealous of an object, of a rocket, of a man's desire — a man she isn't even sleeping with — to dedicate resources to anything but the bottomless pit of her own need. She is projecting her entire sexual politic into actual politics. If fixing everything wrong with the Earth is a prerequisite to going into space, then man will never go into space. Anchoring bleeds over into all female politics, and women are the greatest opponents to exit precisely because it promises to leave them behind. Or to quote Camille Paglia;

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

It's a nasty, sexist remark, but it is true. In any generation of women the majority of the sex will oppose any and all progress out of pure unadulterated jealousy. That majority will subvert as much as it can, even the success of other women. Successful men like Ray Kroc are often astonished to find their wives actually oppose their success, are jealous of it, and mock their husband's ability. Inevitably the jealous wife is afraid of being abandoned by her husband; she undermines him not so much because of fear about the risk involved in the business venture, but the fear of being dumped, and then her subversive behavior actually gets her dumped, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it even bleeds over into abusive relationships between mothers and their sons, sisters towards their brothers. My god, even when a man is never going to sleep with a women, such as in the case of his sister, she will still produce drama to anchor him.

Gay "queens" also manufacture unnecessary drama. Hmm...

One last thing. Anchoring is greater in women who are insecure than women who aren't. Same with shit tests. Many average looking highly intelligent men assume that they could never get a beautiful women, but beautiful women are often involuntarily celebrate precisely because of that assumption. One of the most stable relationships is the average looking smart/rich guy + hot babe combo. It boils down to incentives. She knows that he can't do better than her (in terms of looks), and knows that he knows it, and if she is not insecure then she has little reason to shit test him. She also knows that she cannot do better than him either financially or in terms of intelligence. He knows all of this as well. Take it from my experience: many average looking smart men can do extraordinary well for themselves with hot women. Don't discount your own ability. If she is really, really, really, really, smoking hot, her sex life is probably as barren as an incels, and a smart reactionary like you can marry that girl and clean up.

The biggest sluts with the most insecurity, most sexual partners, and biggest shit tests are above average women, NOT PERFECT 10s. Really smoking how women actually shit test less because they (a) know that if you are hitting on the you've got mega balls anyway, and (b) are desperate to be treated like a human being and not a slab of beef. All you have to do is not stare at her tits, maintain your confidence, show respect, and listen to what she says. If you can simply be human and also flirtatious with a hot woman you are already ahead of 95% of the men out there, who will all respond by getting offensive, or by objectifying her, or by losing their cool, freezing up, or something. It is actually easier to get a hot girl than an average one. You simply have to remain in control of your hormones, not stare, and communicate flirtatiously.

EDIT:

The more a culture tolerates the sexual usury of women by men the more subversive its women will become towards it. Traditional cultures have loyal women because they earn that loyalty, not because they dominate the female sex.