Monday, April 30, 2018
Blogger really doesn't want me to share this link, and won't let me connect it directly.
This is still way better art than progressives produce.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Conservatives could easily defeat the left by simply doing the exact same things back to the left that the left has done to them, forcing the left to attack their own actions.
How would liberals feel if White men benefited from affirmative action? What if there was a quota requiring universities to hire conservatives? What if conservatives were a protected class and it was illegal to discriminate against them? What if there was a "separation of ideology and state" that prohibited using tax dollars for teaching liberal/Marxist subjects? What if it was impossible to get a college degree without being subjected to eight semesters of conservative indoctrination? What if White people were a protected race?
How would liberals feel about that?
What if "affirmative action" gave Whites preferential hiring for federal jobs?
What if the income of the left was redistributed to the right?
What if profits from "frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits" were taxed at 100 %? What if the language of the law was written in such a vague way that all sexual harassment laws were considered frivolous?
Why not destroy elite corruption by nationalizing the companies that employ lobbyists, then passing reform, the privatizing them again? You keep the free market and bankrupt the globalists.
You could practice sexual socialism by giving all men "relationship vouchers" that women could redeem. You could redistribute the means of reproduction, and your political party would have a solid lock on the beta male vote for the next hundred years.
What if you weakened manufacturing standards for birth control to the point where sugar pills could be sold as contraceptives? If you ban something you create a black market, but if you CORRUPT something then there is no way for the market to route around it. What if you make sure that both legal and black market birth control are totally unreliable? You make it impossible for women to safely ride Chad's dick.
What if the only way to get reliable birth control is to (a) get married, and (b) have 3 children, and (c) join the new Nationalist Party?
"Ok, well you have 3 children so now so it's fine." Our black market dealer will contact you."
Remember, governments don't have to enforce all the laws on the books.
And monopolies on reliability are perfectly legal.
You just make sure your party owns the only reliable contraceptives in the country.
"Gangs" occasionally pull over semi-trucks carrying birth control and swap the pills with sugar pills. Because the Highway Patrol was conveniently on out of range to respond. Drivers go to their destination as if nothing happened because they are party members. You make sure they are party members, or else.
What if you make it legal for porn companies to give computer viruses to their customers? Sure you can look at porn. It may turn your hard drive into a brick, but you can look at it. What if you deliberately infect their servers? What if you ignore their pleas for an investigation? Not everything in the economy needs to function well. The law does't have to be applied everywhere. Cyber laws don't have to protect porn companies.
What if you simply fail to enforce the laws against violent right-wing militias? What if these militias make it impossible to be a minority in the United States? You don't physically remove them, no. That would be unconstitutional. Citizens have rights I say! But you don't protect them either. You let private armies drive them out.
What if there was a tax on hiring non-Whites — to correct — "the injustice of progressiveism"? What if there was a subsidy to hire non-Whites — in Mexico?
What if there was a tax on renting to non-Whites in the US? What if there was a subsidy to rent to non-Whites, in Mexico? And what if public service announcements made it very clear that there were lots of jobs and apartments down south, but only for minorities?
What if Mexico was a vast dumping ground for undesirables because America invaded it and turned it into a territory?
What if there was a "terrorist attack" committed by the Mexican government that justified such an invasion?
Speaking of terrorists...
What if pedophile activist become terrorist, and this justified drastic action against them? Somehow a group of pedophiles was radicalized and proceed to go on a bombing spree because they want the legalization of pedophilia?
Hell, what if the Mexican government funded pedophile terrorists involved in a child sex trafficking ring? Because the Mexican government was getting kickbacks? Because the politicians were banging underage sex slaves?
I mean, it sounds like something they would do.
In the ensuing chaos, would not extreme measures be warranted?
What if you opened a few dozen "interment camps"? Because "pedophiles are a threat to our national security." You throw a few million pedophiles into the camps. Oops! There was a bureaucratic error. These feminists and social justice professors got classified as child molesters by mistake. Well they did try to destigmatize it, didn't they!
You feed the people in "internment camps" 1200 calories a day, and work them 14 hours a day, 6 days a week doing hard labor. They "accidentally" die, just like the people in Stalin's gulags.
Oops! The historical records seemed to get lost when the records building burned down! How sad! But don't worry! Our special committee has ruled that it was an electrical fire. Yes sire-ree, what an unfortunate accident. Nothing to see here.
I guess we will never know just how many social justice warriors perished in the camps.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Part 1: The Genetics of Female Aggression
Big-brained libertarian IQ twitter has the wildest takes I swear pic.twitter.com/Xc1Kvb1dv2— pajama boy respecter (@coherentstates) April 28, 2018
Did you hear that? Ugly men are "monsters" from this woman's perspective. Also, social stigma is "force," whereas market equilibrium under birth control is "non-aggression"; "you do you and I'll do me."
Though I am not a Scientologist (even though I was raised as one), I can't help but instinctively go back to the religious education I received growing up. It's the first place I go when I am confronted with a problem that has no easy explanation, or a human behavior that defies comprehension. This comment is dripping with an overwhelming entitlement, and a violent contempt for most men. She implicitly asserts that an entire subsection of the male sex is unworthy of her, as if one must be worthy of sex, as if men are somehow beneath women, as if she is worthy of them, as if she is above them, as if any man could tolerate her, etc. A whole series of assumptions are being made here.
Evolutionary psychology has its answer, and Scientology has a completely different answer. In fact, Scientology hates psychiatry, and views it as a destructive materialistic delusion. Evo-psych prescribes a factual basis for this woman's behavior, while Scientology prescribes both a factual explanation and a normative prescription. Unlike evolutionary psychology, Scientology tells us what to do about it. Let us first talk about the evolutionary reason, and use evo-psych to knock down the legendary BS known as the "non-aggression principle," or as I call it, the principle from which all conservative cuckoldry flows.
Simply put, the NAP is impossible. If there are two groups, one that is aggressive and one that is not, the aggressive group will out-compete the peaceful one. If there are two races, one with high birth rates and one with low, the one with high birth rates will overrun the later. If there are two religions, one with fanatics and one without, the one with fanatics will invade the one without. Non-aggression falsely assumes a stasis between two groups, when in reality, even the most mundane differences can impose themselves on others through market dominance, even if those differences represent a suboptimal equilibrium. Purveyors of the NAP believe without substantiation that whatever wins deserves to.
Just like there is no nonaggression between groups, there is no non-aggression between lifestyle choices. If one society wears the head scarf it legally imposes modesty on women. This benefits older women, (who are the majority) at the expense of younger women, (who are the minority, and who will one day become the majority). It decreases intrasexual competition between women, just like all the other prohibitions against immodesty.
A society without laws forcing women to cover up is not a society without conflict, sexism, force or inequality. The absence of a law is not the absence of force. In a permissive society where women are allowed to parade their bodies half-naked. The result is that women who refuse to show off their bodies are at a severe disadvantage in sexual competitions with other women. The same applies to sex. Women who refuse to have premarital sex in a society with widespread promiscuity are disadvantaged relative to those that do. The competition to show ones body — and open ones legs — has all the force of law without any law being made. It imposes itself as a compulsory lifestyle. The alternative is to become a desperate female Christian 40 year old virgin.
The point is that one lifestyle always crows out another. Purveyors of the NAP probably know this and are disguising force as choice, or at least deceiving themselves by refusing to understand that the absence of government forces does not equate to the total absence of all force.
Since various market equilibriums are not the absence of force, but the presence of a different kind of force, people are justified in regulating markets if their version of freedom demands it within their patch of sovereignty. This regulatory right extends to sex.
Nonaggression cannot exist because genes program behaviors that favor conquest and aggression. Those genes that spread, propagate the characteristics of aggression that cause their spread. Obviously.
Basically, genetics renders the NAP impossible.
So coming back to our topic: where does this profound attitude of female entitlement come from? Answer: the genetics of aggression in women. Hypergamy is aggressive — even violent. It is in fact the way violence expresses itself within the female sex, or another way of saying this is, the intrasexual competition between women for a small pool of alpha males, is to women, as intrasexual violence is to men. Women backstab over the one alpha just like men fight with each other over the distribution of women, and hypergamy produces a secondary violence of male sexual drought which has just as much force as if a law had been made.
Part 2: Covert Hostility
In Scientology 1.1 is pronounced "one one" or "one point one," hence the title of this essay. Being "one one" is probably Scientology's biggest taboo, and rightly so. It is again to the Christian prohibition against covetousness, "Thou shalt not covet." — Exodus 20:17. It should matter more in Christianity that it does.
The first place I go when stressed or baffled is my Scientology training, since it came first, and I learned it as a child. Only after, do I reach for the evo-psych logic I learned later in life. But Scientology has an answer for why some women are promiscuous, and why a woman would prefer a life of barren promiscuity to a life of stay-at-home motherhood. In the below extended reference I have changed words like "he" "him" and "his," to, "she" "her" and "hers." I have substituted the masculine for the feminine, I have sprinkled in some other notes in parentheses. Basically, I have rewritten some parts to change the gender of the subject from male to female. All references are stitched together from the book Science of Survival, and are L. Ron Hubbard speaking. He is talking about the emotional tone scale, a scale of emotions from Total Failure at the bottom (-40.0) to Serenity of Beingness at the top (40.0). The tone scale is not about a person's temporary emotional state but their chronic emotional tone, that is, the dominant emotion they feel every day. It is also meant as a moral judgment, as you will see.
I have underlined crucial parts relevant to perverse behaviors in this society and its screwed up attitudes towards the second dynamic. I find reading this like taking a bath because it lifts my mental fog and eliminates confusion. L. Ron Hubbard is just so incredibly certain of what he is talking about, and methodical in his presentation.
Below anger we go into a slightly sorrier level, covert hostility. Here is a woman who hates but is afraid to say she hates, who deals in treachery and who yet expects to be forgiven (demands tolerance) At the lower end of covert or hidden hostility we have the continually frightened person, (suffers from anxiety) the individual ridden by fears, the person who is afraid to be or to own anything.
Around 1.1, we reach the level of covert hostility. Here the hatred of the individual has been socially and individually censured to a point where it has been suppressed, and the individual no longer dares demonstrate hate as such. She yet possesses sufficient energy to express some feeling on the matter, and so what hatred she feels comes forth covertly. All manner of subterfuges may be resorted to. She may claim to love others and to have the good of others as her foremost interest; yet, at the same moment, she works, unconsciously or otherwise, to injure or destroy the lives and reputations of people and also to destroy property. Below 1.0 we reach fear, which is expressed on its highest level as acute shyness, stage fright, extreme modesty, being tongue-tied among other people, being easily frightened by proffered affection. Here also we reach the strange manifestation of the individual attempting to buy off the imagined danger by propitiation. We have an interesting example of this in processing.
(Processing is just another word for spiritual therapy, which is just another word for auditing)
Widespread covert hostility can be produced by censorship. You know that feeling of "being dead inside" that public school tends to instill? What is that, fear? (1.0), or covert hostility? (1.1).
Cases which are far down on the tone scale will, when they reach 1.0, (fear) quite commonly offer the auditor presents and attempt to do things for (her). A crude description of this was once contained in the idea of transference. At this level we have withdrawal from people. At 0.5, (apathy) we reach the level of grief, wherein we have supplications by the individual, (her) pleas for pity, (her) desperate efforts to win support by tears. We may even have at this level extremely strange perversions of truth intended to achieve the pity and support of others. For instance, the rejected sweetheart, reaching this level of grief may invent all manner of odd and peculiar incidents of cruelty on the part of the last lover in order to win the sympathy of those around her. (This paragraph was unmodified. He actually uses the term "her" here).
Possibly the most exact borderline between sanity and insanity would be that between knowing that one was imagining what had happened and not knowing that one was imagining. All recalls can become short-circuited through the imagination, so that the “I” is led to believe that it is recalling an actuality when really it is having furnished to it from the memory banks an imaginary sequence. When ARC (affinity-reality-communication) is very low on a case, usually below the 2.0 (antagonism) range, the condition obtains with the case that many of his recalls (of past lives), no matter how authentic “I” considers them, are imaginary. As an example of this, consider the person in an anger state who is recounting a conversation or a quarrel he has had. People who are angry almost never tell the truth. People who have sunk to the covert hostility range become so confused between reality and imagination that even their small talk is utterly untrustworthy, and yet these people may believe they are telling the truth. This is a case of recall being short-circuited through the imagination and “I” being furnished imaginary data which is yet labelled as authentic data. Possibly the most flagrant breach of truth occurs in the apathy range or slightly above it, where fear, mingled with grief can cause the wildest perversion of recall.
Below this level, before we reach 1.1, the individual sinks into stubborn silence, sulks, refuses to talk. He will not listen to any communication of any kind from other people, except that which encourages him in his attitude. At 1.1, we have lying, to avoid real communication. It takes the form of pretended agreement, flattery, or verbal appeasement, or simply a false picture of the person’s feelings and ideas, a false facade, an artificial personality. Here is the level of covert hostility, the most dangerous and wicked level on the tone scale. Here is the person who smiles while he inserts a knife blade between your vertebrae. Here is the person who tells you he has stood up for you, when actually he has practically destroyed your reputation.
Here is the insincere flatterer who yet awaits only a moment of unguardedness to destroy. The conversation of this level is filled with small barbs which are immediately afterwards justified as intended compliments. Talking with such a person is the maddening procedure of boxing with a shadow: one realizes that something is wrong, but the guardedness of a 1.1 (covertly hostile person) will not admit anything wrong, even as, all the while, he (or she) does her best to upset and wreak havoc. This is the level of the pervert, the hypocrite, the turncoat.
This is the level of the subversive. From such a person one should never expect an outright frontal attack; the attack will come when one is absent when one’s back is turned, or when one sleeps. Any luckless person married to a 1.1 is, literally speaking, in danger of his life and sanity; for such a person is incapable of any real affection; such a person is so introverted that any demonstrated affection is a hectic sham. Such a person will opportunistically take any avenue which leads to his own security and will leave in the lurch anyone he has pretended to call his friend.
I have to interject at this point because the gender theorist and lesbian dyke Judith Butler wrote a book called Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity where she actually advocates the subversion of traditional sex roles — I mean she literally — says basically says, "we have to subvert gender," over and over again in different ways. I mean my god, it's in the title of the book. Look here, straight from the horses mouth;
"This text continues, then, as an effort to think through the possibility of subverting and displacing those naturalized and reified notions of gender that support masculine hegemony and heterosexist power, to make gender trouble, not through the strategies that figure a utopian beyond, but through the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of precisely those constitutive categories that seek to keep gender in its place by posturing as the foundational illusions of identity." Page 44.
These people are so conforming to Hubbard's classification system they are like a goddamn parody of themselves. When a Scientologist reads Gender Trouble — if he even reads it — he rolls his eyes and goes, "well that's 1.1."
At 1.1 (covert hostility) is the most dangerously insane person in society, and is likely to cause the most damage. Because of the covert nature of this insanity, it is completely beside the point whether such a person is pronounced insane by any agency. On this level there is no concept of honor, decency or ethics; there is only desperate, death-bent thought of self and of damage to others. Society can handle the angry man; it knows what to expect from him. Society can handle the apathy case; his/her insanity is obvious.
But the 1.1 is a skulking coward who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to give warning. Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family’s loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate. A 1.1 can be accurately spotted by his conversation; since he seeks only to enturbulate (shake up emotionally) those around him, to upset them by his conversation, to destroy them without their ever being aware of his purpose. He listens only to data which will serve him in his enturbulations (attempts to shake people up emotionally) Here is the gossip, here is the unfaithful wife, here is the card cheat; here is the most undesirable stratum of any social order.
Or why there is no such thing as "ethical non-monogamy" because there is no such thing as a promiscuous person who is not subversive towards society. Just like there is no such thing as an non-subversive adulator, non-subversive practicing homosexual, etc.
First some terminology.
"Restimulate" roughly describes a feeling that one has related to a traumatic moment of pain. A person who is "restimulated" is reminded — even if only unconsciously — of a moment of pain in such a manner that the dread/hate/fear/negative emotion comes rushing back to them. I you have ever walked into a room where you were abused and felt a sudden sense of panic you have experienced "re-stimulation." If an object or facial expression has ever caused you terror or instant hate for reasons you cannot explain you experienced "restimulation."
In Scientology, to "destimulate" is the opposite. When you walk though a field of tall blades of grass and feel your hands brush through the grass you feel "destimulated." When you go hiking and feel totally refreshed you feel destimulated. When your head is completely clear and you live in the moment you are destimulated.
Preclear roughly translates as "spiritual patient,"
Auditor means roughly "spiritual therapist." It has nothing to do with accounting.
Presenttime is spelled as one word on purpose, since in Scientology it refers to a person's ability to experience the present moment. A person's ability to experience presenttime is a measure of sanity. People who cannot come to presenttime are unconsciously stuck in traumatic past incidents. After the end of a spiritual therapy/auditing session the therapist may ask "are you in presenttime?" And snap his fingers and say "come to presenttime." This is because auditing is all about reliving past lives, and the auditor needs to make sure you have returned to the present before letting you walk out the door.
No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of 1.1’s. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst. The 1.1 is so low on the tone scale and yet so active mentally, as a rule, that he is very difficult to process. The longest and most arduous course of therapy may still leave the auditor baffled by a mind which is so full of circuits that no real desire for improvement on the part of the preclear can make itself felt. The auditor may feel that only an offer of an obvious presenttime advantage, like being let out of confinement, would tempt this preclear into genuine cooperation. The auditor may feel that this case is just not salvageable. But if, in the case, the auditor can manage to remove some of the circuits or destimulate them he may be able to make progress. It takes a very clever Dianetician (practitioner of Dianetic spiritual therapy) to do anything with a chronic, computational 1.1.
That is really complicated so I will translate.
"No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of covertly hostile people. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst. The covertly hostile person is so low on the tone scale and yet so active mentally, as a rule, that he is very difficult to treat with spiritual therapy. The longest and most arduous course of therapy may still leave the therapist baffled by a mind which is so full of irrational mental processes that no real desire for improvement on the part of the analysand can make itself felt. The therapist may feel that only an offer of an obvious immediate advantage, like being let out of confinement, would tempt this analysand into genuine cooperation. The therapist may feel that this case is just not salvageable. But if, in the case, the therapist can manage to remove some of the short circuiting mental blocks, or remove enough compulsive anxiety from them he may be able to make progress. It takes a very clever therapist to do anything with a chronic, computational, chronically covertly hostile patient."
Regarding the position of free love on the emotional tone scale.
It will be noted, in observing the behavior of human beings, and on this chart of the tone scale, that promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices fall far down the line. Free Love falls, also, in this very low band; since man is relatively monogamous and since it is non-survival not to have a well ordered system for the creation and upbringing of children, by families. A society which falls into this 1.1 band of the tone scale can be expected to abuse sex, to be promiscuous, to misuse and maltreat children, and to act, in short, much in the way current cultures are acting. It is of vital importance, if one wishes to stop immorality, and the abuse of children, to de-aberrate this dynamic for the whole group of the society, to say nothing of individuals.
Aberration means deviation from a straight line, perversion, neurosis, insanity, etc. To be aberrated is to be less sane than one should be. A person receiving the spiritual therapy known as auditing is called an "aberree" among other terms.
In Scientology our society is considered covertly hostile at most. I remember my cousin who was on staff in the Church once saying that they did a survey to try to ascertain the emotional tone level of the public, since knowing people's tone level would allow for better marketing. He said that they concluded that America's chronic tone was fear, or 1.0, which is slightly below covert hostility.
At the highest (physical) point of the tone scale, 4.0, (enthusiasm) one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. At 3.5 (cheerfulness) on the tone scale, we have a high interest in the opposite sex, and constancy, but we do not have so great a sublimation. At 3.0 (conservatism) on the tone scale, we have some falling off in sexual interest, but we have an interest in procreation and children. At 2.5, (boredom) we have some disinterest in procreation, not for any reason beyond a general failure to be interested in much of anything. The sexual act can be adequately performed, given the physical ability. At the band of 2.0, (antagonism) we begin to get a disgust for sex, a revulsion toward sex, mostly when irregularly practiced. At the 1.5 (anger) band of the tone scale, we find sex appearing as rape; we find the sexual act being performed as a punishment.
At 1.1 (covert hostility) on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices. We have no enjoyment of the sex act but a hectic anxiety about it. The sex act cannot truly be enjoyed whether performed regularly or irregularly. Here is Free Love, easy marriage and quick divorce, and general sexual disaster. People at this level on the second dynamic are intensely dangerous in the society, since aberration is contagious. A society which reaches this level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went the Romans, as goes modern European and American culture. Here is a flaming danger signal which must be heeded if a race is to go forward.
At 0.5, (grief) we have impotency and anxiety about sex, with only occasional efforts to procreate. On the second dynamic we get occasional resurgences, from 0.5 (grief) up the scale, which quickly relapse.
Now Hubbard talks about the attitude of people towards children at various different levels on the tone scale. The term "dwindling spiral" refers to the cycle of spiritual decline that happens both within a life and across many lifetimes of reincarnation. It is a spiritual cycle where the individual "spirals downward" through a series of traumatic experiences that happen again and again, life after life. The dwindling spiral is caused by the abuses one receives, and by the sins one commits. The term "second dynamic" refers to sex (2DA), and the product of sex, which is children (2DB). Death is considered a point on the tone scale corresponding to 0.0.
"It is interesting to note here the application of the principle of the dwindling spiral to the second dynamic. On any of the dynamics and on any column of this chart, when the individual sinks below the 2.0 (emotional antagonism) level, the dwindling spiral rapidly carries him down through 1.5, (anger) 1.1, (cover hostility) 0.5, (grief) to death (0.0). This is particularly evident on the second dynamic (with regards to sex). The 1.1 (covertly hostile) individual, engaged in frantic pseudo-sexual activity today, will in a very near tomorrow, much nearer than he suspects, find himself or herself at the 0.5 (grief) level of impotency and anxiety.
The organs of sex, at the 0.5 level, become relatively useless; indeed, this second dynamic tone scale is closely applicable to the endocrine activity of the individual and the form and condition of the physical body. The woman who in her teens was at the 1.1 level of the scale will not have a well enough developed pelvic structure or endocrine system to permit her bearing children with ease. Difficult births are a normal result of too long a residence in a low band of the tone scale during the formative period of the body. Easy births can only be expected with women who are relatively high on the tone scale.
"Pretended death band" is a term that refers to those points on the emotional tone scale in the negative numbers. For example "worshiping bodies" is a tone level of negative 5.0, "being objects" is -10.0, and "controlling bodies" is -1.5. Even sex is on there at -6.0 and it is called "sacrifice." Yes, sex is a tone level.
It is noteworthy that the 1.1 to 0.5 area of the tone scale finds the muscles, particularly the sexual muscles, without tonus. The nymphomaniac and the satyr are extremely slackmuscled, (loose lips) and the tonus around 0.5 is almost non-existent. In the pretended death band there is, of course, no effort to procreate. Along the -1 band, where the organism as an organism is dead but the cells still survive, it is interesting that ejaculation and sexual activity occasionally take place immediately after the death of the individual, which gives some index of the strength and force of this dynamic.
Now here it gets really interesting.
Life is defined, in cytology, as an unending stream of protoplasm from the beginning of life itself until now. Down through the ages as a continuous genetic stream, this protoplasm is modified by natural selection and environmental conditioning, as well as by what seems to be outright planning, from generation to generation. Because life is so dependent upon this lifeline, it is very easy to place too great an emphasis upon the sexual act, the thing which keeps this lifeline in a continuous stream.
The second part of this dynamic concerns itself with children, the product of sex. There is a gradient of reaction toward children, from the top to the bottom of the tone scale, which the auditor (spiritual therapist) can use in order to place his preclear properly on the chart.
At 4.0 (enthusiasm) there is an intense interest in children, which extends to both the mental and physical well being of the children and the society in which these children will live. Here are efforts to add to the culture so that the children will have a better chance for survival.
At 3.5, (cheerfulness) we have a love of children, a care of them, an understanding of them.
At 3.0, (conservatism) we have an interest in children.
Conservatism, a term which is normally considered political in nature, is considered a relatively high emotional tone in Scientology.
At 2.5, (boredom) we have a tolerance of children, but not a great interest in their affairs.
At 2.0, (antagonism) we have nagging of, and nervousness about children.
At 1.5, (anger) we enter the band of brutal treatment of children, heavy corporal punishment, the forcing of the child into a mould with pain, breaking his dramatizations, upsets about his noise or clutter.
At 1.1 (covert hostility) on the tone scale, there may be two reactions to children. There may be an actual and immediate desire for children, as a manifestation of sex. But we also may have the use of children for sadistic purposes. And we may find both of these in the same individual. We have a long-term general neglect of children, with an occasional sporadic interest in them; we have very little thought for the child’s future or the culture in which the child will grow up.At 0.5, we have mainly an anxiety about children, fear that they will be hurt, fear of this and fear of that concerning children, and a hopelessness about their future.
So neglect is a feature of covertly hostile parents, as well as indifference towards the condition of society, the future of the nation, etc.
At 1.1, a mother will attempt the abortion of her child; and any woman who will abort a child, save only if the child threatens her physical life (rather than her reputation), lies in the 1.1 bracket or below. She can be expected to be unreliable, inconstant and promiscuous; and the child is looked upon as evidence of this promiscuity.
In Scientology women who get abortions for any reason other than to save their own lives are considered covertly hostile, at most, or even worse.
At 0.5 (grief) we have abortion with the specious reasoning that the world or the future is too horrible to bring a child into. With the parent at 0.5, all the natural gaiety and happiness of the child will be suppressed, and we have as unhealthy an atmosphere for childhood as one could postulate.
Note that the idea that "the world is too horrible to bring children into" is a standard left-wing line fed to White people by progressives.
At 0.1, (victim) there is not even awareness of children.
It is notable, as one glances down this column, that an interest in children includes an interest not only in the bearing of the child but in the child’s well being, happiness, mental state, education, and general future. We may have a person on the 1.1 (covertly hostile) level who seems very anxious to produce a child; very possibly this person is following an engram command to have children. Once the child is born we may have, in this 1.1 bracket, an interest in it as a plaything or a curiosity, but, following this, we get general neglect and thoughtlessness about the child and no feeling whatsoever about the child’s future or any effort to build one for it. We get careless familial actions such as promiscuity, which will tear to pieces the family security upon which the child’s future depends. Along this band, the child is considered a thing, a possession.
A half tone above this, in the anger band, the child is a target for the dramatizations which the individual does not dare execute against grown-ups in the environment -- a last ditch effort to be in command of something. Here we have domination of the child, with a constant warping of its character.
The whole future of the race depends upon its attitude toward children; and a race which specializes in women for “menial purposes,” or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying. We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women: it is a statement of bald and basic fact. When children become unimportant to a society, that society has forfeited its future. Even beyond the fathering and bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, then woman must rise with him, or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as today she is being misled into rising -- as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men which men themselves have become. Men are difficult and troublesome creatures -- but valuable. The creative care and handling of men is an artful and a beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at last realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but the men and the children as well. This is too great a price to pay for being “modern” or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex.
The arts and skills of woman, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which, here and there in isolated places in our culture, she still manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life. These arts and skills and creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.
Science of Survival is the one Scientology book you actually should read.
Monday, April 23, 2018
When one examines sexuality relative to economics, a comparison immediately becomes apparent; female sexuality is similar to capitalism while male sexuality is akin to communism. Let me explain.
Male sexuality is communist and egalitarian because, "everyone gets a dick." And like communists, men are violent, overly preoccupied with politics, and secretly obsessed with the "unequal distribution of pussy." They like to debate, eagerly use force against one another, are obsessed with the winners who take all, use insults to cut each other down, and ruthlessly steal women (resources) from each other. Like communism, male sexuality cannot produce anything directly, and its whole doctrine is parasitical.
Female sexuality, like capitalism, is seductive, relies on advertising, produces a winner-take-all distribution, has a high payoff, requires work on the part of the customer (men), and inspires a religious devotion in the ones consuming it. It is commodified, it is an asset that can be used to produce income through prostitution or marriage, it is fought over, and it is regarded as a form of wealth to have. Through birth, female sexuality produces more people, and thus, it is both an asset and means of (reproduction).
Because men are drawn to women, men are far more drawn to capitalism than women are. And because women are drawn to men, they are far more drawn to communism than men are. Men and women differ in their politics because they differ in the sexualities. Their politics point in opposite directions because their sexualities point to each other.
The most masculine man is sexually communist, spreading his resources (sperm) to as many women as possible, while the most feminine women is the most capitalist, reserving her eggs only for the most successful male.
Women inflict sexual capitalism on men, producing toxic masculinity directly in proportion to the level of rejection a man faces. The more rejected a man, the more toxic he becomes (relative to his believed entitlement to sex). Men give sexual socialism to women, producing an easy life for the slutty. Weirdly, women expect the economy to work like their sex lives, with abundant resources (dick) everywhere. Men expect the economy to work like their sex lives, with a scarcity of both pussy and money. Men are thus better prepared for earning money because their sex lives are harsher than their working lives, and making money is easier than getting laid. Women have easier sex lives than working lives, and are conditioned to hate capitalism as a result.
The economy is capitalist because male sexuality is socialist; if abundance were ever produced the widespread availability of dick would produce so many babies that the population would rise to consume the abundance. The economy is also capitalist because female sexuality is capitalist; the hypergamy of women guarantees the winner-take-all distribution that reinforces the ruthless pursuit of resources by men. As women favor men with wealth, power, and success, so does the economy, and the more feminine the sex lives of a people the more capitalist their economy will be. Last but not least, the economy is capitalist since humans face selection at the individual, rather than the hive, level — we are social animals — not eusocial animals. The economy is also capitalist because ruthless competition out-competes non-competition.
Male sexuality is the basis of government because government is based on the theft and domination of an economy by cooperative parasitism. Government, (with the exception of anarcho capitalism) is always more communistic/collectivist than capitalism. The Y chromosome piggybacks on the X for survival, as the government rides the backs of the people for power.
Capitalism is a system for rationing entropy using certificates (money). The more certificates/money you have the less entropy. Everyone hates capitalism. Misogyny exists because the expression of capitalism in a man's life comes most prominently through the capitalism of female sexuality. Women hate capitalism directly, which is to say that women hate female sexuality indirectly by hating capitalism directly. Since female sexuality is the source of capitalism women intuitively grasp this fact and hate each other.
Misogynists hate female sexuality directly. Capitalism/female sexuality gets blamed for the entropy of nature that it had no part in creating, because it is the surface manifestation of that entropy, and people only see the surface. Eggs are more expensive than sperm, thus eggs are scarce, thus female sexuality delivers the entropy of nature more than male sexuality, thus female sexuality/capitalism gets blamed rather than male sexuality, thus misogyny and communist sentiment.
The sexual dynamic of female sex selection produces an exponential curve where a tiny number of men get a lot of sex. But this effect is inherited from the past, and much of male sexual success in the past was linked to coercion. There are two types of men; those that can get them but not keep them, and those that can keep them but not get them. We call the first type "alphas," and the second type "betas." The first type (alphas) ruthlessly attacks the self-esteem of the second (betas) because the first type has very little to offer women, and is more trouble than it is worth. The second type only has low self-esteem because of the first type. Everyone, women, alphas, and betas, knows alphas are shit, that they are bad for civilization, and that they are impossible for women to live with. But the confidence trick works, and so alphas persist.
Civilization as a process is akin to a conspiracy between women and alphas to gaslight betas into thinking alphas are more desirable, but it isn't really a conspiracy because women don't have enough agency to conspire with anything. The alpha male pulls a con job on the whole civilization; convincing both women and beta males that he is the best, and then offloading single mothers onto beta males. But the betas are still reproductively more successful, since they are objectively better at caring for children, and so they dominate numerically if not psychologically.
The genes for rape are undoubtedly also the genes for male aggression, male violence, and male dominance, and these genes are being shredded by abortion.
One has to understand that there are four categories of preference expressed across two types of people.
Stated sexual preference (who cares?)
Revealed Sexual preference (Chads)
Stated reproductive preference (Chads)
Revealed reproductive preference (Betas)
Whereas in the past, a rapist could be reproductively successful, today this is unlikely. As the genes for male dominance are exterminated at the world's clinics we shift to a more equal distribution of sexual resources, to a more "beta" world, to a less violent world, and to less war-like world. Revealed preference is for beta males, even if everyone thinks the reverse, because it is revealed reproductive preference. It is not the children of beta males being flushed out between the stirrups of the OB/GYN chair. The vast majority of alphas males are only sexually successful, but reproductive failures. You can thank abortion, condoms, and birth control for that. As Steven Pinker tells us, the world is less violent than ever. This is one of those nasty little facts that reactionaries need to incorporate into their genetic model. Yes, OK asshole, you get a lot of pussy. We got that. But who is having children? Not your average Chad.
Friday, April 20, 2018
I decided to diagram out my entire thesis. As you can see it resembles a gigantic chain reaction of causality. The beginning of this chain is the "rift" produced by technology driving ahead faster than the genetics of humans. Nearly every essay on this site is an exposition on one tiny portion of that chain reaction. Something like the diagram below has been held in my imagination since day one, and has guided the entire development of this site. If it often seems that I am rambling it is only because I am converting diagrammatic information into linear (line by line) information. This diagram guides everything I write.
You can click on the orange links to move around the thesis.
It has taken > 2 years to get to this point.
Monday, April 16, 2018
The most sincere voter is the one who votes for the sadistic enjoyment of his own power. To most of the electorate, sadism is a better payment than cash. This is always why liberals vote, why conservatives voted for Trump (to get revenge for decades of humiliation), and in fact why anyone votes. The purpose of joining a tribe or political party is not the money, but the thrill of collective power; votes flow from the lizard brain. Appeal to that and you will always win. The people experience the thrill of power through their leaders in much the same way as a parent lives vicariously through a child. The leader is not selling leadership, benefits, or wealth, but the humiliation of the class enemies of the people who vote for him. Redistribution is just a bonus, and never the real focus elections. Trump delivered schadenfreude with every speech he made while Hilary promised payouts, and Trump won. Schadenfreude Trumps payment.
Imagine what a right wing armed with both schadenfreude and payment could accomplish?
"We will humiliate the left AND redistribute their wealth back to you."
Sunday, April 15, 2018
To liberate them from the spiritual hell which is their modern life, for lack of electricity to free them, even if only for a few days from their slavery to electronic communications— 4-D Boltonist Carlo (@PTcarlo) April 14, 2018
It won't end with electronic addiction. To restore humanity we must destroy technology.
There have been 3 sexual revolutions: the "promiscuity revolution" of the 60's, the "gay rights" revolution of the late 90s, and the "gender revolution" that we are going through now, (circa 2015-18). A search of the usage of the term "transgender" over time shows that it is non-existent before 1987.
In each case a technology preceded a particular revolution in sexual attitudes.
Birth control preceded mass-promiscuity, treatments for gonorrhea, syphilis, and other STDs preceded gay rights, and sex reassignment surgery preceded transgenderism. Based on the past we may make a forecast far how morals will decay in the future.
1. When sex robots arrive there will be a machine sex revolution.
2. When it becomes possible to read the thoughts of animals, IF it turns out that animals consent to sex, a bestiality revolution will occur.
3. Once genetics are sufficiently advanced there will be an incest revolution. After all, if a man can impregnate his sister without genetic consequences the taboo will vanish.
4. Once memories can be uploaded they can be altered. Imagine a pedophilia revolution where abusers rape children and then alter their memories so that the child has a perfectly normal childhood. Aside from some anal fissures and scaring on the gentiles the average abuse victim may actually prefer their implanted fake childhood memories over the real memories of ordinary children with difficult parents who were real. People will say, "but they had better childhoods than regular children. How can you oppose it?"
In every case the people who oppose the change will be called "racist," "intolerant," "pedo-phobes," "animal-phobes," "incest-phobes," "machine-phobes," or whatever term they come up with to stigmatize normal human morality.
Now maybe your morals won't decay in the face of these new technologies, but your grandchildren's will. Indeed, humans are so used to adapting to the circumstances they find themselves in that justifying a horrible reality is their first instinct. Your morality might not decay, BUT SOMEONE'S WILL, and they will pressure you or your descendants to conform, and they will eagerly punish them if they do not. After all, they punish you for hating polyamory, (systematic adultery), homosexuality, (sodomites), interracial sex, (miscegenation), and transgenderism, (catamites). All of these used to be stigmatized. Now they are trying to make whoring legal by calling it "sex work."
Pray that Amish Hitler conquers us.
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension"
— Nikola Tesla
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Conventionally, when one looks at the world he sees only a handful of major religions. But let us expand the definition of "religion" to include any comprehensive system of thought that is not based in scientific evidence, but instead centers around the desire of individuals for meaning, pattern recognition, symbols, and the motivated cognition they engage in to make sense of their world. In this view religion is any comprehensive meaning-based system of viewing the world, and includes secular ideologies such as social justice, Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, etc., and all other forms of faith in transcendental ideals, whether political or god-based, whether a meditative or activist strain. Everything that isn't business, engineering, or hard science is religion.
Now imagine that there are at least one million "religions" of inner peace on Earth, but each of these "religions" usually has only one adherent, so that while there are many ways to develop a sense of tranquility and peace, each person who stumbles upon such a way is usually the only person who has that particular belief system. In fact, in such a vast number of religious/ideological modes of though, a near-infinite diversity is entertained, so that there are as many unique ways to have inner peace as their are individuals, such that each and every one of the "Ideologies of Inner Peace" is completely unique to the individual who has it. There are one million versions, no two are alike, and each has only one believer — the one who invented it.
Furthermore, no individual with an ideology/religion of inner peace will teach you what they know, because why would they? When one has ascended he doesn't care. He has peace. Why would he crusade to change the world? Why would he or she "preach the gospel?" "Educate the masses?" "Stamp out racism?" "Improve the world (tikkun olam)?" or "overcome evil?"
He has inner peace. By definition such a person doesn't need to do much of anything.
If you have inner peace you just don't care. The world is suffering? So what!
But bad religion drives out good religion.
Now let us imagine that there are about 6 or 7 Religions of Pain, and each of them has about a billion or so adherents. All religions of pain are virtually identical since they all follow roughly the same pattern, and that pattern is derived from the properties of how information naturally evolves.
That pattern is there (a), must be something wrong with the world, and (b) we must do something about it, which (c), ever so conveniently involves "spreading the gospel," "educating the masses," "checking White privilege," "serving the disadvantaged," etc. All of these supposed solutions will of course have one thing in common; they require the spread of ideas. Whether it is saving the world, eliminating White privilege, (or for that matter eliminating White people), everything — absolutely every Religion of Pain will require that the action of salvation involves the action of transmission. You know, like disease transmission. The characteristic of every Religion of Pain will be a method of transmission to the brains/minds of other human beings. The virus wants to get out. The ideology will be structured to jump from one mind to the next. It must be structured that way or it never would have spread in the first place.
Structurally, all Religions of Pain will have certain things in common;
There will be something wrong with the world.
The something will require the spread of the ideology.
The ideology will propagate, like a virus.
The ideology will undergo change, in a process analogous to mutation.
The changes that make the ideology more virulent will get it transmitted to more human minds.
The pattern is this;
- There is something wrong with the world, something painful.
- We must do something about it.
- Doing something coincidentally requires spreading the religion, through proselytizing, preaching, or "education."
Now not everyone has enough fervor to
To a person with a Religion of Pain, all people with inner peace look vile and immoral. Because a person with inner peace doesn't give a shit about virtue, racism, injustice, White privilege, original sin, idolatry, heresy, or whatever. Such a person will be classed as a kafir, shirk, infidel, heretic, atheist, or racist, if the truth ever gets out that they are indifferent. They don't give a shit; they have inner peace. Duh.
Thus, it is the destiny of those who suffer from Religions of Pain to chase down, (really hunt down) every person with a modicum of inner peace on this planet, and even to — get this — consider themselves virtuous for doing so! One wonders if these people are really even human — these demons of virtue. Every righteous person pointing and screaming "racist!" is more or less a meat robot that follows the programming given to them by a kind of mind virus.
The Religion of Pain demands that everyone agree. If even one person is not converted or educated, does not submit to Allah, kneel before Christ, check their privilege, or whatever, then we are all oppressed, enslaved, injured, dinged, offended, victimized, etc.
"If we don't all agree then none of us can be free!"
"If there is just ONE RACIST in the world then we are ALL OPPRESSED!"The defining nature of the Religion of Pain is that is can never just leave you alone.
Of course the newer a religion is the worse it it will be. The oldest religions, (Hinduism and Buddhism) are the least virulent and best. The newest religions, (Islam, Communism, Social Justice, Feminism, Environmentalism, and Scientology) are the most virulent and worst. Religion gets progressively worse over time, as selection effects select purely for virulence. On an even playing field, bad religion will get worse, spread everywhere, and dominate. Ideas change just like DNA mutates. Changes that make an idea more virulent stick, while changes that make it less virulent are discarded. This is why communism is the grandchild of Christianity, why the natural outcome of puritan Christianity is social justice, and why the average crusader for social justice, tolerance, or whatever, can legitimately claim that they are more Christian than you, more holy than you, and that Jesus was a socialist. Because they are peddling a more virulent version of your own virus. If Christianity is monkey AIDS, progressive leftism is super-AIDS. If Christianity will make your dick itch, leftism will make it fall off. Leftism is gona-herpa-syphil-AIDS.
Bad religion drives out good religion.
Corollary: anything that can drive out an old religion, is also a religion, and worse than what it drove out. Civilization gets crazier; not saner. "New atheism" is progressive religion repackaged, and is worse than Christianity.
Furthermore, religion is a kind of ecology, so that the nicer religions inhibit the spread of the more virulent ones simply by existing. If social justice is MRSA then Christianity is like a probiotic. It's very existence inhibits the growth of worse organisms.
Corollary: if you cure everyone of religion you will bring about the apocalypse, because virulent religions are not susceptible to the anti-religious equivalent of antibiotics. Trying to abolish religions like Christianity or Buddhism simply clears the field for more virulent religions like Communism, Islam, or Social Justice.
And the average leftist knows this.
As a side note, people only need religion because of the genetic legacy of the ancestral environment. Religion allows for tribal signaling of loyalty to your people. Humans evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers and behave compulsively like tribal communists, carrying the genetic lacy of those impulses over into modern secular democracies. Every heated debate you have in a coffee shop or bar hearken back to a time when people sitting around a campfire would decide the organization of their entire society through vigorous debate. Debate is not a sign of intellectual superiority but of atavistic tendencies. Capitalism moves humans steadily away from debate and towards systems based in choice. Debate implies that the loser of the argument will be coerced to live under the winners rules, but the choice-based nature of capitalism replaces this with a menu of lifestyles. Thinks like democracy and majoritarian politics are in the past; they are literally a part of our genetic legacy code; a code which is being slowly annihilated by evolution under capitalism. Men — and I do mean males — may enjoy debate, but that is only because they are good at it, and they are only good at it because losing a debate in a tribal society might have gotten one killed.
Now there are various ways to control a mimetic ecology:
1. Official state religion
2. Licencing the ideological teacher
3. Reproductive-ideological licencing
4. Legal liability of ideology teachers
Methods that do not work:
5. Separation of church and state
1 and 2 need no introduction. Let us talk about 3 and 4.
Is where you licence the ability of people to reproduce based on their conduct. Groups are licenced based on their faith and ethnicity. There are no groups considered without faith. Even atheism is legally a faith. When a group commits a terrorist attack the societal cost is internalized as higher reproductive licencing costs. Say the estimated cost of the 911 terrorist attack was 100 million dollars, and their are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. Then the cost of a reproduction licence for a Muslim would work out to 100 million / 3.3 million, or $30,303 per couple, per child.
Positive behaviors like charity would be calculated to offset some of these costs.
This method has the benefit of selecting against susceptibility to ideological madness over time, so that the species gets genetically saner.
One can simply make the teacher of ideology liable for the cost to society of the actions of his or her student. For example: if you promote transgender ideology and it can be proven that you caused or contributed to x number of mental breakdowns, then you must pay the cost incurred for treating those people. The law in this case is defined statistically. Proof of one particular act of mental harm is not required, only a statistically significant correlation. This method has the benefit of being doable within democracy.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country." — General George S. Patton
1. A racist volunteers for war.
2. Millions of racists get their nuts blown off.
3. They don't reproduce.
4. World peace happens.
5. So in a way war leads to world peace.
Keep being racist.
My theory is that capitalism is putting selection pressure on humans to change genetically. It does this by sending racists to die in war, communists to die in revolution, giving birth control to feminists, and generally suppressing the genetics of everyone it dislikes. The only question is, how can this process be engineered for the benefit of the humans? Also, why is migration such a problem? Does capitalism hate IQ? For that matter, does capitalism hate humans? Let us ignore most of these questions and address only the question of racism for the moment.
War eliminates xenophobia as racists self-select into the volunteer armies of the world.
The trick is to get the Arabs, Blacks, and Hispanic racists to die faster than you own. But how to accomplish that?
The endless wars of the US are shredding its genetic capacity for self-defense. It used to be that war rape might compensate for deaths in conflict, so that building an empire had no derogatory effect on a nations ability to defend itself, so that no matter what, the genetics of xenophobia would propagate. Obviously this created a very violent world.
Now war simply ruins the genes of racists. Many liberals will laugh and say, "and that's a problem why?"
Because once a nation has endured two World Wars wars, (like the nations of Europe), they become "cucked" after which they get invaded by refugees and migrants, and lack the cultural will to defend themselves against invasion.
Eventually war leads to soft men who put women in charge of national defense and surrender to Islam (or whatever the latest violent force is).
If you allow Islam to conquer Europe you simply allow the reintroduction of the genetics of racism and violence, after which a new round of world wars will happen once Islam establishes a European caliphate. Our goal is world peace, not "an endless cycle of migrant invasions, followed by more world wars, followed by more migrant invasions."
So how do you get peace? If you fight then you shred the genes necessary to defend yourself. If you don't fight the world keeps being racist and violent. What is the answer?
"The International Guard"No, not The National Guard, but the international version of it.
What does it do, you say?
It recruits foreign born men to serve in America's military, sends them to war as infantry troops, and get their nuts blown off. It's a gene shredder for foreign racists.
Also, it allows America to indulge her endless craven lust for
You keep foreign units separate and locate them on different bases in order to prevent spying. You have a separate chain of command as well.
You run adverts in foreign countries that appeal to blood lust and violence. You recruit thugs and violent racists in OTHER countries, and use them as cannon fodder. Preferably, you recruit hundreds of thousands from a single country at a time, and use them in wars against other violent ethnic groups. You deliberately use ineffective combat methods that cause high fatality rates because the enemy is not the enemy but your own foreign troops. You goal is not to prevent the shredding of your own genes for racism, but to accelerate the process in foreign countries while slowing it in your own, so that the empire produces a steadily expanding zone of peace that prevents back migration into the first world. Your goal is to establish a genetic buffer zone and make the rest of the world peaceful before making yourself that way. You target the countries that are connected by land bridges and near bodies of water, (Mexico, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, in the case of the West, or Tibet, India, the Stans, in the case of China).
You shred them first.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Just a warning: the content below is highly offensive, even for people who are used to being offended.
I apologize profusely for putting such low quality content on my site but we need to have a conversation about this man.
Cantwell admits to being a federal informant at 33:43. Before that he says that while he did not participate in the doxxing of Ricky Vaughn he approves of it.
How did this man get into their movement? How was he not filtered out? How did anyone ever consider him more of an asset than a liability? He routinely comes across as a person who is completely unhinged. Has anyone considered getting him some mental health treatment?
Also, one should never cuss as much as that. There is casual swearing and their is the occasional use of expletives for serious purposes. If one must cuss he should either use it casually all the time as a joke, or seriously a tiny fraction of the time, but never seriously all of the time.
Moreover, the most absurd term ever coined is "optics cuck." Assigning the label "cuck" to something does not mean that it is automatically foolish, or silly. The term "cuck" relates rather crassly to someone who betrays their own interests to an enemy camp. How is practicing samizdat, or "optics," or taqiya betraying one's own interests? Yes, when you are subjugated by a hostile interests you should maintain your anonymity, use language that conceals, and practice "optics."
Also, many things are filters. Using your real name in White nationalism is a filter that brings in people who lack sound judgment. Indeed, White nationalism itself is a filter for bringing in people with bad judgment. The dysgenics of modernity produce a solutions curve that entertains many workable approaches. White nationalism is the least practical of the approaches. It has a terrible image problem, it automatically threatens the survival of the entire minority electorate, who will always predictably work against it, and it generates countless enemies and gets nowhere. A far more pragmatic approach is to simply study genetics and go into business selling people the alleles that benefit civilization.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Machine learning isn't Skynet. It just isn't. There is a massive difference between training a learning algorithm to drive a car down the road and building a general purpose artificial intelligence. AI will never happen, not because we can't do it, but because no human being would be insane enough to do it, or at least, no group of human beings. This assertion, which appears so unfounded on it face, is actually a well supported conclusion. Let me explain.
To bring about a general superintelligence you need to mimic evolution. All gains in the field have been arrived at through a process that directly mimics evolutionary training. No one really knows how an algorithm learns to recognize dogs in photographs, or faces, or whatever. They build a bot that randomly constructs algorithms. Then they test these thousands of randomly generated algorithms to see which one is most effective at recognizing cats in pictures, driving a car, or whatever. Then they throw out the poor performing ones and "mutate" the high performing algorithms by letting the bot randomly change portions of code. Then the repeat the process over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Poor performing algorithms are deleted, (killed), and better ones are selected for the next round. The whole process mimics mutation followed by selection.
There is a really simple way to develop a successful machine artificial intelligence: just build a self-replicating robot and let it out in the wild. Since all the gains of AI research have come from evolutionary approaches, it is also the only realistic way to create it. No simulated environment will ever be complex enough to fully reproduce evolutionary processes. For machine intelligence to actually be developed, you would have to literally construct some robot animal that constructs replicas of itself using the minerals found in dirt, or whatever, and then release it into, say, the Amazon rainforest. You just give it a simple command: reproduce. A few million generations later you come back and find that some sort of millipede made of silicon has evolved. Literally, the evolutionary process creates it. Like the learning algorithm for speech recognition, its training is all based in survival. Thousands of generations of the bot are killed by rust, animals, lack of minerals, water, etc., until one day you come across a machine that can defend itself against attack, is waterproof, seeks out the minerals to construct duplicates, etc.
And you would have to be insane to build such a machine, and even if you did it would not be a superintelligence but a silicon version of an animal.
It would also be something relatively easy to exterminate. Contrary to Hollywood movies, such a living organism would relatively easy to locate and kill. An army of thousands, (or even millions) of men might be required, but armed with metal detectors they could exterminate the whole species. A computer virus might also be needed, but human beings drive to extinction other organisms all the time, and a deliberate attempt to kill it would undoubtedly work. It may be silicon (or germanium or indium arsenide), but remember, it mutates no faster than any other organism, and like any animal it has to die to evolve.
To actually create a machine superintelligence you would have to bring this machine animal into existence and then relentlessly upgrade it — on purpose — to make it smarter than humans. First you would have to force evolve it to human-level intelligence, and then beyond. It would take a team of thousands of researchers, billions of dollars, and would draw a backlash from all the foreign governments of the world, the press, and the public.
In the meantime you already have a intelligence lying around that is ready to be relentlessly upgraded to superintelligent status: humans.
You see it turns out the ethics of eugenics and the ethics of building and AI are pretty much identical. Since you can only arrive at a superintelligent agent by (a), having or bringing a self-aware intelligence into existence, and (b), upgrading it with forced evolutionary processes until it surpasses you, you are practicing eugenics on a self-aware machine intelligence. You have to "murder" self-aware bots to get superintelligent bots, or you have to relentlessly upgrade their code in a process that is virtually identical to gene therapy, transferring "good code" from "healthy machines" to "unhealthy/sick machines." You either have to gas the defective bots Hitler-style, practice the bot version of embryo screening, or transfer code. In the end you are just practicing machine eugenics.
And so this brings us to the final point of this essay, which is: why would you do any of this in machines when you already have human beings to experiment on? And why compound your ethical issues? Going the machine route is both less efficient and more unethical. And why would capitalism spend money trying to force the evolution of machine intelligence in the wild when it could just upgrade humans? Why would capitalism waste the money? The only way to get a consciousness that mimics self-awareness is to mimic the evolutionary selection forces that produced human beings. Why do that when you can upgrade the human beings? It's cheaper.
And don't get it in your head that some traffic system that manages all of the cars in LA or something will somehow gain self-awareness. It won't. Without the evolutionary forces to train self-awareness even a city-scale AI that manages the traffic of millions of cars is still just an animal by human standards, albeit a very large animal. And yes, it might kill 3 drivers one day in a homicidal rage. Everyone will freak out and say, "the singularity is here! The machines have finally risen up against us!" The NTSB will investigate only to find the completely boring explanation that it killed those 3 drives to save 20. After all, it is programmed to "reduce net traffic fatalities," and those drives are an especially irksome group responsible for dozens of crashes, and the machine made a completely rational calculation that getting rid of them would reduce traffic deaths by blah blah... and so forth.
And don't give me crap about a machine upgrading itself. That is even less likely than a human upgrading himself. Since all gains come from culling defective algorithms, the logic of techno singularity rapidly converges with the logic and ethics of eugenics. Superintelligence without an evolutionary force crafting it is just a machine that likes to daydream. The notion that one can relentlessly upgrade ones way to superintelligence falsely assumes that an AI can exceed humanity without running countless experiments. The machine needs real life feedback.
Anything that can be done in machines can be done better in humans with genetics.
And so the co-singularity is what happens when human beings use AI to develop gene therapies, the gene therapies make humans smarter, who build smarter machines, who make smarter human beings. The process is recursive, and occurs within the human species rather than without. Rather than bother with the wasteful process of building a whole new machine biosubstrate, the co-singularity builds itself in tandem with the organic as a series of genetic improvements and augments.
1. The only successful AI development methods are evolution-mimicking methods.
2. The evolution of a general problem solving AI would require "natural release" of that AI into the wild to allow it to learn in nature, which would never be tolerated by governments.
3. The ethics of forced machine evolution are identical to the ethics of eugenics.
4. The first general AI machines would be animals, who would need to be upgraded to human-level intelligence before upgrading them to beyond human-level intelligence.
5. The process of building an entirely new machine biosubstrate would be hugely wasteful.
6. Capitalism would prefer to upgrade the existing carbon biological substrate instead, because it is more cost effective.
I will give one more argument: that (7). technological development follows the path of (greatest iteration) ÷ (least R&D cost), and that this rule favors genetics over a machine substrate.
First we had wax cylinders, then vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs, DVDs, and finally digital music. Why did musical formats take a detour though magnetic mediums? Why not just stick to discs?
Because technology follows the path of greatest iteration.
Companies want to maximize profit and minimize R&D costs. This means building on what you know, and putting out a new version of an old product every year, even if the new version is worse, (hence migration from vinyl to cassette). Firms want to produce continual upgrades in order to maximize profits. They prefer relentless iteration over radical technological disruption. This translates really well to a genetic business model, and poorly to an AI business model.
It is fairly easy to compare entire genomes with all studies for human traits, and then mine correlations for profitable gene therapies. There already are companies assembling massive databases to do just that, like 23AndMe.
So how would one actually arrive at artificial general intelligence? Without selection effects the dread of a machine that upgrades its own intelligence repeatedly will probably never happen. Think about, how does one get from x intelligence level to x + n intelligence level without feedback? Intelligence must be discovered. It does not just materialize out of nothing.
Imagine there are millions of personal robots put into circulation performing labor for humans beings as domestic servants, workers, or whatever. Any skill learned by one of these bots is automatically transmitted to all the others once a day when it powers down to recharge. The machine does not so much as evolve as learn, and maybe, through a method like this it could evolve self-awareness. Maybe the repeated need to perform in social interactions could cause it to develop a sense of self, but I find the idea of a computer connected to the internet teaching itself about the world, and upgrading itself relentlessly to be ludicrous. It has no prior understanding of anything, no physical reality of what things feel like, smell like, etc. Humans aren't just brains, we are physical creatures, and without a physical knowledge of the world, without going through some evolutionary process that connects the mind to the body, a machine can never really understand anything. The magical self-upgrading machine is a fairy tale. Things have meaning because to us of our evolutionary background, because of emotions, hormones, feelings, gut bacteria, an a lot of other things. A brain in a vat, silicon or carbon, is a mind without meaning. This mode of existence may appeal to a philosopher, but it will never produce something that can really "understand" anything. "Self" cannot be separated from evolution, machines will never be allowed to evolve, and no self can occur without evolution. Capitalism will route through humans via genetics rather than around them through AI. Screen cap this.