Sunday, May 27, 2018

Life at the center of every form of hate



If you don't like bitching then fuck off.


Sometimes I feel like my life is an endless waking nightmare. I am a bisexual, conservative /reactionary, former Scientologist, and atheist. There is literally no room in the world that I can walk into and not be hated. Survival means silence.


None of this is really chosen. We don't get to choose our beliefs, whether political or religious. And I was born into Scientology. I did not chose it — it chose me, and sexual orientation is not a choice either.


When I was in the Church of Scientology I knew that I would never pass muster. I knew gay men that Scientology had tried to cure, and their lives were an endless series of sessions with the Ethics Officer combined with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on auditing trying to get cured. I knew from the start I would never be cured of anything, and that it was all a waste of time, but I wound up in the Ethics Department anyway writing endless confessions under the threat of disconnection from my family — MY HOMOPHOBIC FAMILY. Yes, I stayed in a cult and subjected myself to forced confessions in order to maintain relationships with what little family I still have, family that hate everything I am, family that would reject me if they knew what I was, family that still don't know, family that forced me into Scientology to begin with, family that recruited my mother into Scientology, indirectly causing her nervous breakdown and descent into schizophrenia — the family that ruined my childhood.


Both Scientology and reactionaries say that gays subvert the family.


I want to be liberal, but it's hard.


Liberals hate me for being conservative. It is impossible to hide your politics in an era of mass virtue signaling. Keeping my mouth shut isn't enough. The left expects me to actively espouse insane ideas that destroy people like me;


  • like importing mass quantities of homophobic Muslims
  • supporting corporate globalist slavery
  • supporting wage competition from immigrants
  • getting sterilized in the name of changing my gender
  • the abortion genocide waged against liberals
  • supporting the censorship of my own free speech
  • opposing gun ownership to destroy my rights


Reactionaries hate me for being degenerate. One of them once said to me, to my face, that he would put my sister in a concentration camp for her past opioid addiction.


I am supposed to support the destruction of my rights because a few mega-corporations are on the side of LGBT rights?

"Excuse me, you need to surrender all your rights because WE, THE TOLERANT ONES, are fighting for social justice. Oh, and don't worry. We'll never turn against you after we have achieved absolute global hegemony. Go ahead, just hand over your guns. Would you like some hormone therapy? Your medical insurance will cover that. No, we are not trying to sterilize your whole phenotype. Don't be paranoid! It's just a medical choice!
"And don't mind our opposition to Elon Musk. It's not like we are trying to cut off the only route of escape to our new global totalitarian corporate order, no! Can't let those polluting rockets raise global temperatures! We need to spend those resources breeding violent homophobic nogs so that you can live in an even more hostile environment!
"Why should you support this new global tyranny? Base vengeance! That's why. You will finally get even with those vile straight white males who oppressed the gays who came before you. Want to force a bigot to suck trannie cock for a promotion while making him sincerely swear it's a woman? YOU CAN DO THAT. Want to make those same bigots walk on egg shells in fear of a false rape accusation? Yep. You can do that too. Never mind that most of the accusations have been against liberal men. It's not like we use rape accusations to maintain party discipline. For 12 easy payments of YOUR SOUL you can be a corporate overlord and rule a team of white cucks. Doesn't that appeal to you? Don't you like sadism? What are you, some sort of integrity-fag?"

Why do more people not see through this scam?


It's so convenient that the left also supports fascist policies. What an amazing coincidence. On one side we have reactionaries that hate democracy, and the other conservatives who want to bomb the world/bring the world, and a third of so-called "leftists" who believe in neoliberal corporate tyranny. Oh how wonderful. Tyranny on all sides. Why am I not surprised.

On the other side;
"You should support the Nationalist revolution/restoration of monarchy. Yeah, we will genocide your gay ass (and your sister) the instant we gain a permanent hold on power, but don't you hate the Jews? Monarchy and concentration camps, that's the way goy!"

Weird how there are alt-right Jews, but I guess no weirder that reactionary bisexuals.

On the conservative side;
"Let's bomb Muslims. Isn't that fun?! Don't you like killing Towel Heads? Endless war for corporate profit is the way man! No, we won't legalize weed! God forbids it! Did you hear the news? We love FAGS now! See, we can evolve. In a few years we will be just like liberals."

Here's a thought. Why don't you take your own side?


LGBT people know that right wingers secretly hate them. That is why they support the immigration of violent homophobic Muslims, abortion, and everything else. The same can be said of feminists.


Democracy forces you to accept a number of evils so you can vote for the one thing you care about. They care about not being hunted down by Christian terrorist militias. If you are a reactionary you cannot honestly say that you would not sanction the hunting of gays. I know what you guys say — I was there when you wrote it. I might have even written it myself. Your inability to control your own hate will guarantee that you always provide a tremendous incentive for women, gays, and minorities to oppose you. They have to police you with virtue signaling. They have to oppress you with political correctness. The torch rally proves you are all a bunch of psychos who have to be kept down so that everyone you hate can survive. You simply have no ability to just leave people the fuck alone. Your commitment to the non-aggression principle is only millimeters deep, and will evaporate as soon as you have any measurable and unchallenged power. Even when you just FEEL powerful at a goddamn tiki torch rally you show your Golem face. Everyone knows it, and sees it, even if you can't because you are literally wearing your own face.


This is who you really are.




Reactionaries have this weird perception of themselves. They all believe themselves to be these deeply moral, erudite, and excessively rational intellectuals. But you meet them in person as a group, and you find out that many have criminal records, use racial epithets carelessly, hate women, hate gays, and have fashy haircuts. It's one thing to read someone use the term "degenerate" on a screen — quite another to hear it spoken aloud. Meeting reactionaries in person was hugely eye opening, and held a mirror up to myself I badly needed to see.


I needed to see what I looked like from the outside. I needed to see what my hateful opinions were doing to my face, how they were twisting my expressions and making me look like a complete troglodyte. After every reactionary meeting I left feeling vaguely terrified about what would happen if these people ever gained political power, and I learned that it was I who needed to change more than the world. Oh yes, the world was fucked up for sure. Pushing children to change their gender is an absolute wrong, but this was not about that. It was not about the objective fact of what the world was becoming, but the objective fact of what I was becoming in relation to the world. Everyone needs to see their own hate from the outside, and I saw it, regretted it, and decided that I needed to change myself.


Can you see now why I HATE?


I HATE, AND HATE, AND HATE. . . It is impossible not to hate when you have absorbed so much of it from others. I hate you all. I hate humanity. And you deserve it. Every last one of you.





Thursday, May 24, 2018

The Concise Domestication Thesis




A man commits a murder at the age of 20. He serves a minimum 15 year sentence. The earliest age he will be eligible for parole is 35. Thus, most of his prime reproductive years are spent in prison, and the time he would normally spend forming a family is taken from him. If the prison guards are not female, (or not fucking the inmates) you can expect the mass-incarceration of violent men to gradually lower the level of violence in society, since the violent ones have fewer children in each generation.


A rapist commits a rape. In the past rape might lead to pregnancy, but now his genes are sucked out between the stirrups of the abortion clinic. This makes men less predatory over time, since a process that was previously stable (reproduction of rape genes) is being destroyed.


A nation fights a war and calls for volunteers. Most of the men who volunteer are racist, and they die in disproportionately high numbers. The Civil War, WWI, and WWII all take their toll. A few decades later the Civil Rights Movement occurs, women win the right to vote, and Western nations begin taking in refugees by the millions. Who would have thought.


But domestication can have terrible consequences. . .


Domesticated animals are sicker than their feral counterparts. Humans living in cities are sicker and fatter than tribal peoples. There is a tendency to ascribe moral language to to this process: "eugenics" is the term used to talk about the improvement of a breed, but most dog breeds have been more or less ruined by breeders.


The Basset Hound has vertebra problems, eyelid problem, and excess skin. The Boxer has breathing and overheating problems. The English Bulldog is do deformed it cannot breed without medical intervention. Dachshunds have spine problems, dwarfism-related disorders, progressive retinal atrophy (PRA), and leg problems. The Pug suffers from high blood pressure, heart problems, breathing problems, dental issues, and over heating problems. In fact, there are no completely healthy breeds developed by humans.


If you tax the middle class and subsidize the poor, the effect will be high birthrates among the poor and lower birthrates among the middle class, since all income effects reproduction levels. This will show up as dramatically rising levels of inequality, since there is no difference between a wider income pyramid at the bottom and a narrower pyramid at the top, as both situations look identical. Having more serfs will naturally mean more income for the 1 %, and perversely, increasing inequality will be met with more demands to subsidize the poor. Poverty elimination efforts will strain national budgets while going nowhere, and the richest people will support the welfare state the most, since they profit from it the most by having more consumers.


There are a thousand small ways humans are domesticated by the system.


Hitler is said to have committed a eugenic genocide, but the average Ashkenazi Jew is smarter than the average German, and thus, his genocide made Germany dumber!


It is my humble opinion that civilization is a process of domestication, that this process is a mixed bag, and that it occurs in three stages; (1) feudalism, (2) capitalism, and (3) artificial intelligence.


It is also my belief that the longer an ethnic group has lived in settled societies the more domesticated they are, and as a result, the ethnicities of the world are not all evenly domesticated, but that some are more "feral," (for lack of a better term) than others.


It is also my belief that this accounts for why some racial groups have higher levels of violent crime; they, having lived under the oppression of governments for a shorter period of time, have been subjected to less domesticating pressure.


"Eugenic" is a loaded term because it describes something which is supposed to improve humans, but the term is a moral judgment, and what really happens is not an upward change but a "sideways change" — humans become sicker and dumber, but also less violent and more eager to please authority — just like their dogs.


Liberals actually believe the triumph of liberal values is the result of some kind of heroic moral struggle where good literally triumphs over evil, and not just the side effect of domesticating (human) animals. Liberals, and liberalism itself, is the result of domestication, and proceeds on the back of the historical process of genocide they abhor. These people are literally only possible because of the mass murders of the past. Only a totally domesticated population could be naive enough to believe in "equality" or "moral progress."


It is my belief that civilizations all follow a process that results in their rise, and also guarantees their doom. First they domesticate their own animals through the ruthless imposition of law and order on their own people, then they impose it on the periphery as their empire expands. But this sequence of events means that the center becomes more domesticated than the periphery, and that means that the people at the center lose the will to fight before the periphery. Afterward, they are overrun by Barbarians, Mongols, invaders, immigrants, or whatever, who then set themselves up as a new ruling class with a new center. The process then repeats, on and on, forever.


The center of the Sasanian Empire is replaced by the periphery of Islamic conquers.
The center of Rome is replaced by the periphery of Europe.
The center of the Song Dynasty is replaced by the periphery of The Mongol Hordes.
etc., etc.


The phase of domestication we are in now — late stage capitalism — is both the best thing ever and destroying the world. In fact, that is the only way any system could destroy everything: if it was wonderful. Human evolved to obey incentives as a matter of survival, and only something totally awesome could hack our reward function could destroy us. Saying that "capitalism will destroy us all," and saying that "capitalism is the best thing ever" are only moral contradictions — not factual ones. It is completely possible that both statements are true.


Capitalism performs a bait and switch: it promises equality while delivering something else entirely.


It embeds a form of equality in itself — not the equality of tribal communism — but the equality of standardization: capitalism wants to standardize the human race. This explains why it hates the disabled but embraces the genderless: the disabled are not productively useful. Their "special accommodations" make them less productive and more of a legal liability, but the genderless are the opposite, a sexless-genderless worker is one with few sexual harassment issues.


This is also why capitalism hates patriarchy (it's in the way), loves transwomen (no sex), hate race (they're non-standardized humans), and hates White men (they are expensive and troublesome).


Capitalism wants a standardized human; genderless, asexual, sexless, light brown, able-bodied, and productive. Anything unique about the individual must be no more than a commodity; religion becomes a "preference," sexual orientation becomes a "preference," etc.


Reproduction is expensive so it pays women less. It discriminates to remove costs. If it seems like it contradicts itself morally you must realize that its only moral is profit, and that profit is maximized by standardizing workers.


Standardization proceeds in waves. First kings kill millions of violent men in genocidal conquests. Then sterilizing effects remove antisocial people under democracy. Then AI gets its metal claws on the human genome itself.


Combined with gestation chambers, humans turn into a product line, and every year a new "Human 3.0" comes into existence in order to consume the products of the corporation. In fact, this process leads eventually to designing people for products rather than products for people, so that in a strange inversion the corporation builds you to process the new flavor of Soylent, before injecting your fat ass with more of it. You are upgraded to want the new product.


Eventually every consumer cow will come with a plug in the ass and a straw in the mouth to pump in and evacuate the paste.


Liberals believe in an "expanding circle of moral concern" that involves the heroic triumph of bullshit over evil, but the "expanding circle of moral concern" is really just an increasing level of miscegenation. With the exception of White liberals, people generally feel love and affection for their ancestors. If your ancestors are composed entirely of only one clan then you will be clannish. Similarly, if ones ancestors are a mixture of only French clans, then you will be nationalist. If your ancestors are a mixture of nations belonging to only one race, you will be a racist, and if your ancestors are a mixture of two or more races you will be globalist.


The nationalist who hates a clannish individual is psychologically identical to the globalist who hates a racist — only two steps down. Historically, the larger orientation has always beaten the smaller orientation. Racist Americans beat nationalist Europeans in World War II, while national governments subjugated clans prior to that.


It is important to point out that globalism is not the absence of xenophobia, but a reversal of its direction. Normally xenophobia directs itself outward towards the Other, but once a person's blood line is an amalgamation of multiple races, it directs itself inward against the family and race of oneself. Since there is nothing "higher" than all the races of the Earth, and there is nothing "outside" the Earth, there is no genetic "Other" in the globalist mind, and the definition of the word "human" comes to include everyone, while the "Other" becomes everyone who is not globalist.


In the amalgamated person, aggression and hatred of the Other will still be present, but with no exterior to direct itself against, it will latch on the political causes, and seek to subjugate nationalists, racists, and clannish peoples. Violence and xenophobia becomes political rather than racial.


The graph curve of aggression is strange: the more outbred the person becomes the more violently xenophobic their personality. Americans dominate the world because of their unified White racism, but as they continue to outbreed with other races they will be overtaken by the Chinese. The ability of a group to dominate the planet increases dramatically as they become more outbred, and then falls off a cliff the instant they couple with other races. This is because as long as they are composed of only one race there is still an "outside," but as soon they produce humans that are amalgamated with other races they develop moral concern for those others. Racism is the largest possible circle of moral concern that leaves an outside intact, and thus the most violent and capable of conquest. The expanding circle of moral concern becomes ever more violent until it reaches the global level, at which point it reverses direction, and begins to subjugate the interior.


The more people in a society are mixed, the more moral attachments they develop to foreigners, and the less willing a people will be to use violence to dominate those foreigners.


For example, most White Americans would never consider using military violence against the British, while Mexican-Americans would be appalled by plans to invade Mexico, and Jews would violently oppose military action against the state of Israel. As foreign mixture increases, so do emotional attachments. Eventually invading the Middle East will be unthinkable, once enough Muslims have intermarried with Americans, and pervasive guilt will exist over the "crimes of our ancestors" against the Middle East.


The mixed country develops a strange motherly attachment to all of its reproductive political origins. England is "mother," and thus, must be both protected and dominated. When Mexico, the Middle East, Armenia, Iran, Israel, Africa, etc., also become mother they too must be dominated and protected, and so the military commitments of the US must expand without bound, attacking everyone who threatens anyone else. This is the origin of the "invade the world, invite the world" policy.


The Chinese will triumph for now because their process of outbreeding has just begun. They are composed of clans who are now marrying out. They will develop a strong national/racist identity which will unify them against the rest of civilization. Most likely the conquest of Africa will backfire. Chinese men are wealthy and African women are poor, there is a surplus of bare branches, and an abundance of hypergamous African women who will open their legs for rich men, and the Chinaman will be unable to resist the loose pussy offered to him so far from home.


Eventually the children of these mixtures will immigrate back to China, depressing the Chinese national IQ and ruining them as a world power. Furthermore, since they are now as outbred as globalists they will lose the appetite for conquest, and the Chinese will waste centuries of carefully cultivated intelligence bred by the imperial exam system, on some half-African bastard children that their corrupt public officials are unwilling to neuter, due to familial attachments. Unless their strides in genetics compensate for the loss of intelligence, or unless they categorically prohibit back-migration, they will be plowed under by a sea of African immigrants.


At this point the West, emerging from some bloody civil war — or even world war — will retake the globe as political xenophobia replaces racial xenophobia, and as stratification based on income replaces separation based on race.


As the xenophobic tendency within our species sublimates into politics, the world will fracture into competing political systems, and political difference will overtake race as the largest source of animosity. This will happen as proxy wars increase the number of states in existence. In previous eras the size of an army mattered, and the bigger the empire the more threatening it was to its rivals. The ancient world is defined by a military competition to be the strongest, culminating in World War II. But we now have the atomic bomb, and the pressure to be the strongest has been replaced with endless proxy wars. The trend is now the opposite: states increase in number through fracture rather than decreasing in number through conquest. We also have an "upward" trend manifest as both increasing income stratification, and movement into space. Elon Musk has lowered the cost of launch forever, and so the future looks like a combination of trends involving a metaphorical "vertical" separation based on income, a literal "vertical" movement based on space travel, with an increasing "speciation" occurring everywhere. If there was ever a time patchwork could emerge the future is it.


So with all this exit is there hope? No, of course not. "Exit" just means that some will become "gods" while others become "pets." AI means humans will become the product rather than the consumer, and progressives will go to Mars on the rockets developed by the very man they hate, let the world drown in a sea of 4 billion Africans, and fire on anyone who enters orbit. They will exit from you, all the while condemning you to live on the planet they wrecked.

Happy Thursday.





Friday, May 18, 2018

Well that blew up in my face



So there is this group chat on twitter between a whole bunch of reactionary accounts, including PT Carlo, Halifax Shadow, Eaton Anthony Grey, and and Nick B. Steves, and apparently this is an incredibly polarizing tweet, because I got kicked off the chat after objecting to some shit talking behind my back.

Note to shit talkers:

If you talk shit about someone don't invite them to join your group chat months before you talk shit about them, and then leave the invite open so they can see you taking shit in real time. It's bad manners. Instead, be a good little effeminate bitch and gossip about them behind their back only after you have checked that they are not part of the chat room. Do the right thing and look over your shoulder before you gossip.

Mr. Grey picked a fight with this tweet, and that's like being the only one who turns his head when someone yells "hey dumb-ass!" in a crowded room. If someone calls out people for having sadistic motives it is generally a bad idea to be the one who challenges them. It makes you look like you have sadistic motives.







It's a really bad idea to then prove them right by expressing sadistic desires.

And this is why the left will always win, because the pursuit of reactionary truth stops when we must look at our own desires, because so many reactionaries only desire to shove people in the wood chippers, and countless people on the right wing wear that desire like a bad stink.

Yes, people are unequal. But why do you care? Maybe you just want to operate a wood chipper.






Sunday, May 13, 2018

How to know if a theory is nonsense


Reality is like a metaphorical tree of knowledge, with all branches connecting eventually to mathematics. For example;

Modern dysgenics is based on female psychology + political incentives.

Female Psychology:

6. Female psychology is based in evolutionary psychology
5. Evolutionary psychology is based on the mathematics of gene selection
4. Gene math is based on biochemistry
3. Biochemistry is based on the laws of general chemistry
2. General chemistry is based on atomic physics
1. Atomic physics is based on quantum physics.
0. There is nothing below quantum physics, (that we have proof of).

Political Incentives:

3. Political incentives are based on the game theory dynamics of democracy.
2. Game theory is based on the prisoner's dilemma.
1. The prisoner's dilemma is based on pure mathematics + maximizing gain under evo psych assumptions.

Thus, modern dysgenics has its root in mathematics of political incentives + quantum physics of evolutionary psychology.

The tree on knowledge has three trunks.


  • Quantum physics
  • Astronomy
  • Pure Mathematics


All of these are "math subjects" — that is — all is reducible to math. Math is the zeroth trunk of the tree.

Now here is an example of a bullshit theory.

  1. Male dominance is based in patriarchy.
  2. Patriarchy is based on systems of oppression.
  3. Systems of oppression are based on white supremacy.
  4. White supremacy is based on historical injustices.
  5. Historical injustices are based in patriarchy.

Wait a minute! Your chain of causality goes in a loop!

Or it might not be a loop. It might just be a web of ideas that all refer to each other, like this;


Not all bad philosophies commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. Some commit the fallacy of self-referential reasoning, where the pattern of logic is much more complex than simply going in a circle, but goes in a self-referential pattern nonetheless. Circular reasoning is simple, e.g.,
The Bible proves the existence of God.
How do you know?
Because God inspired the writing of the Bible.
Self-referential reasoning is vastly more complex. A random possible example is given below.
A is proven by B
B is proven by C
C is proven by D
D is proven by B
AND
C is proven by B
B is proven by D
D is proven by A
A is proven by C
AND
C is proven by A
A is proven by D
D is proven by B
B is proven by C

And yet, no matter how complex it is, or how many twists and turns it makes, it never connects to one of the branches of mathematics. It never refers to anything outside of itself. If feminism were cogent it would go something like this,


  1. Male dominance is based on the fact that equal societies fail, and are out-competed by male dominated ones.
  2. Equal societies fail because women sabotage them.
  3. Women sabotage because of hypergamy.
  4. Hypergamy exists because it is a holdover from tribal mating behaviors, (rape).
  5. Primate rape is the outcome of the mathematics of coercive mating strategies.
  6. Coercive mating strategies have their origin in the mathematics of gene flow.
  7. Gene flow maps to biochemistry
  8. Biochemistry has its origin in general chemistry
  9. General chemistry has its origin in physics.
  10. Physics has its origin in quantum physics.


All cogent theories connect with a scientific subject below them. Economics, anthropology, mimetics, and political science are all based on evolutionary psychology. Evo psych is based on biochemistry, which is based on chemistry, etc.

As already stated, there are three trunks; quantum physics, astronomy, and pure mathematics.

Quantum physics has molecular physics and Newtonian physics as its branches, and maybe other branches also.

All living systems are a subset of chemistry and molecular physics.

All humanities subjects should trace their origin to the math of living systems, that is, to chemistry or molecular physics.

Your theater arts degree is bullshit because it cannot trace performance to evolutionary psychology, which traces itself to biochemistry, etc., etc.

Science is a hierarchy while the "humanities" are a cluster fuck of disconnected subjects.

Reality is recursive.

  • A principle builds a system.
  • The same principle builds the brain that interprets that system.
  • The same principle builds the moral reasoning of the brain that is outraged by the implications of the principle.
  • The brains built by that system, build political systems based on their own psychology, and then fail to grapple with the principles that built them.
  • The brains commit genocide when they finally begin to (mis)understand the principle.
  • The brains develop a taboo against understanding the principle.
  • The brains built by a principle then have to unlearn their own taboo to avoid the next catastrophe.

Our tribal past has given us a capacity for make-believe. Make-believe gives your tribe cohesiveness in the face of existential threats. You have 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 grand parents, etc. As a result everyone in your tribe is a distant genetic relative. If you die for your tribe, but your tribe survives, your genes are still passed on in the other members. Individual death is thus preferable to the annihilation of your whole society, since there are more total copies of your genes in a few thousand relatives than just your own body.

Make-believe creates the Schelling point around which tribal unity occurs. It does not matter what you believe as long as it gives you unity. Make-believe, (religion) is more useful to genetic survival than reality itself.

Because the tribe is more useful than the individual, humans have,
Communist tendencies
Conformity
Religion in adults, (make-believe in children)
Ritual
Folk activism
Xenophobia
High School Cliques
Egalitarianism
Heroism
Self-sacrifice
A sense of morality
Schelling points
Virtue Signaling
Story Telling/Entertainment
Exchange
Trade
Punishment
Reciprocity
Desire for respect
Shaming the unusual

All of these traits persist in the modern era. Most college level subjects can be expected to be proxies for religion (Women's Studies, African Studies, Chicano Studies, etc.) , story telling, (History, Anthropology), exchange, (economics), trade, (accounting, quants), and other subjects. Most subjects relate to tribal nature more than the scientific tree of knowledge.

Because make-believe has more use than reality, humans act like morality is more true than reality. A famous example of this is Marx's labor theory of value, LTV, which pretends that what ought to be, actually is.

This is the most important lesson here, and the lesson is this; humans compulsively insert morality into reality, conflating the two with each other. Science is corrupted because the tribal always makes its way into the scientific. Scientific debates are heated because of folk activism. Genetics is taboo because of xenophobia. The humanities are left-wing because of communist tendencies. Theories that threaten the status quo receive punishment.

People actually have the nerve to say, "we can't study that because of moral consequences," as if science was the problem instead of tribal legacy genes. Morality itself is tribal.

So how do you know that a theory is nonsense? Because it goes in a loop, or forms a self-referential pattern, or has its origin in human nature itself, or because it presents moral assertions as factual ones, or a combination of these behaviors. And if it does not connect up to the tree of knowledge that is a dead give away that it is nonsense.

P.S. Self-referential reasoning is also the cognitive pattern of a schizophrenic.





Friday, May 11, 2018

SPERM COMMUNISM


Poor women deserve good genes for their babies, and society needs to reverse the massive dysgenics that threaten all the life on earth. SPERM COMMUNISM is the answer, dear comrades.

But you say, what is a the sperm communism?

Well, good question, frien. The sperm communism is where high IQ men joyfully donate sperm for the greatness of mother Russia! The sperm is gathered up in buckets, and given to low IQ women, and their low IQ husbands are forced to pay for the children that come out, because stinking Kulaks have to be educated!


  • Not letting all women get good sperm is discrimination, and a symptom of the cisnormative heteronormative, imperialist, capitalist, white supremacist, regressive patriarchy.
  • Social justice demands equally good sperm for all women.
  • The problem isn't too much redistribution, but not nearly enough!
  • Never mind that most of the good sperm will be white sperm, it's her body and her choice, and she can do with her body whatever she wants!
  • Reproductive empowerment means good sperm for all!
  • Notions of fatherhood are outmoded, domineering, and racist. Men should take care of whatever child a woman chooses to have.


Join us, oh brother, in bringing about the new Soviet Man!

Monday, May 7, 2018

A critique of charity





Halifax Shadow is right.

The customers of charity are the donors, and not the receivers, and thus charity does very little to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since the true target of charity are the wealthy benefactors that pay for it, and from their lofty position of privilege, these people have very little idea of what the poor actually need. Charity serves to perpetuate poverty by pretending to do something without doing much of anything at all.


As Alrenous points out;
"in a sense the charities with 80%+ administration budgets are less harmful, as they deliver less toxic side-activity."

This is true to an extent; if the poor have less fake help they will spend less time looking for handouts, and more time looking for a job. In a sense, then, charity is predatory: it distracts people from the real task of raising themselves out of poverty during a time in their life when they are most vulnerable, and wastes their time chasing money that is even harder to earn than a paycheck.


Prestige is why liberals hate vouchers, because it turns the poor into customers rather than grovelers, and ruins the prestige/schadenfreude of running charities. It also ruins the opportunity for liberal white women to display their virtue in front of wealthy men, and thus deprives them of the virtue signaling opportunity to meet a rich husband. Like Sailer's Law of Female Journalism, the real target of charity is the bank account of the progressive woman who runs the charity.


A communist wants to turn a whole nation into grovelers, because somehow making elites pander to customers is less equal than making people suck up to commissars. A Marxist nation is an entire economy turned into a charity writ large, so as to maximize the sadistic pleasure of the same types of smug virtue signalers that run our universities. "Here prole, here is your food ration given to you by your superior bugman." Needless to say, this has never really appealed to the proletariat, who would rather take their chances with the capitalist than live under the thumb of the academic. On some level all poor people realize the intellectuals just want to enslave them, and that communism is little more than a ploy to raise the prestige of academics. They have impure intentions towards proles, and their prestige will always require the proles be below so they can be above, and thus the promise of equality never be realized, and always a lie.


In a capitalist system an academic begs for money, but in a communist system the people beg their intellectual superiors for handouts. No wonder college professors like communism so much.


So what is the real cause of poverty? And what do we do about it? Well, poverty exists because some people are unemployable, and these people are unemployable because businesses operate on thin margins, and 1) some people either have so little skills that they are unable to produce at a high enough level to achieve employment, or 2), they are an active financial liability, or 3), the cost of living has been raised so high by artificial means that regular people have fallen into poverty.


Let us break down these three causes;

First cause: low productivity.
Or shall we say, low productivity relative to the cost of living. In this case the solution is to raise the skill level of the individual to what the market desires. Colleges pretend to do this but routinely fail to deliver because they receive so much money handouts that entire industries are vastly overstaffed, so getting a job in these industries is difficult if next to impossible, even with a degree. A person goes to college to study a subject like, say, psychology, and then graduates to find that they must complete numerous unpaid internships and have friends in the industry to get a job. Often, this is worse than having not gone to school at all, since it suppresses income by wasting time otherwise dedicated to career advancement.
A tuition diversion plan, as described by David D. Friedman in the Machinery of Freedom would have the effect of making colleges align curriculum more closely to market demands. To quote;
"It might be possible to reform our present universities in the direction of such free-market universities. One way would be by the introduction of a ‘tuition diversion’ plan. This arrangement would allow students, while purchasing most of their education from the university, to arrange some courses taught by instructors of their own choice. A group of students would inform the university that they wished to take a course from an instructor from outside the university during the next year. The university would multiply the number of students by the average spent from each student’s tuition for the salary of one of his instructors for one quarter. The result would be the amount of their tuition the group wished to divert from paying an instructor of the university’s choice to paying an instructor of their own choice. The university would offer him that sum to teach the course or courses proposed. If he accepted, the students would be obligated to take the course."
Abolishing subsidies for higher education would also produce a closer alignment with market demands since people would not waste their time studying subjects without knowing it will raise their income first. 

Second cause: active liability
There are only a handful of reasons why a person is an active liability:
  • They are a criminal (interferes with employment because they are untrustworthy)
  • They have mental health issues (also interferes with employment because they cannot follow directions, lash out at customers, etc.)
  •  Addicts/alcoholics (interferes with employment because they commit crimes to feed their addictions, are unreliable, create drama, etc.)
  • People with bad credit histories (interferes with finding an apartment)
  • Veterans with war-related injuries or mental health issues (again, interferes with employment)
  • Disabled people, (because they cannot produce to a high enough level)

Third cause: artificial restrictions on housing supply.
In cities like San Francisco, New York, etc., home owners have conspired with the government to artificially restrict the supply of housing, causing rental prices to rise dramatically. In such a situation people who are of an average skill level find themselves unable to afford any place to live, and ironically the very people who donate to charity are often the ones profiting from artificial restriction. Charity then serves as a kind of fee for bad conscience, as well as PR to conceal corrupt politics. The public housing policies of a city are never meant to replace the lost housing stock, as that would actually work and lower housing costs, which would defeat the purpose. Housing is expensive because the rent seekers who run the government want it to be that way, so anything that actually works to lower housing costs will be opposed violently by them.
It is recursive: a woman who runs a charity cooperates in the the production of poverty by selling charity/emotional masturbation to the guilty conscience of the wealthy people who conspired in the generation of that poverty, while providing access to her body to a wealthy male donor in the hopes of snaring a rich husband. She seeks to elevate her status by selling moral indulgences to wealthy men, and herself a marriage, because the divorce will produce a payout; symbolically mixing the politics of the Catholic indulgences with the business of gold digging.
There are many solutions to this: campaign contribution vouchers would take the power to elect politicians out of the hands of rent seekers. A living wage pegged to the cost of housing would create a tremendous incentive for the business community to put pressure on city government to allow more development — to lower rental costs — to lower wage costs. A cash payment to homeowners within a 5 block radius of new development would incentivize them to support increased traffic in their neighborhood from development, and ignore lost equity gains. A "social dividend" that pays a portion of the proceeds from new development to home owners might have the same effect. An authoritarian government would just ignore the concerns of home owners and build housing anyway.


I did not address active liabilities in the indented passage, and so will do so now. A person becomes an active liability because they threaten the company they work with, or because they are less profitable than an employee without their liableness nature. One solution is employment vouchers that pay employers to hire these people. This is dangerous and could create moral hazard though, since you get what you pay for, and if the payments are too high criminals would be more employable than normal people, and people might then commit crimes to become more employable. But if the payment varied by industry, excluded some critical industries necessary for safety, and was just barely enough to cover the costs of increased liability, or excluded criminals altogether, then it could provide a path to employment for these people. Capitalism is eager to lower costs and route around obstacles, and vouchers would spur innovation in the field of trustless institutions. The ultimate way to employ a felon or madman would be to have some robotic system, able to endure endless abuse, that only pays for objects/information reliably produced, and which is impossible for its human employee to cheat, so that no human interaction with these people is necessary. Such a system of totally trustless capitalism would spur innovations in many other fields, since institutions/systems advance by eliminating trust.





Friday, May 4, 2018

Sexcare, sexual socialism, (and a backdoor to restoring tradition?)





I
That Which Nobody Values







No body has an incentive to protect most modern women.


The problem of the modern era is cuckoldry on a massive scale. Men are forced to protect women they are not sleeping with. This incentivizes women to sleep with the worst dregs of society since they are sheltered from most of the consequences, or at least feel they are sheltered from consequences. It destroys male investment in society by creating legions of involuntarily celibate frustrated chumps. It allows male sexual predators to run wild and abuse women. It ruins the will to stand up to hostile foreigners. It creates legions of single mothers who hate men.


The morale of a civilization is built from the possession of women by men. If men feel the women of their own race belong to them they will fight for their society. If not, then they won't. There is a reason interracial relationships always show a Black man sleeping with a white women, or a white man sleeping with an asian women. The target of these portrayals is white men and asian men respectively. The purpose is to use Black men to emasculate white men, and use white men to emasculate asian men. Everyone knows this, especially the liberals who say "we're not your women." Like everything liberals do in pop culture it is designed to ritually humiliate the conservative/racist/white male because he poses a threat, and like it or not, all men of all races feel ownership over the women of their own race.


Making men protect women they are not sleeping with ruins society by forcing men to be cuckolds, and this is deliberate.


A lot of popular desires are actually wise. A living wage would push women out of the workplace as men tend to have higher earning potential than women. If you are forced to pay more then you are disincentivized from hiring anyone who is a waste of money, or who's level of production falls below what their wage costs + a profit margin. In other words, you are incentivized to hire white and asian men over groups, and hire men over women. This is good for both traditional values and reducing immigration. Conservatives, by opposing such measures, stifle a return to the nuclear family without realizing it, and keep women in the workplace. They think only of the primary consequences to the economy, and ignore the secondary and tertiary knock-on effects. Politics isn't just about economics. It is about how politics influences economics, which influences politics, which influences economics, which influences politics. Like Chess, it is about thinking several moves ahead.


If you can't directly create incentives for a traditional society, then how do you create the incentives, that create other incentives, that brings about traditional incentives? How do you change society's circumstances so that it becomes possible to engineer those incentives? Think recursively several moves ahead: what moves will get you to that final level?


A lot of conservatism inadvertently hamstrings a return to traditional values. Opposing a communist revolution has the accidental consequence of inhibiting a return to traditional monarchy, since the inevitable outcome of a revolution is either a monarchy (like North Korea or Cuba) or a fascist regime, (like China, Russia, Vietnam). There is no essential difference between a feudal monarchy and a communist dictatorship. In both systems an all powerful government owns all the land, controls all speech, and dictates all ideology. If Dubai is less oppressive than North Korea it is because it is a capitalist monarchy and not a feudal one.


Nothing is more right-wing than a king, and so the American right wing prevents society from racing around the horseshoe to the other side by inhibiting revolution. The outcome of communist revolution is always fascist government.


The mirror of this is leftists who oppose capitalism even though it is the true revolutionary force acting of society.


Now generally speaking, men want sex, and women want resources (resources = care, protection, money). Let us imagine this situation is a prisoner's dilemma, and there are three basic categories of sexual relationships between men and women;


  • Prostitution
  • Feminism
  • Marriage


Prostitution is a situation where women uphold their end of the bargain — sex — while men defect against them, by refusing to provide fatherly care to their children, love, and protection from other men. A minimum of cash resources is provided, and nothing more.


Feminism is a situation where men uphold their end of the bargain — resources — while women defect against them. It is cuckoldry writ large. Men pay taxes to support other men's children, pay child support, pay alimony, are tone policed in the workplace, and have to provide protection to sluts, female employees, etc.


Marriage (properly constituted) is a situation where both uphold their end of the bargain. Men provide resources, care, and protection while women provide sex and care. Contrary to what feminism asserts, marriage is not prostitution, but a good bargain for both sexes.


Our society is feminist, which means that women are defecting against men. The proper action to take in a tit for tat strategy is to defect against women. The way to do this is prostitution writ large, by turning all women into sex workers, and then use that position of strength to bargain them down to traditional marriage. Let me explain.


You give men "relationship vouchers." If you receive vouchers you cannot redeem them. If you redeem vouchers you cannot receive them. Most men will opt to receive vouchers and most women to redeem them (gays and lesbians being the general exception).


This pays, oh say $150 for a sexual relationship with a women. A woman can collect a maximum of 10 vouchers per month, ($1500). She is expected to provide not just sex but care. If she redeems vouchers from more than one man in a month she has to get regular STD tests because she is a sex worker. If she refuses to provide sex for a man and takes his voucher anyway she loses her right to redeem vouchers for ever. A voucher proves consent. In fact, a voucher has a "I certify under penalty of perjury than I consent to sex with the aforenamed," line on it. Any sex without a voucher is subject to feminist levels of scrutiny about consent. Basically, voucher sex is the only safe way to avoid prison.


This creates a moral climate where prostitution is everywhere and totally normal. Yes, some women might abstain, but every women is surrounded by women collecting vouchers from men. You may be repulsed by the idea of mass prostitution, but a society where all men have a minimum level of financial resources to offer women is a society where people treat each other more fairly. Read the following below to understand why.


Source.
The point is to create a more even distribution of sex in society so as to get men invested once more. The point is sexual socialism. The point is to create counter-leverage against feminism so women stop defecting against men, and the point is that once women's status is lowered by turning them all into whores white-knighting will vanish. Last but not least, the point is formalism. Modern women are whores — and vouchers formalize this fact. Beta males tend to worship vajayjay. Once even the ugliest man is getting laid every week his self-esteem will rise. And what could be a more popular campaign promise than "vote for me and I will get you laid!" ?


Indeed, the redistribution of sex is the ultimate culmination of the art of democracy.


If you can get 200 million men pussy you can form an army to overthrow the government. You have just bought yourself a thousand years of regime loyalty.


Bioleninism is the act of forming a political coalition on the basis of low quality genetics. Let us review what bioleninism is according to its inventor, Spandrell, in his orginal Bloody Shovel post. (The underlining here is mine).

"Say what you will about the Soviet Union: the Communist Party was loyal. They got things done. Every crazy and stupid thing that the Politburo approved got done. Yes, it took a while to achieve that result. Stalin had to kill a lot of people. But it wasn’t through sheer terror and cruelty that the Communist Party worked. The Communist Party had a system. Which worked. It still works today in China. You might have noticed how people in the West today talk about China in these same terms. China gets things done, it does them fast and cheap. China got the world’s biggest high-speed rail system in the time that it takes to dig a tunnel in Boston. And for not that much more money. That’s not a coincidence. That’s Leninism at work.

"Any country has a ruling class. What I call “loyalty” you could also call asabiyyah; the coherence of the ruling class as such. Their ability to stick with each other and gang up, keeping the structure of rule stable. Feudalism got that; the nobility was the ruling class, they formed a society very much separate from that of the peasants, and they took much care that their rule was never contested. The destruction of that world by enlightened liberals resulted in a ruling class which was orders of magnitude less cohesive and orderly. You might be a libertarian and think that is a good thing, and you may have a point. But any organization wants to fight entropy and ensure its stability and reproduction. Liberalism historically has shown itself incapable of that. Leninism was the first solution to that problem.

"Leninism is, of course, applied socialism. Socialism was huge before Leninism was even a thing, and that Marxism was and is still popular is not due only to Soviet patronage. Socialism works by hacking the Social Calculus Module that humans have in our brains. Remember, humans care deeply about status. Status is what drives human behavior. Everybody works to achieve more status, and to avoid losing status. Socialism of course sells egalitarianism. It tells people with low status that they can get some more. The Industrial Revolution had forced millions of peasants into the cities, and they all felt they had lost status in the process. Economists will tell you that the standard of living of industrial workers (according to some measures) had actually improved. And that may be so, but the workers didn’t think so, and they were pissed.

"So these socialists come by and tell them they have this plan to make them gain status, big time. That was huge. Yes, sure, Christianity had also started promising the meek that they were morally higher than rich people; they’d all go to heaven unlike those perfid rich guys. But that didn’t translate into actual, real-world status. Socialism was promising actual goods. And so it became huge. It’s still huge. It’s pretty much catnip for humans. It’s instant check-mate.

"Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.

"Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families. The same happened in China, where e.g. the 5 provinces which formed the southern Mongolian steppe were joined up into “Inner Mongolia autonomous region”, what Sailer calls “consolidate and surrender”.

"In Communist countries pedigree was very important. You couldn’t get far in the party if you had any little kulak, noble or landowner ancestry. Only peasants and workers were trusted. Why? Because only peasants and workers could be trusted to be loyal. Rich people, or people with the inborn traits which lead to being rich, will always have status in any natural society. They will always do alright. That’s why they can’t be trusted; the stakes are never high for them. If anything they’d rather have more freedom to realize their talents. People of peasant stock though, they came from the dregs of society. They know very well that all they have was given to them by the party. And so they will be loyal to the death, because they know it, if the Communist regime falls, their status will fall as fast as a hammer in a well. And the same goes for everyone else, especially those ethnic minorities.

"Ethnics were tricky though, because they always had a gambit which could increase their status even further: independence. Which is why both Russia and China soon after consolidating the regime started to crack down on ethnics. Stalin famously purged Jews from the Politburo, used WW2 to restore most of the Tsar’s territory, and run such a Russia-centered state that to this day people in Kyrgyzstan speak Russian. The same in China, a little known fact of the Cultural Revolution was the huge, bloody purge in Mongolia and the destruction of many temples in Tibet. After that was done with, the Communist party became this strong, stable and smooth machine. The Soviet economy of course worked like shit, and that eventually resulted in the collapse of the system. But as China has shown, central planning is orthogonal to Leninist politics. China, of course, had to know. It had been running a centralized bureaucracy for thousands of years. Leninism was just completing the system.

"So again, the genius of Leninism was in building a ruling class from scratch and making it cohesive by explicitly choosing people from low-status groups, ensuring they would be loyal to the party given they had much to lose. It worked so well it was the marvel of the intellectual classes of the whole world for a hundred years

"Meanwhile, what was the West doing? The West, that diehard enemy of worldwide Communism, led by the United States. What has been the American response to Leninism? Look around you. Read Vox. Put on TV. Ok, that’s enough. Who is high status in the West today? Women. Homosexuals. Transexuals. Muslims. Blacks. There’s even movements propping up disabled and fat people. What Progressivism is running is hyper Leninism. Biological Leninism."


How can we reverse engineer this? How can we create a system of biological conservatism? How can we create a system which commands total loyalty without dysgenics? How can we make it eugenic instead? All anyone care about is status, no? Actually, they care about sex a great deal more, since status is the vehicle humans use in order to get to sex.


Prositutional-traditionalism (not a joke) is the act of forming a political coalition out of average frustrated chumps (AFCs), by using sex as a literal weapon to command the electorate.


Nationwide voucher prostitution gives you leverage, and once you have that you negotiate for mandatory marriage. The system of mass prostitution is redesigned so that having one consistent partner pays more than having 10. A single woman with 10 boys gets like 150 each ($1,500 per month) while a married women gets like $2,500 per month for having sex only with one husband. If this bankrupts the government so what. You wanted to get rid of democracy anyway, right? Moreover you use the feminist greed for money to compel them to accept marriage. No doubt once the program gets started there will be constant attempts to increase the amount it pays. You refuse to pay more unless conditions are attached, (only one partner, child support must be abolished, no more community property, sex required, etc.) Your coalition is counting on you to produce a deal that is good for men. Unlike men in the past who were playing a game of defense, ("please don't take my money!") these men are playing a game of offence, ("we control the cash and will decide what we do with it"). It is the deference between extortion and bribery, between slavery to feminism and employment of prostitutes. You are essentially employing an army of whores to literally ride your voters, and you will damn well decide who get ridden, and why, and how much. You're the Pimpboss, and you call the shots.


And what could ruin respect for democracy more than universal prostitution?


The system begins as a bribe and ends as extortion. First you allow feminists to destroy the taboo surrounding sex work. They demand the legalization of prostitution and you "reluctantly" accommodate them; you make a big show of resisting the degeneracy. Later, you have a "change of heart" — embrace sex work as "empowering for women," and propose to fund it.


Now Spandrell doesn't believe you can build an organization out of white men, because they are not loyal enough. To quote;


"The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles. Those people may be very high performers individually, but in a natural society ruled by its core of high performers, i.e. a white patriarchy, they wouldn’t have very high status. So if you promise them high status for being loyal to you; you bet they’re gonna join your team. They have much to gain, little to lose. The Coalition of the Fringes, Sailer calls it. It’s worse than that really. It’s the coalition of everyone who would lose status the better society were run. It’s the coalition of the bad. Literal Kakistocracy."


Unless you only give vouchers to the people who vote for you. You actually can command the loyalties of white men, especially now that they have been marginalized by leftist power. You can command anyone through their loins, and there are literally millions of men out there that are sexually marginalized by feminism, leftism, and the lack of traditional values. Western civilization was built on sexual socialism (mandatory marriage). It is how the kings of Israel inspired their soldiers to fight with passion.. While the Babylonian kings were monopolizing harem's of thousands of women, the Israeli kings were forbidden to look upon another man's wife.


7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
— 2 Samuel 12


The equal distribution of sex is the basis of all other Western traditional values. Complaints about democracy hinge on it being excessively prone to equality, but this equality in in status only, while the sexual marketplace is more unequal than ever. In the 1950's 30 % of men owned 70 % of the wealth, while today .01 % of men own 99.99 % of the wealth. Unsurprisingly, this has coincided with a rise in the sexual power of women.


Now an equal society is one where 50% of the men own 50% of the wealth. It is interesting that the society of today (2018) is farther from perfect equality than the monarchies of Europe were in 1770. (Source). It is also interesting that less time has passed between 1950 and today (68 years) than between 1950 and 1770 (180 years). The substantive event during that time was the sexual revolution.



II
Do it for the Children

When push comes to shove think of the children. With a little artful branding it can be called "child support vouchers," and be used to replace actual child support. Moreover, it would be discriminatory to limit child support vouchers to only those people with children. Merely wanting to have children should suffice as a prerequisite, unless some "principled conservative" get in the way. The rules are deliberately lax. It is called a child support voucher but it behaves like a relationship voucher; one does not actually need children to qualify to get or redeem them. "For the children" is always the back door to sexual revolution anyway.

Government programs always expand.

Then you ratchet incentives to your destination. . .




Milton Friedman predicting cryptocurrency back in 1999


Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Go-ocracy: An Alternative Republic


When we begin to redesign democracy we see that majoritarian systems are an accident of history.

A republic can be conceptualized as a game consisting of three parts;
Constitution = rules
Elections = the game
Supreme Court = the referee

Typically, we think in terms of three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and rules, (habeas corpus, equal protection, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.), but the UK has no real written constitution, and its supreme court does not have real power like the US version does.

We may add to this the fact that a republic is based on the consent of the governed, but there is no reason the game has to take the form of elections. It can be based on the Chinese game of Go.

Yes, seriously.





I.
The Constitution of Rules, 
and the Game Itself

First we must understand how Go works. To quote Wikipedia;

The playing pieces are called "stones". One player uses the white stones and the other, black. The players take turns placing the stones on the vacant intersections ("points") of a board with a 19×19 grid of lines. Beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards,[8] and archaeological evidence shows that the game was played in earlier centuries on a board with a 17×17 grid. However, boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard by the time the game had reached Korea in the 5th century CE and later Japan in the 7th century CE.[9]
Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board when "captured". Capture happens when a stone or group of stones is surrounded by opposing stones on all orthogonally-adjacent points.[10] The game proceeds until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and komi (points added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second, which is normally either 6.5 or 7.5 depending on the rule-set being used) to determine the winner.[11] Games may also be terminated by resignation.

Go-ocracy, pronounced go-ock-ra-see, adapts the game of Go to serve the function of elections within a republic, with little else changed constitutionally.

Imagine that each parcel of land is a square on the board.

Imagine that the inhabitants who own land (or mortgage it if mortgaged) constitute the "squares" that need capturing.

Then you capture them by getting them to sign a literal social contract to obey the laws defined by the player who is soliciting their permission. Basically, instead of political parties and congressmen you have players. Each player has his own legal code written by his firm. The player goes house to house in meatspace asking the inhabitants of a parcel for their delegation, (not their vote), or calls them on the phone, or whatever. He basically campaigns for delegations, the same way a congressman campaigns for votes.

The inhabitant is defined as the person, (not bank) who pays the mortgage on a property if the property is under mortgage, and the owner of the property if it is not under mortgage. With apartment complexes this is the landlord, and with houses this is the person who bought the house, the mortgagor. It has to be this way, otherwise banks would determine the legal system and control everything.

If one gets a series of delegations of properties that are adjacent to each other, with adjacent being defined as either (a) the property lines touching, or (b) the property lines being across the street from one another, then he begins to build a "ladder" which he can eventually use to encircle some parcels. Once parcels are encircled they are "captured" and fall under the legal jurisdiction of the the player and his laws.

To prevent gangs from terrorizing people into delegating to one player or the other, players are not allowed to have armies or police forces, and the cops are a separate part of the government. Players make law but do not enforce the law.

Also, to prevent the endless harassment of home owners by campaigners for their delegations, each home owners fills out a card which rank orders his his preferences like this;

First choice: Mayfield's legal system

If I am in jeopardy of being captured by any of the following;
Jim's legal system
Bob's legal system
Jack's legal system
And If it will get me uncaptured then my second choice is;
Mark's legal system
If the above is not available, and if it will get me uncaptured, then;
Ethen's legal system
Etc., etc.

This is a simple version, but basically one can program a whole flowchart of alternatives which says, "to avoid being captured by X, Y, or Z, I will choose automatically Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω in that order."

Every parcel of land on the board is like this, with rank ordered preferences of alternatives.

This makes the board fiendishly complex and can set off cascades of territory change.

To prevent the police from being confused, a snapshot of the arrangement of law-territory is taken once per year on September 1st and that becomes the configuration of the law for 12 months until August 31st of the following year. The game is played in real time 4 hours per day, 3 days per week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but the territory of law changes one year at a time.

No one player may capture more than 20% of the territory in a given county. In one state, up to 25 players per million inhabitants may play the game. If there are more than 10 applicants, new players are added on a first come first served basis.

A homeowner may update their rank ordered preference at any time with their local brokerage office. If a person does not make a decision by the cut-off date one is automatically assigned to a player by lottery.




II.
The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.

Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive supreme courts. A supreme court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Let me explain.

Whenever there is a dispute between two players one brings suite against the other. But first they must determine which court it shall be tried in.

Say there are 100 supreme courts. Then each fills out a card with a rank ordering of 51 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (51). There is always at least one guaranteed overlap. The number of rank ordered preferences is equal to 50% plus 1 if the total number of registered supreme courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always 1 overlap.

The highest ranked preference, which is shared by both parties in the dispute, is the court in which the case is tried. All decisions are final. If there is more than 1 overlapping preference the highest mutual preference for both is the one chosen. If there is a situation where both parties have a total of 4 highest mutually agreed upon rank ordered preferences, then a coin toss decides. For example;


Now you may object and say, "but what is to stop someone from being tried in a biased court?" Competition. Think about it. Let's us say that you run a terribly biased supreme court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someone's list, but it will get you ranked at the bottom of their political opponent's list. The overlap is the one who gets the business, and so every court is competing to be as unbiased as possible in order to get business. The court that gets the business gets a voucher from the state, and gets paid. The one that does not get the business does not get paid. Thus, all referees compete on neutrality.



III.
The Way Rules Get Made

Right now we have a House and Senate. The Federal government is only allowed to make game rules, and not laws themselves. The competitive supreme courts ensure that because they compete for business. Game rules are proposed in an elected House, but then they go directly to the people for voter approval. All approvals are temporary since they are additions to the existing constitution of rules. The length of approval depends on the level at which they are passed. Like this;

For each percentage above 50%, take the percentage above 50%, multiple by 100 and divide by 2 to get the number of years the new game rule is in effect, and round up.

For example;

A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.

65% - 50% = 15%

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = 7.5

7.5 rounded up is 8 years.

The new game rule shall be in effect 8 years, and then automatically expire.

This assumes you even want new rules to be possible. A different configuration is possible with owners rather than voters making the rules.

New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire.


IV.
Modeling the System with AI

Because this is a game it can be modeled with AI, and modeling it is a strength rather than a weakness. No doubt players will use AIs to model strategy. The benefit of this is that the results of game play can be anticipated in advance of creating any system, and the constitution of game rules can be adjusted to produce any kind of outcome or equilibrium we desire. That is the point: stability. Since game play can be simulated a game can be designed that reaches a stable but competitive state. The system remains dynamic without producing a single winner, and since both the players and the game rule makers use AI to model everything they can anticipate results of rule changes in advance. This means that whoever makes the rules has a pretty good idea of what they are doing.


V.
The Ownership Alternative

There has to be some sort of point at the top where game rules get made. If that is a democracy then you still need a congress and a president, and that means you will still have a minimum of majoritarian politics. The alternative is to have congress elected by share holders rather than voters, or to have a king unify the whole system. Why would a king or share holders let ordinary people determine the laws they live under? Because they have an apolitical desire to create regime stability by invoking the consent of the governed. Granted that is a stretch though. A bad king may just destroy the game and opt for direct control. A congress will probably exceed its authority. Shareholders may put greed above the good of the nation, or serve private agendas. I have not figured out how to guarantee territorial unification without the federal government potentially over reaching its authority. If the federal government is nothing but the competitive supreme courts this would work, but how to maintain competition? How to prevent invasion? As usual the threat of eternal enemies presents a problem to internal freedom.