Saturday, March 31, 2018

Aphorism no. 49


Sunday, March 25, 2018

The strategic equilibrium of tolerance

A K-selected person prefers to have few offspring which they invest heavily in, while an r-selected person has many offspring and makes only the minimum commitment for their survival, and maybe not even that. People in turn have political orientations that correspond to their biology; K-selected people prefer the long-term over the short-term, while r-selected people the reverse. There are really only two activities that humans engage in: crime, and investment.

Everything that has a short-term benefit has a long-term cost; spending on entitlements, baby boomers, resource depletion, global warming, immigration, etc. Everything that has a long-term benefit has a short-term cost; investment, building a business, government reform, etc. There is CRIME, and then there is INVESTMENT, and they are opposites.

R-selected people will naturally prefer crime while K-selected people will naturally prefer investment. This brings us to a stable equilibrium, because democracy is a system that works in favor of r-selected people, while elites prefer K-selected models of governance, (monarchy). Thus, elites will prefer the destruction of democracy while your average liberal bioleninist degenerate will also prefer the destruction of democracy, but for different reasons.

The liberal will want to destroy democracy by wasting its resources through debt spending, degeneracy, etc., while the K-selected elites will also prefer it because they are thinking of the long-term, and in the extreme long-term destroying democracy is good. As a result, we can be expected to see these two groups in a cooperative alliance. The name of this alliance is tolerance.

The high/low alliance is the thing we call tolerance. Tolerance amounts to a "let me help you destroy yourself so I can be in power" thing. The insane are actively encouraged to change their gender, practice homosexuality, whatever, because getting rid of them is good business for elites, and concentration camps are verboten. This isn't very charitable or Christian, but it is normal. Tolerance appears to be some kind of wicked indifference to the suffering of others, and indeed it is, but it is also strategic, and the thing tolerated is an existential threat to survival.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Dawkins wants to eat human flesh

Maybe not.

Friday, March 16, 2018

How to gain power

War is God, and the most effective way to have the most vicious war is to have the greatest number of combatants. This means not only arming the whole population with literal guns, but also with figurative weapons like education. No, not that fake education that so-called "progressives" peddle, but real education that makes people better at controlling others. Of course real education eventually leads to victory by someone, which leads to fake education. You are here now.

By war I mean the society-wide war of all against all, as described by Thomas Hobbes. I do not mean literal military battles. War is good because it advances human progress, and the only morality is progress (in my opinion). I am hyper-progressive, with the term "progressive" having its original meaning as "one who seeks progress," and not the modern version which is the opposite.

It is the Anti-Puritan's position that real education is good, because war is good. But many disagree, and some want peace.

If one's goal is a peaceful, but stagnant civilization, then you want a great mass of illiterate idiots controlled by a state media and state indoctrination apparatus. The purpose of your free public "education" is not to produce educated people, but to de-educate people so that their minds cannot tolerate contradictory thought, or thought contradictory to the institutional needs of the powerful. The free education is a false economy; its purpose is to train a person to be inhibited in their ability to think, and to train conformity. The lecture-style setup bullies the person into not raising their hand and asking questions. The rote memorization of facts crushes original thought. The training in social justice conditions an hysterical reaction to uncomfortable truths, thus guaranteeing perpetual enslavement to state media and conformity.

State education is the educational equivalent of junk food; it worsens a persons mental health, and it acts as a substitute for a real thing that the body needs. It's purpose is to fill an economic demand in order to crowd out any superior alternative that threatens the interests of rent-seekers in positions of political power.

There are four forms of information.
1. offensive truth
2. polite truth
3. offensive lies
4. polite lies
The four forms of information are not treated identically by human agents. If you tell a polite truth you will annoy people because you are being completely obvious. Everyone knows the polite truth. That is things like "the sky is blue." In contrast, offensive lies are never told unless to insult someone.

Inoffensive lies are told all the time, since misrepresentation of reality, (or its hiding), is the key to maintaining power. 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 everything, and so merely favors the inoffensive. Politicians use a great pile of words to bury a small amount of lies, to minimize the chance of being caught, and confuse the public.

A nation becomes more deceitful over time, especially during a prolonged peace, which delays confrontation with nature's wrath. In a highly prosperous society consensus reality can lag behind the actual by decades. The longer peace lasts the greater the lag. Elites manufacture social stigma to conceal their parasitism. Therefore, whatever is offensive tends to be true, and whatever is polite tends to towards falsity. The unsurprising position of our elites is that internal conflict is evil, since it threatens their institutional power.

Now this brings up an interesting problem, because we live in an era of mass media, mass information, mass education, and mass protest. Every modern political adaption can be seen as an adaption to the political threat of mass power. Voting is not really intended to change things but to capture public discontent in order to give the people a semblance of change. The true purpose of the vote is to inhibit revolutionary energy rather than allow it. TV is the same way, creating a "society of spectacle" to capture human energy.  Drugs, porn, elections, entertainment, bad education, and countless other outlets suck up the discontent of the individual in meaningless excesses in online bitching, virtue signaling, pointless protesting, masturbating, hysteria. We have become a jerk-off culture.

All revolutionary potential found in anarchist-enabling technologies like print media or the internet have been co-opted by state power to further their own ends. Every revolutionary act trains the state to get better at controlling people, censoring them, manipulating their news feeds, trapping them in filter bubbles, and controlling their thoughts through the subtle control of their perceptions, and fake news sources. You don't even have to oppress people when you can just control everything that constitutes their perception of reality. Perversely, every revolutionary anarchist technology has been counter-appropriated as totalitarian-enabling technology. Newspapers and guns, which won the American revolution for democracy, were later appropriated for mass indoctrination and genocide. Radio and TV had potential for challenging power, but were co-opted by PR men to manufacture consent. Now the liberating technology of the internet is being used to trap people in filter bubbles, and feed them fake news.

To control others, that is, to have power, you must first control yourself. Emotional self-discipline is the perquisite of political power, and that is precisely what a social justice education destroys. Those who say they want to empower you want power over you.

Struggle is an exercise in masturbation. It is theater designed to capture political energy. The result is a hyper-stable system; nothing gets in because every revolutionary appetite is provided for.

This brings us at last to the question that defines the title of this essay: how to gain power? The answer is that it is essentially a shakedown operation. First one has to invent a new technology that threatens elite power. A good example of this is Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter. The new tech threatens to disrupt the existing regime stability. The owner then "sells out" to the interests of power in a series of concessions that require payment by the elite to him, and elevation to a higher station of political influence. The developer goes from being an enabler of anarchism to an enabler of totalitarian control. As already stated, this pattern has been historically repeated in succession with print journalism, radio, TV, cable, internet, and social media.

1. Develop a politically disruptive technology.
2. Attack the elites.
3. Sell out slowly for the maximum price.
4. Become an apparatchik.

Not only does the Western state enable attacks against it, but it incorporates the attackers into itself as a new quasi-governmental department of ideological propaganda.

This is why the West is so successful.

Any actual threat that either refuses to be co-opted, or is structurally incapable of being co-opted, is simply destroyed, marginalized, or the founders are attacked in some other asymmetrical way. Maybe we can't get them because of free speech, so we get them through false sex crime accusations. Or maybe their taxes are imperfect, or they broke some other regulation. There is enough law on the books to make everyone guilty of something, and we want them to be guilty so they can be controlled.

"Gains" for freedom are also gains for totalitarianism. The essential function is to produce sublimation of conflict to some sort of game, or ideological conflict, or financial war. The war becomes a function of the state, incorporated into the state, whose rules the elite write. Or to make a joke, "the Borg is the ultimate user."

The synthetic culmination of the anarchist/totalitarian war will be a GAME who's rules the elite write with the assistance of AI, and who's very nature is the creation of a perfect illusion of freedom. By providing the individual with an unlimited buffet of choice, by allowing all revolutionary energies to be expressed, by producing a boundlessly customizable space for law and lifestyle, the state secures itself above reproach, ultimately secure, and infinitely stable. The elites will sit at the top, collect a percentage, bias the game, manipulate the outcome, and the individual will chose which game to live under defined by the rules of a particular Patch of territory.

Call it "algorithmic government."

Perhaps this is not what you had in mind when you wanted to know how to gain power. Perhaps you meant "how to gain power for the people," and that is an entirely different proposition.

Bitcoin is either exactly what it seams: a distributed ledger and private currency that successfully usurps the power of central banks, or it is a CIA opp. Assuming it is the former, then it is the only successful attack on power made by anarchism that has not been co-opted yet. It is also the only system where the founder has disappeared without a trace, and that is important, because as long as the founder is visible a system has a single point of failure that can destroy it. A human face attached to any project creates a an individual in meatspace that can be blackmailed into compliance. Secondly, Bitcoin performs a reverse co-optation of the elites, peeling off enough of them with its speculative nature, and profiting them sufficiently, to buy their relative, (and temporary) indifference. Regulation is always an attack by rent-seekers, regardless of whatever else it is, and if you do not enrich the people currently in power they will bury you.

This model shows the only way forward for anarchism that does not feed totalitarian pushback. Of course the blockchain may turn out to be totalitarian after all if it enables the tracking of all transactions in an entire economy.

Bitcoin is not destroyed by rent-seekers because it is;
Distributed (cannot destroy it without destroying the whole thing).
Anonymous (no meatbags to extort).

It survives because;
It is profitable to some elites.
It's destruction might destabilize the economy.
Government employees have invested in it.

It was allowed to grow to its current threatening size because;
It is difficult to understand the technology (exploits human laziness).
It's threatening nature was not advertised (unlike Cody Wilson or Richard Spencer).
It's implications were not immediately understandable by anyone except its creators.
An anarchist project succeeds when it is distributed, anonymous, profitable to elites, and difficult to understand, and when its threatening nature is not advertised.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Hypergamy may be a statistical illusion

You have probably seen this chart bandied about as proof that women are hypergamous. I have even made this assertion myself, and I have used hypergamy as proof that women create patriarchy by rewarding it sexually. But now I am not so sure.

You see men have two standards: one for sex and another for marriage. My standards for sex with a woman are incredibly strict, and I never deviate from them. Allow me to list out what these incredibly super-duper strict sexual standards are;

She can't have HIV or any other incurable diseases.
She can't be a false rape accuser. Since that category includes many feminists, she can't be a feminist. A non-zero probability of being falsely accused of rape is still too high, even if most self-described feminists would not accuse a man of rape. Why take the chance when I can just screw some other chick?
She can't be a stalker.
She has to be HUMAN. No animals or aliens.
She has to be ALIVE. No dead girls.
She has to be a she.
She has to be awake.
At least 18+, or whatever the age of consent is.
She has to be consenting.

I said my standards for sex were strict. I did not say they were high. I would fuck just about anything. I have fucked just about anything, and I've fucked lots of fat girls, and I'm not even ashamed. I would probably violate the "human rule" for a sophisticated enough android girlfriend.

Here's the thing: the vast majority of men have standards as low as mine. But our standards are low for sex only. For marriage my standards are much, much higher, but also less strict, because it is virtually impossible to find a woman who is all of the following;

Has no mental problems.
Enjoys cooking, cleaning, and trad wife things.
Free of leftist indoctrination.
Horny but loyal.
And numerous other standards.

If you survey men on what women they find attractive you will find that they are total sluts, and this lack of standards will show up in the survey results. You will come to the conclusion that men have "reasonable" standards while women have hypergamous standards. But this is b*llshit because women get hit on a lot more than men.

A typical young women on a website like Twitter probably gets a dozen guys per year hitting on her or asking for sex. If a woman is like a man she will have two standards: one for sex and one for marriage. But her sex standard will be much, much closer to her marriage standard than a guys. After all, if hundreds of men want to fuck you why bother having low standards? Why not just apply the same "marriage filter" to all of them? Your standards will always be high. But this doesn't mean that you will be hypergamous.

For women, her standards will be superficial when she is just looking for sex, and deep when she is just looking for marriage. But her standards will be high all the time.

As for guys, his standards will be low when he is just looking for sex and high when he is just looking for marriage.

So, if a woman is superficial (concerned with a man's looks rather than personality) that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a slut, and if a man has low standards that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a guy who just wants to get laid.

Female slut = concern with looks to the exclusion of personality.
Male slut = low standards.

Women are not hypergamous, which is to say, men are not less hypergamous than women where marriage is concerned. WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED, men want high quality mates, just like women. But all surveys show men having lower standards because they are showing the standard for sex and not marriage, and guys have two standards.

By the way, shit testing is the wrong way to find a husband. Men are put off by shit testing. Since a man's standards are high for a wife and low for sex, a woman who shit test's too much runs the risk of being perceived as low quality from a man's perspective, and thus, being put in the "fuck only" category because she is not perceived as wife material. The worse a woman's behavior the fewer men will consider her marriageable. Personality actually does matter, but only for men looking for marriage.

The correct way to find a husband is to demand that a man make a time commitment to a woman. Force him to wait a few weeks for sex. Most guys who just wants to get laid will be deterred. Then do "wifely things," like make him dinner. A guy who wants a wife will appreciate these things while a guy who wants sex will be annoyed you are wasting his time.

Basically, if you want a husband your goal is to determine the following:

Which standard is he applying to me: the low standard or the high one?
Horny men who don't care about marriage will exhibit impatience, disregard for your feelings, asshole behavior, lack of appreciation for wifely things, etc.

Every statistical proof is a proof of men's low standards for "just sex." Hypergamy is a relative concept. It is women's behavior relative to men, but the stat for men is an illusion, and where marriage is concerned men have every reason to be as selective as women, if not more so.

When someone points to a proof of hypergamy they are pointing to a stat that shows women are more strict than men, but women apply their marriage filter to everything because they have more suitors to choose from. Yeah, of course you are "hypergamous" if you are sifting through a dozen sexual propositions. But this doesn't mean your standards are actually higher then men's, not for marriage anyway. In fact men may actually have higher standards for marriage than women, because while a woman is looking for one man to provide for her offspring, a man is weighing the possibility of losing the ability to spread his seed to multiple other women. Thus, to a woman, a man represents a possibility of spreading her genes, but to a man, a single wife reduces his ability to spread his genes. If a man is a "chad" then marriage is a bad deal: the chad will probably impregnate fewer women as a result of being married, and marriage is genetically costly. Such men will have impossibly high standards for any potential wife.

The better looking a man is the stricter his standard for marriage will be, until at a certain point he will shift from a strategy of having one wife, to either a strategy of having no wife, or a wife + mistress combination. This shift will occur at a lower point than you might think, and depends largely on the income of the man, cost of divorce, etc. Men are not strictly trying to maximize pregnancies, but rather, because of evolutionary legacy, most men are trying to maximize the amount of sex they have. Men get married because they are low enough in market value that sex within marriage > than sex outside of marriage. They got married because they believe they will get laid more being married than not.

One more thing.

Liberalism is undoubtedly a shit test invented by smart liberals so they can find and assortatively mate with one another.

Think about it.

The "true believers" repeat the doctrine loudly. The smartest liberals in the room never take concepts like gender, oppression, etc., very seriously. Loudly proclaiming you hatred of White men is a good way to exclude yourself from being marriageable to all the White men in the room. A man's standards for marriage are high, but his standards for sex are low. Thus, every behavior that the left promotes: feminism, transgenderism, lesbianism, etc., has the effect of making the women who engage in it unmarriageable. This is deliberate because the left doesn't want White people to reproduce and create more Republican voters, but it is also a shit test that excludes every women dumb enough to fall for it from the marriage market.

If you're looking for an intelligent wife you promote rabid leftism and social justice, step back, watch who goes crazy, and then pick a mate from the pool of women sophisticated enough to remain silent and absent from the test.

It's an inverted "point dear, make horse" exam. Instead of punishing everyone who expresses insufficient enthusiasm they are punishing everyone who is "basic." The basic bitch goes on and on about "Drumpf" "oppression," and "White men," and every White man knows "not that one." Remember that men will exclude a woman if there is even a non-zero probability of a false rape accusation, and every feminist basically wears that like a neon sign.

Friday, March 9, 2018

Neil deGrasse Tyson arrives at a conclusion I figured out years ago

I concluded that cold wars were linked to colonization, and were one of the few reasons for technological progress, along with greed, and planned obsolesce. In short there are a handful of reasons people do things and without these nothing gets done.


Military competition
Product Iteration

Faith is a reason I forgot.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Reasons to work out that have nothing to do with women, sex, or losing weight

People try to motivate each other to work out with arguments like "you can lose some weight," or "if you get ripped you'll get laid." While these arguments are true they are based on extrinsic motives. That is, they are external to the individual. In contrast to extrinsic motives are intrinsic motives, or internal motives. These are the things you do because they make you feel good.

To be blunt, extrinsic motives can be demoralizing. I don't really care what a woman thinks about my body, and don't want to. I have no desire to get in shape in order to get laid. I could get laid now with a fat chick, and its all the same to me. I don't want the world's approval. I don't care if my body disgusts people. In fact, disgusting people makes me a feel a little like I have "owned" them. It's like, "Here asshole, watch my flab jiggle a little as I jump around." "Yeah that's right. Fuck you. I know you are revolted. I can do this all day and there is nothing you can do to stop me."

No. The reason I work out is because it feels good. I like the tired burn that puts me to sleep afterward. I sleep both better and less when I work out. I like how I feel stronger, and I like not feeling tired all the time. I also like having fewer headaches. Working out also helps my back, and makes me more flexible.

I don't do sit ups because I can't stand them. I don't do deadlifts because I don't like pain. My work out consists of a mixture of cardio machines, free weights, and interval training, with a walk afterwards. I don't care about losing weight, and I don't care if you like my fat ass.

And I've still lost 2 inches off my waist line and gained some definition.

Because there is no such thing as a workout without gains. Even if you don't lose weight you are still building some muscle. You will gain muscle tone and fit better into your pants. You will still look better and have more energy. Gyms are full of people who look critically at anyone who doesn't have a model quality body. Ignore them. Go during off-peak times or use an "old people's gym." If you are in Colorado this means one of the low cost Recreation Centers. If you are a woman consider using a women's gym. Don't ever go to Planet Fitness. They have an alarm that goes off when you work out too hard. If you are just starting a workout you want something in between the two extremes of "gym bro assholes" and "Planet Fitness don't-fat-shame-me-lazy-non-gyms." You want an old people's gym, or a family gym like the YMCA. If you really hate working out take a Zumba or dance class. Seriously. I once lost 40 pounds over one semester in f*cking Contemporary Dance.

If that doesn't make you laugh, back when I was a size 31' I even took a full year of ballet. FYI, I have amazing arches. Lol. Yes, I was once a male ballet dancer.

And I danced with about 30 chicks with no competition in the class from other men, and took some of them out on dates. I looked great and could lift a women off the ground while standing on the balls of my feet.

The Pure Anti Thesis, Version no. 1

Conventional wisdom is that there is something wrong with the world, and that this "something" — whatever it is, needs to be fixed.

Everyone believes this; conservatives, reactionaries, leftists, feminists — hell even Hitler believed that Jews were ruining the world.

Consider for a moment that what is wrong with the world is itself the feeling that there is something wrong with it, something oppressive. The feeling is the problem, and not some objective reality.

This sensation is genetic? Or cultural? Or a mixture of both? It makes people act out in horrible ways, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is actually the sense of bring oppressed that is oppressing us, and not any objective fact of being oppressed. Any actual oppression is caused by one oppressing another in an attempt to "liberate" itself from oppression. We are in hell and the demons are us. We torture each other trying to liberate ourselves from each other. Our struggle for freedom becomes our slavery to each others' abuses.

What needs curing is not gender, oppression, patriarchy, or whatever, but the genetically programmed sense of being oppressed.

Every philosophy/religion/ideology must inevitably have evil consequences because it produces struggle in the human race, and that struggle results in atrocities. The point is to cure the genetic need for struggle — not to win the fight. Fighting is just more evil.

The pure anti thesis is not that there is some struggle worth fighting for, but that all struggles for liberation lead to slavery.

Friday, March 2, 2018