Saturday, June 30, 2018

Dictators over kings

Western Civilization was supposed to be a series of interlocking social technologies that allowed freedom to exist in the space created by their mutual reinforcement. It was supposed to be freedom without hell. The Church enforced morality while the state enforced freedom. Parents taught manners, colleges taught civic responsibility, and the news media did, for a time, its job. But every one of these institutions is now corrupt and we have the hell of freedom without morality.

Only a dictator can save us. A monarchy is not totalitarian enough to reverse cultural decay. The power of authority must reach all the way into the soul of man, forcing him (and her) to modify the mind and abandon degenerate ways.

So-called “ethical non-monogamy,” transgenderism, the mocking of religion by intellectuals, the worship of tolerance — even when it tolerates the unacceptable, is all a sign of pervasive corruption. Even libertarians represent a defective mental process, putting “the ego” above the community. Even the military is corrupt — engaging in wars of profit. Even the judges are corrupt, issuing partisan rulings.

A great purge of defective minds is in order.

Monday, June 25, 2018

How inequality works, why leftism makes it worse, and why every natural impulse you have is wrong

Imagine that there are two types of people; those who value having money more than having children, and those who value having children more than having money.

Now we normally criticize the poor for being so feckless as to have children they cannot afford, but turning your income into as many children as you can have constitutes the genetically rational thing to do, even while it ruins your quality of life. I mean literally, it is more genetically rational to simply crank out ten or fifteen kids while on welfare than to have two or three children and raise them middle class. WE might hate these people, but their genes are spreading more successfully, so who's the chump? Certainly not them.

Anyway, there are these two groups. The group that wants children and not money will expand exponentially in number while remaining poor. The group that wants money and not children will have very few children and acquire lots of money, and since they have fewer heirs than break-even (< 2.1 per couple) that money will become more concentrated over time.

If you have 2 children you break even. If you have 4 per couple you double every generation. If you have 1 per couple you shrink by 1/2 every generation. The effect is cumulative and exponential.

In other words, the rich will get rich and the poor will get poorer, and the poor will complain about poverty and receive subsidies from the rich — which they will convert into having more children — because they want children more than they want money.

  • If you give handouts to the rich you will get an even higher concentration or wealth, and more inequality, since the rich want money over children and will simply invest the money to make more money.
  • If you give handouts to the poor the poor will simply convert the money into having more children, since they want children over money, and will simply convert the money into higher birth rates.
  • Both acts will exacerbate inequality.
  • Inequality, having been exacerbated, will be used by the poor to demand even more handouts.
  • Thus, the welfare state generates more political demand for the subsidies that drive inequality.

The more you let them suck you dry the more votes they will have to suck you dry, because their children will vote as they do.

As the poor proliferate in number, the "slave morality" of the poor will also proliferate, and every problem will be interpreted through a lens of slave ideology. This will cause every proposed solution to the problem of inequality to exacerbate inequality. Indeed, even the concern for equality is a form of slave morality, a form of poor morality, and a justification for increased subsidies to people who will just waste the money on having more children they cannot afford.

Capitalism raises people out of poverty by suppressing birth rates and getting them to focus on their work. The "rat race" aka., the race for higher relative status, is what caused the surplus in the first place. Wealth is what happens when humans betray their own genetic interest by putting quality of life above number of new lives, that is, when you decided you would rather have a nicer car than an extra child or take a vacation instead of working more for a bigger family. There is no genetically rational reason to want financial wealth; if a gene is evolved to replicate itself as many times as possible then every natural impulse created by that gene will prefer to spend all accumulated resources on new copies of the gene.

Poverty will be the result. "Equality" will be the ideology that justifies it. "The nobility of the poor" will be the moral attitude. In reality these people just want to fill up the environment with more copies of themselves, even if the world is already overpopulated.

Human belief in equality is driven by a genetic desire to convert every resource into more children: if resources are systemically redistributed away from those that have it to those that do not, then birth rates are increased within the tribe. In other words, human communist tendencies are a desire to maximize birth rates through the expenditure of surplus tribal resources. The poor are most communist precisely because they want to maximize genetic copies of themselves. This tendency evolved under tribal conditions when genocide from other tribes was an ongoing threat, and it continues even today under conditions of overpopulation. Under tribal conditions, equality is simply a survival tool to maximize your numbers when there are existential threat to your survival, and greedy people who horde resources are "betraying society for selfish reasons," but under global capitalism equality just becomes a tool to maximize overpopulation of the planet, destroy the Earth, and drive high IQ people to extinction. These impulses towards equality work fine when you live in a state of nature but are frankly evil under capitalism.

Capitalism already breeds your people to a massive surplus. It is inappropriate to be communist in a world of billions.

At this point it needs to be pointed out that human intuition isn't just wrong, but evil, and not just evil, but genetically evil. Capitalism is "inverted," and so that every natural impulse you have is not just wrong but genetically wrong. Capitalism produces conditions whereby all natural impulses become actively harmful to one's own survival, and the survival of one's culture. Natural human impulses celebrate emotionality, love equality, hate discrimination, etc., and every single one of these impulses is wrong under modern conditions.

Since it is genetically rational to breed to the limit of what resources can sustain, capitalism depends on the subversion of natural impulses to bring you prosperity. You only become middle class by putting your financial interest over your reproductive interest. Wealth is the gap between income and expenditures. Obviously, if your just keep having kids you will never have any wealth, since your expenditures will rise as fast or faster than your income.

Similarly, law and order depends on the subversion of natural impulses. People hate discrimination, but a well functioning society is nothing but layer upon layer of discrimination. The first layer is justice: if an individual breaks the law they are incarcerated. This discriminates against them by removing them from society. Another layer is work: if a person refuses to work society discriminates against them by making them homeless. The layers go something like this;

          Layer                                                Reward

  • First layer: criminal justice               obey the law and stay out of prison
  • Second layer: citizenship                  have objective worth and receive citizenship
  • Third layer: education                      get an education and have more job opportunities
  • Fourth layer: work                            work and have a place to live
  • Fifth layer: dedication                      work hard and become middle class
  • Sixth layer: taking risk                     take financial risk and become rich
  • Seventh layer: public service            serve society and have a political career

In a ethically run society layers of discrimination are attached to dedication to the system, to hard work, and public service. The more one works for the benefit of society the more reward he receives. Liberals undermine every one of these layers. They subvert justice by pretending that all races have equal crime rates, and lobbying to basically legalize crime for blacks. They try to ruin the first world by bringing in low IQ populations. They destroy the quality of education by turning it into indoctrination. They lower the productivity of work with affirmative action quotas and taxes. They actively harm the middle class, attack entrepreneurs, and corrupt the civil service.

To repeat myself, natural human impulses are communist, and run directly contrary to the success of the modern world. Society depends on layers of discrimination for its survival. What would civilization be without discrimination against criminals? How can you have a nation without immigration restrictions? Does anyone actually think you could let a billion Africans with average IQs of 77 migrate to the first world and still have a first world? What would society be if we did not keep the uneducated out of power? If everyone was paid equally would anyone go to medical school? If taking the risk to start a business could not make you rich would anyone create jobs? If all wealth was redistributed to people who value more children over more money, would prosperity even exist?

DNA is a gene maximizing algorithm hostile to prosperity, since prosperity is a condition where genetic potential is wasted on the luxury of comfort. Whatever money is spent on quality of life is not spent on having more children, and so evolutionary processes ultimately select against prosperity.

There are tribes where men go on raids and capture war brides to rape. If a rapist reproduces himself then his genes are passed on and propagate. There are people who only have children so they can abuse them sexually.

If religious fanatics out-reproduce the sane, then fanaticism propagates through the population. If one society commits genocide against another then their descendants replace the destroyed society and genes for genocide are propagated. The more society educates women the fewer children it has, and thus, the more hostile society is to female rights the more degraded it behaves towards women. But such patriarchies survive and reproduce even while they drive their neighbors to extinction, so DNA smiles upon it.

Point is; only an idiot would think natural human morality is anything but an abomination, since what humans consider moral is the outcome of these processes. Equality, like the genocidal inclination, is a product of reproduction maximizing algorithms: equality hands resources to the members of your tribe who put having children first, while genocide of their neighbors opens up the space for their descendants to grow. Conventionally, equality and genocide are presented as opposites, but they are both expansionist genetic strategies. When people assert that something is WRONG, "because it is unequal!" I can only laugh; they are appealing to natural human morality. Don't they get it? Human morality is something capitalism transcends.

Genocide comes directly out of genetics because it is genetically rational to kill people and breed on the land you stole from them. Capitalism contradicts this by subjugating human will to capital processes, rationalizing and aligning all human interests with all other human interests. Instead of the tribal communist war of all against all we get the consumption of all by all of catallaxy. This represents a massive alignment of interests. Eventually capital will subjugate the genome to capital processes and align this stupid, corrupt, and vile human thing with its own matrix. One might even call this final state "utopian communism" but that is a huge misnomer because it it the precise opposite of the horrible crap nature delivers to us automatically.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

The Scientology creation myth, and how culture is downstream from power in Scientology

In Scientology the universe is supposedly a "mock up" — meaning a kind of "Matrix" or "hologram" or collective hallucination produced by the spiritual beings that live in it. Scientology conceives of spiritual beings, aka. souls, aka., "thetans" as basically gods who forgot that they were gods. They forgot because they have lived through billions of reincarnations and have suffered so much trauma, aka., "engrams" that they have forgotten everything to preserve their sanity. Basically, the Scientology creation myth goes something like this;

1. The universe is hallucinated into existence by a being called "The Author of The Universe." This being is just a regular thetan like all of us. He's a god, just like you bro, only for some reason he decided to create an entire universe. Where is he? Who knows. Probably getting tortured somewhere for creating such a giant fuck up.

2. Thetans, aka, souls, aka., spiritual beings, aka., you and me, enter this universe out of curiosity. "Hey look! A shiny universe! Let's go see what its all about! What could go wrong?"

3. We begin to interact with the universe without realizing it is a trap.

4. The trap consists of the fact that every painful incident creates an "engram" that makes the universe more solid to you. Engrams are painful memories of death and stuff like that. The word engram means to make a mark by engraving on a surface. In this case an "engram" is a spiritual mark left on the mind by trauma.

5. In the beginning the universe is not that solid, and a person can leave the universe by simply deciding that it is not real for him. If you stop believing in it then it simply vanishes before your eyes. Yes really. Since the universe is a collective illusion people can control it at will and have god-like powers. After all, each one of us participates in creating the universe with our minds. So you should be able to change it whenever you want by simply thinking different thoughts, right? But you can't. So why not?

6. Over time the accumulation of "engrams" causes the universe to become more and more solid to a person until they can no longer disagree with it, and can no longer dissolve the illusion or control it. People lose their god-like abilities because pain traps them and makes the universe feel solid.

7. After that, they even lose their memories of past lives. Now they are human and mortal, can die, and have no god-like abilities. First comes the loss of god-like ability. Then comes the loss of memory. You know all those Greek gods you heard of? Yeah, those people were simply "operating thetans" — like you once were. All of these people, Buddha, Jesus, Vishnu, Shiva, Thor, were OTs. Some OTs are bad, like Satan, or Mark Zukerberg.

8. To get out of this trap and regain the abilities you have lost, you have to give truckloads of money to Scientology so that you can receive a form of spiritual therapy where you remember your past lives. This therapy is quite perversely called "auditing," and has nothing at all to do with accounting, though after you have paid a cool $300,000 for all of this shit you will definitely obsess over your financials.

9. This therapy is supposed to work because the idea is that, if you remember something accurately enough, I mean really relive the experience, complete with every sight and sound, so that you can like taste the blood in your mouth as you are being garroted in a previous life, then it will basically dissolve the engram and you will be free. If you dissolve a few thousand engrams you will become your old godlike self again, and go levitating around on a magic carpet like a gene. You will be able to lift cars with one hand, shoot fireballs out of your ass, never get the flu, and make unlimited money. Oh, and you will have magical seductive pussy powers. So don't worry about the bill for all of this auditing, and don't worry about health insurance or money or anything else. It will all work out once you are an OPERATING THETAN, because then money will just rain down on you and you won't even know what to do with all your money, pussy, and magical god-like abilities. It's fantastic brah. Never ending bliss. And you have to do is "remember" endless quantities of past trauma, and pay for the privilege of doing so, even though "reliving" will feeling more like "making shit up." 

10. An operating thetan, or "OT" is one who operates as a spiritual being and not a meat body. That just means the person has regained their god-like abilities. It is said that L. Ron Hubbard could read peoples' minds and fly through the air.. All OTs have abilities like this. So why haven't OTs demonstrated their power level on TV or something? Well, they are hiding their power level so people don't freak out. I mean if you knew that supermen walked among you how would you feel?

All it will cost you is like a third of a million, tops.

Witchcraft is just "exercising OT abilities." Prayer is calling upon an OT to exercise his or her OT abilities on your behalf. Scientology has an analogous term to casting spells called "postulating." A postulate is defined as a decision to alter some aspect of the illusion known as the physical universe. Spells are regarded as unnecessarily complex postulates. One doesn't need to say some magic words or wave a magic wand. Just THINK IT and it will be so. That's a postulate.

The term "theta" means "life force energy" or "Élan vital." It is basically the energy that spiritual beings produce to control matter. Theta emanates from thetans (souls). Theta is the level of energy that is underneath the smallest level of energy. If matter in the universe is made of quarks then quarks are made of theta. If matter is made of strings then strings are made of theta. Theta is that form of energy that is smallest.

There are two universes: the universe of "MEST" versus the "spiritual universe," also know as the "theta universe." MEST means Mater, Energy, Space, and Time.

Theta is always trying to conquer MEST, even though MEST is just solid theta. Thetans create solid theta, aka. matter, and then try to conquer it using more theta. Radiation is just a less solid form of theta. Time is just the agreement between all the spiritual beings in the universe — all the thetans, that what has happened before cannot happen again, and that the universe will be composed of an irreversible sequence of events. Time is an agreement.

By the way, Scientology regards time travel as impossible, since it would complicate auditing people by creating multiple overlapping memories of past lives.

Space is simply a 3 dimensional box for spiritual beings to play games in.

There is a point in every thetans memory — every souls memory, called "before time." Technically before time, (BE) is also "After Time." But Before Time happened before the universe was created, because before thetans agreed that the universe would have an irreversible sequence of events, it did not, and things that happened before could happen after, and reverse themselves, and it was all very confusing do the spiritual beings/souls/thetans who lived back then made an agreement that everything would go in only one direction. This is how time was created. The universe was created shortly after time was created by The Author of The Universe, who is not God, but just some guy like the rest of us; think The Dude from The Big Lebowski. Imagine a disembodied soul who decided to write the ultimate Great American Novel, and wrote it in string theory instead of English. That's The Author of The Universe. Not God, just some hippie genius. And there were no bodies back then, so this dude wasn't technically a dude but a "pure mind" or something.

Many people think that the Scientology creation myth is the Lord Xenu thing, but this is false. The creation myth is what we just went over. The Xenu thing is really just a way to rake in some extra money. I won't bother rehashing it here. By the way #Xenudidnothingwrong!

Apparently the Galactic Federation builds its prisons to last, because they shoved Xenu in a prison that has lasted 35 million years. Roman concrete? Self-repairing machines? Something is keeping that bitch running and it's a spiritual prison, not a physical one, so there must be some great force fields at work there. Of course I don't actually believe any of this.

So anyway, this whole issue of money has some really interesting institutional and psychological effects. When you are charging people obscene rates you are demanding a pretty high cognitive commitment to your faith, and that is why when you think of the concept of mafia religion or religion with mafia characteristics you think Scientology. High cognitive stakes do some pretty interesting things to people.

Reactionaries often talk about how institutional logic guides ideology. If a government needs absolute loyalty out of its subjects then it adopts ideological features designed to induce tranquility in them, and tells them shit like "life is suffering," "it is the order of things," "hierarchies are natural," etc., but if you are talking about a political party like the Democrats the institutional needs are different. The Democrats need people to keep pulling the lever for the party, so it spreads propaganda like "you're a victim," "your being oppressed by white men," etc., because these beliefs inculcate psychological dependence of the programs of the welfare state that the Democrats run and take credit for, and that the Republicans are always hostile to.

As reactionaries we are always used to thinking this way: that culture is downstream from power, or in other words, that an institutions need for self preservation determines what its ideology will be, depending on the internal power structure of that institution, and Scientology is no different from any institution in the fundamental pattern of institutional rationalization, and that its internal pattern is that it wants vast amounts of cash, and that this desire determines the political philosophy of the church, that is, its internal political ideology and sense of morals.

In Scientology there is no concept of equality, nor any concept that victimhood could be legitimate. Causality is viewed as a spiritual state that some have more of than others, while there is a delineated hierarchy of spiritual worth. An OT-8 is above an OT 5, and OT 5 is above a Clear, and Clear is above a Preclear. There is no equality between human beings in any of it, though the spiritual hierarchy of Scientology has absolutely nothing to do with race or racism, and a Black man like Isaac Hayes outranks a typical Scientologist.

Victimhood is illegitimate because there are three essential conditions of a person in regard to causality, they are; self-determinism, pan-determinism, and other-determinism. To be pan determined is to have control over other people in the environment. To be self-determined is to have control over yourself, that is, to have your life together and stuff. To be other-determined is to dominated by the other people in your environment, and to be pushed around by them. The three states are viewed as spiritual conditions, and conditions of the being himself, and as only changeable with Scientology methods. In other words if you are victim it is not because someone abused you and they are to blame, but because you are "other determined." Such people are viewed as natural victims. Since they never take responsibility for anything and since they are not "cause over life" it is basically their destiny to be abused. The attitude is like, it is inevitable that someone who has no moral agency be a victim, since without taking charge of their own life other, stronger, people will inevitably walk all over them. Obviously if one person never exercises any agency, and you put that person in the same room as someone who is totally dominant and full of capability, the person of low capability will be dominated by the person of high capability. Scientology thus views ability as a state of existence, and believes that state can only be changed with its "technology," or "tech" — a euphemism for Scientology methods and techniques.

If you have no concept of equality and no idea that victimhood is legitimate, then of course you feel nothing wrong with asking people for hundreds of thousand of dollars. Moreover, if you believe the only think that can make people more capable of handling their life is the very Scientology practices they are paying for, and that these practices will make people so much more capable that the money won't be an issue, then naturally you believe that not only is it not wrong to bilk people out of their money, you believe that not bilking people is wrong. After all, if you have a product that could make someone healthy, happy, rich, moral, and powerful, how could you not weasel them into buying every dollar of it? Not taking their money would be a sin of omission or something.

Institutions are like this. Western Union's motto is "moving money for better," and it is affirmatively on the side of international globalism and refugees. Its main business is remunerations from the 1st world to the 3rd, so we should not be surprised it eagerly supports the ideology of mass migration. Journalism has this whole ideology surrounding it about "the freedom of the press," and "the duty of journalists to hold politicians accountable." Starbucks LARPS about paying coffee farmers fairly, while universities talk about "enriching minds," and producing "cosmopolitan students," and propagating ideology obsessed with power whose essential function is to allow for the development of herd camouflage for incompetent academics.

It's everywhere: the Catholic wants more Catholics to be born, and has historically always regarded contraceptives as a sin against God. LGBT groups benefit if their ranks are increased; unsurprisingly, some of these groups promote gender confusion to young children.

If the institution needs X, then the ideology will be Y. Designing institutions that are ethical is hard because it means configuring their internal needs to produce an external ideology, and then preventing their internal needs from changing. Scientology needs extreme quantities of money from each member. It should be completely unsurprising that its central doctrine involves a lack of compassion and disregard for victims. Whatever an institution needs its ideology will support, so how can we design institutions that don't produce perverse ideologies? Solve that and you have solved communism.

And for the love of God don't be one of these idiots who actually believes an ideology.

Monday, June 18, 2018

How ordinary women think, how intelligence works, how people become bipolar, why news is ignorant

Intelligence level can be defined as the ability to delay a knee-jerk reaction.

Now imagine a mind that cannot suppress a knee-jerk reaction, that just drifts from emotion to emotion, everything provoking a knee-jerk reaction, with no sense of moral obligation, with no idea that a moral obligation would ever get in the way of a feeling, that there are morals that would make you obligated to suppress you emotions sometimes. Imagine a person who is so totally dominated by knee-jerk reactions they think like an animal, see no reality outside of themselves, and have an effective IQ below 70 even if the can do calculus, because what you are imagining is a mind where even the pretense of self-accountability is never entertained, where logic is not required, where there is no world outside what she feels, and what you have imagined is the mind of an extreme female brain. She lives in a world where every thought is an attempt to articulate a feeling that she is certain is absolutely true. I know what this world is like because I used to be INFJ, and am now INTJ. Such a mind believes that feelings are the basis of truth, that attempts to argue facts are about deceiving and oppressing people — about ignoring their lived experience. Truth is supposedly about articulating that which is within so that it can change that which is without, it is the feeling that drives the conclusion over what is real.

This is why you can game a woman of regular IQ so easily. All you have to do is provoke all the right knee-jerk reactions and she will provide the emotional justifications for sleeping with you. Remember that you are basically talking to her body and not her mind.

Asperger's mimics genius for a reason. A person with Asperger's has an extreme male brain, views the world in terms of facts, numbers, logic, definitions, etc. Everything is objective to the point where the feelings of others may not seem real other than the fact that they inexplicably exist even though they should not. People are a mystery. Their intentions are hard to decipher. They are always getting upset when it is totally inappropriate. If the sperg does understand people, and he understands them from the outside, as an entomologist understands insects: they are all patterns of predictable irrationality.

Intelligence advances the more knee-jerk reaction is delayed. Thought is a series of steps. If a person observes a behavior and comes to a conclusion that is one step of logic. If a person simply reacts emotionally that is < than 1 step of logic. If a person goes through 2 steps of logic they exhibit behavior characteristic of a higher IQ person. If 3 steps of logic they exhibit behavior even higher in intelligence, at 4 steps, at 5 steps, higher and higher. An artificially intelligent superintelligence would go through so many steps it would run hundreds of simulations for all probable events. Each simulation would represent hundreds or thousands of steps of logic.

A person's intelligence is defined by how knee-jerk they are, or in other words, the point at which emotion sabotages their ability for continued thought: the more knee-jerk the more stupid.

Logic can get compulsive: a person who suppresses their emotions long enough may develop a bi-polar hypomania. Trauma can be related to hypomania. If a person suppresses their emotions during a traumatic event and develops a persona "trigger" around the subject matter of the trauma, then the combination of trigger and "repetition compulsion" may cause bipolar hypomania which is caused by a trigger.

Say a person is raised by drug addicts, and develops a trigger on the subject of people behaving irresponsibility. Repetition compulsion is the behavior where a person gets themselves into another stressful or traumatic situation because they are trying to gain power or mastery over the feelings of powerlessness they felt in the past. The person suppressed their emotion during a traumatic event, thus, they suppressed the thing that sabotages thought, and returns the brain to an emotional state — to a resting state, because emotion returns the brain to a resting state and prevents both genius and mania.

Combined with repetition compulsion, they unconsciously seek out the stimulus that triggers them, subject themselves to it, and become manic because they cannot turn off their racing thoughts. Because the past trauma is consuming them, they see their personal trigger everywhere, and engage in repetition compulsion with every manifestation of it. The are constantly cycling through some kind of hypomania as a result.

There is another form of mania, or pure mania, that is when a person cannot turn off their knee-jerk reactions, and they have an emotionally driven thought process where the first emotion COMPELS them to experience another emotion, and another, and another, because a trigger set it off. These people suffer from real mania, rather than just the more calm version of hypomania. Mania is driven by compulsive feeling, while hypomania is driven by compulsive thought. A genius is not a manic, though there are manic geniuses. The difference is that a regular genius can turn his flood of thoughts off while a manic cannot.

A sperg cannot turn emotion on.

So there are 4 types.

Compulsive thought: a hypomanic. Bipolar II.
Compulsive emotion: a manic. Bipolar I.
Voluntary ability to engage in emotional self-suppression: genius.
Involuntary emotional self-suppression: sperg. Autism.

When faced with an external threat to survival people will engage in emotional self-suppression in order to raise their ability to solve problems. This can become a chronic crunch that ruins a persons emotional health, or makes them abusive towards others. Similarly, one who never gets trained by parents to control emotional outbursts may develop an hysterical personality.

A person can become a genius by suppressing their emotions. They can also try to become a genius this way, and develop symptoms of bipolar disorder, so it is not recommended to try too hard.

A persons politics is based on the number of steps of logic they go through before encountering a knee-jerk reaction. Humans evolved in societies where losing political arguments could get you killed or ostracized, so the brain is wired to win arguments, and politics is the most compulsive and least logical subject there is, and the entire field is undeveloped as a result. A pile of Noble prizes are waiting for anyone who can think logically where politics is concerned. A person can think rationally about chemistry for 10 years straight, but cannot think logically about politics for 10 minutes straight. Politics is so irrational it corrupts even the subjects nearby with its motivated cognition.

As a person becomes more capable of suppressing knee-jerk reactions they move up the IQ scale and their politics changes.

Imagine that a college professor say something simple, like "when you impose rent control on housing units you cause rental prices to rise on all the surrounding units."

Interpretation of this statement will change based on the IQ of the listener.

At 90 IQ a person will hear "the professor is making excuses for capitalism. He is trying to fuck me over."

At 100 IQ the person will think "The only reason that rental costs rise on the surrounding units is because the landlords are greedy, and they are getting revenge on people."

At 110 IQ a person will begin to interpret the statement correctly. They will think something like, "so what the professor is saying is that by limiting the price of rent a shortage of units is created because it decreases the financial incentive to build housing, and this causes a decrease in supply that raises the rent on all the other units."

At 120 IQ a person will think, "limitations on the supply of housing cause an increase in the prices of the surrounding units, duh, but the limitations are themselves caused by special interests who want to inflate prices for their own profit, and by entrenched neighborhood groups trying to discriminate against minorities."

At 130 IQ a person will think, "limitations increase costs, discriminate against minorities with high crime rates, (so that's OK). All the other logic has already been intuitively grasped.

Notice what happened here? At 90 IQ no logic occurred, only a knee-jerk reaction, or a reaction driven by emotion. At 100 we get an attempt at a single step of logic, but it is still probably wrong. At 110 we get a correct interpenetration of the statement being made, since the statement is a 110 IQ statement, and requires that level to understand. It is 2  steps of logic. At 120 we get 3 steps;

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.

At 130 IQ 4 steps enter the picture.

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. because of genetics the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.

At 140 we reach 5 steps.

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.
  • 5. the whole situation is caused by the lie of egalitarianism.

150 IQ;

  • 1. limitations cause shortage.
  • 2. shortage raises rents.
  • 3. high rents are discriminatory.
  • 4. the people discriminated against are mostly troublesome.
  • 5. the whole situation is caused by the lie of egalitarianism.
  • 6. the structure of democracy must change or be overthrown for problems like that to be solved.

A person can "push" their intelligence above what comes naturally by suppressing emotion and going through more steps the slow way. To do this safely you have to avoid emotional disregulation and take breaks, and do it slowly. A lot of academic stress is caused by people pushing themselves to understand subjects that are above their natural IQ. Higher math is an example of this, having been developed by people in the 190 range.

The pattern will mimic itself in all politics. Immigration is about simple ideological ticks at 90 to 120, and thoughts about dysgenics only come into play at 150. There are steps of logic beyond 150 where we begin to come up with solutions, but ideas like genetic engineering, statriarchy, and family capitalism will be unconvincing to people, since they involve 6 or more steps of logic, and the person has no way of evaluating that kind of thought, since they simply can't push their logic that far, or aren't knowledgeable enough to anticipate the consequences of these ideas. At a high enough level of problem complexity humanity runs into the problem where even the experts can't develop solutions for technologically-induced problems since they are pushing the limits of their own cognition.

Pardon my knee-jerk, but this is a fucking disaster since the number of people in Earth with 160 + IQs are less than 1 in 11,307, and if people in these super high rages can't figure it out, and if the problems keep getting more complex, then the human race is simply fucked in the face of overwhelming technological forces beyond its comprehension. This is why I have advocated for a genetics revolution in IQ. What happens is that the level of problems outstrips the IQ of the population to solve them. It is a kind of ultimate problem, this problem of being too stupid to handle your own technology, and it happens in other societies at a lower level. Right now in Cape Town South Africa there is a water crises, and the city is in danger of running out of water. It is hard to imagine that the Chinese, Scandinavians, or Arabs would let an entire city run out of water, but this is Africa and the median IQ is 77. The point here is that technology already exceeds the natural ability of IQ in some parts of the world. The higher the level of technology, the fewer people on earth can understand its moral, political, and environmental consequences.

There are only one person of IQ 115 for every 5.74 people. At 130 there are only 1 for every 96.96 people. This affects how the media works, and how many readers you can get. The more knee-jerk the news report the more people it will appeal to, and the more clicks, views, and ratings it will get. There is a reason journalism is one of the lowest IQ majors. Conversely, the more logical an article is the smaller its audience will be. This is worsened by the fact that highly educated people often specialize, and thus, break their minute community of information into a bunch of little subject-based slices. In consequence, neoreaction and other 5 + logical step subjects are really, really, really, tiny. Add to this multiple languages in the world, so that the world's population of high IQ people cannot communicate with each other, small languages where there might only be a few people in the entire country with that IQ, all working in different fields, and you get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Academics used to all speak Latin in order to expand their small community of geniuses.

Controversy sells because at 115 IQ there are 20 times as many people willing to read your product as at 130 IQ. Outrage modulates readership: the more outrage the more readers can understand your product. The key to large news circulations is manufacturing outrage so you can catch and hold the attention of the 95 - 120. This necessarily means not really understanding anything.

Journalism majors are low IQ because anyone smarter instinctively realized that the business depended on stupidity and controversy for existence, that to make money in journalism you had to NOT understand the issues fully, since a smart writer would be falsely perceived as a sociopath by a dumber audience, and run out of the profession by their stupid peers. Most likely anyone smarter already instinctively grasped the fact that there is no place in journalism for actually understanding anything, and they self-selected themselves out of the profession. Maybe they got sick of it later when they saw the business from the inside. Stupidity sells, and only stupid people can be consistently outraged enough by reality to sell it. Smart people don't get outraged by reality. It's reality.

If you want to get dumb people to understand high ideas your have to map out the entire sequence of logical steps involved in understanding that concept, and then get them to remember each conclusion you make by wrapping it is an emotion sufficiently strong enough to hold their attention. You drag the logic out, jerking their emotions with each and every step of logic, building one piece of logic upon another, and dragging them towards your conclusion. You avoid being perceived falsely as a sociopath by demonizing the source of social dysfunction. You have to produce outrage for each and every point you are trying to make, produce that outrage against an external target, and hold their attention long enough to drag them through all 6 or 7 steps of logic. The best medium for this is the documentary. Unfortunately the right has allowed the left to feed people the wrong conclusions, and the most skilled provocateurs are all liars and leftists, and never move beyond 2 steps.

You have to do this or they will get bored and forget what you have said. You have to do this without getting hung up on any particular detail. Infuriate and feed a conclusion, infuriate and feed the second conclusion, infuriate and feed the third, infuriate and feed the fourth., etc. You have to make sure you are angering them against other people and not yourself, otherwise they will lash out at you. Moldbug was an expert at this.

I could be wrong about the exact borders of IQ and number of steps, but the general pattern holds. Higher intelligence = longer delay before a knee-jerk reaction, and more steps in any given thought process in the meantime.


I never meant to imply that I thought domestication was automatically a bad thing when I wrote The Concise Domestication Thesis. It is what it is.

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Introducing Family Capitalism

Imagine there are two groups, one that values having children even if they cannot afford it, and another that values having money and does not want children.

Group A will out-breed Group B. They will have all of the children and none of the money.
Group B will out-accumulate Group A. They will have all of the money and none of the children.

Superficially, this will look like "rising inequality." There will be a tiny group with all the money and no kids, and a vast group with all the children and none of the money; the "rich" and "poor" respectively.

Also, it is not black and white. There will be a group in the middle that values having some money and some children. They will be called the middle class. There is no force that ensures the middle group has to have a stable existence. The wealthy are perpetuated by their continuous preference for money over children, which destroys the competition from other business owners by limiting the number of progeny they have. If they had lots of offspring their wealth would be divided, or some of their children would go into business for themselves, either of which would tend to multiply competitors. In contrast, the poor are also self-perpetuating since their preference for children they cannot afford keeps them poor. The middle class, on the other hand, faces genetic decline if it starts acting like rich people, and financial decline if it starts acting like poor people; it is buffeted from both directions, since children are expensive and cut into the time needed to run a business.

Since IQ is positively correlated with valuing money more than children, the world will become radically unequal, dysgenic, and stupider, as the poor relentlessly expand and the rich relentlessly decline in number.

The connection between valuing wealth over children, and high IQ, is probably due to centuries of income being connected to birth rates under the feudal system. If you live in a society with high infant mortality rates, people who have children they cannot afford may have more children, but their children die in greater numbers. It makes sense that most humans would come to prioritize having sufficient income before having children, since their children would live to adulthood more often if they did, and greater survival selects for responsible family planning attitudes. On a farm children are also an asset rather than a liability, since they provide labor. Whereas in a city they are purely and expense you cannot recoup.

In the modern world these two aspects, income and birth rates, are detached from one another. Infant mortality rates are low, so poor children do not die as often as they used to, female education rates are high, so the smartest women have the fewest children because they waste their reproductive years in college, and no one lives on a farm, so children are a financial liability rather than an asset.

But what if they were an asset?

All this is exacerbated by Baby Boomers who work with governments to inflate housing prices to enrich themselves, by lobbying local governments to restrict the housing supply, which has the side effect of raising rents on their own children. If housing prices are high young people cannot afford children and everything implodes.

We need a way to make children an asset in such a manner that the reproduction of the next generation is aligned with the profit of the current generation. We also want parents to have a stake in the reproduction of their children so they vote accordingly.

Men and women have different needs. Let first work out two methods for how children might become a financial asset. It will become evident why one method is appropriate for women and not men, and the other vice versa.

Method 1: The Method for Daughters and Granddaughters

Every parent is entitled to 5% of a daughters income, for a total of 10% of income collected by the couple. The income starts accumulating when the girl starts working and is deposited into a locked account. The parent can invest the money but not withdraw it, and once the daughter has a child of her own the parents can unlock the account and make a withdraw.

If a daughter never produces a child the parents can unlock the account by selling it nor earlier than age paternal 70, to a broker, who the receives the income right.

You get the money locked away that is already yours and whatever fee the buyer pays you for income rights to the future income of your daughter. A daughter can "forward" up to 10 years worth of payment obligations to her own daughter, whose bill is calculated by taking the average income of the daughter up until then, multiplying it by 10%, and then attaching the bill to the granddaughter(s) financial obligation. If there are more than 1 granddaughter the obligation is split by all the granddaughters that are descended from that daughter, and the obligation starts on the granddaughter(s) 18 birthday(s), or whenever she/they start working, whichever is later, and the obligation is divided over 20 years. Forwarded time must only be used to have children, and one may only take a maximum of 2 years per child. Falsifying forwarded time constitutes fraud, and carriers a steep criminal penalty.

Say a couple has a baby girl when they are 20 years old, and the daughter begins working at age 17. She works until 75, and takes 10 years off from work to raise children, "forwarding" that bill to her own two daughters, (her parents granddaughters), which descend from her. The initial grandparents have a total of 3 children, 2 girls and 1 boy.

As a result the daughter earns a living for a total of 48 years, (75 - 17 = 58 - 10 years off = 48 years).

Adjusting for inflation she makes an average of 38,000 for each year of work, for a total of 1 million 824 thousand dollars of income.

(48 years x 38,000 = 1.824 million).

Each parent gets 5%, for a total of $ 91,200 dollars per parent.

The 2 granddaughters start working when they are 18, and they both make the same average pay as their mother, (38 K), so collectively pay 3,800 each into the grandparents fund, per year for 10 years, bringing the total payout to the grandparents to $220,400.

However, since the grandparents had her when they were both 20 and they both die when they are 85, and the daughter has her first kid at 20 and stops working at 75, the grandparents miss collecting 10 years worth of income, and so the total number of years of income is only 58 years, with 10 of those years being paid for by the granddaughters.

(Age of first conception + age of daughters first employment) minus (age of granddaughters conception + age of grandparents death).

(20 + 17) - (20 + (75-10)) = 48 years of work x 3,800 per year = $ 182,400 total.

This money is paid from the time the daughter has her own first child at age 26 until the death of the grandparents at the grandparent age of 85, 10 years before the daughters retirement.

  • Age of grandparents at daughters conception: 20
  • Age of daughter at first grandchild's conception: 26
  • Age grandparents were when they received their first payment: 46
  • Age when daughter first started working: 17
  • Age of grandparents when they both died: 85
  • Age of daughter when she retired 10 years after death of grandparents: 75
  • Number of years daughter continued to work after age 26, while grandparents were still alive: 39 
  • Average yearly salary of daughter: $38,000
  • Grandparents take: 5% per parent, for a total of 10%.
  • Initial payment to both grandparents: $34,200 lump sum and 316.66 per month for 39 years thereafter, with a 10 year gap in payments. (Subtract the 10 years she didn't work because she had a daughter of her own).
  • Total "bumper payment" from both granddaughters for the 10 years the mother didn't work: $38,000 total, or $19,000 each, divided over 20 years or 240 months, for a total of 79.17 per month per granddaughter.

The grandparents have a second daughter who makes exactly the same average salary per year, so multiply everything above by 2.

Total payout to the grandparents by their 2 daughters: $ 364,800

Now let us imagine that they have a son who makes and average of $75,000 per year. Sons are calculated differently using Method 2, which is simpler.

Method 2: The Method for Sons and Grandsons

We don't care if sons take time off from work to raise children since their wives can handle that. We also don't care as much if the son has sons of his own. Our goal is to maximize his income.

The son also owes his parents 5% each parent for a total of 10%. But there is no requirement that he have children for the parents to receive payout. The money from his paycheck is withheld until he has at least one child of his own, or until he reaches age 45, whichever is first.

The strategy with sons is therefore, invest in your sons for maximum income and marry them off. While the optimum strategy for daughters is turn them into brood mares so you can get paid immediately, and so you don't have to lose money by selling your income rights to a broker.

You can sell the income rights in daughters to a broker if they do not produce children, since production of children, or sale no earlier than parental age 70, is required for withdraw, but you can not sell the income rights for sons, since you will get paid if they reach 45 and you are still living.

With an average income of $75,000 the son produces a take home of 3,750 per year, per parent. If the son also begins working at 17, and the parents have him when they are 21 (he is the middle child), the the son begins accumulating income in a locked account when the parents are 38. If he is a bachelor the parents can withdraw from that locked account when he is 45, (making them 66 at the time), and they will receive a haul of $210,000. In addition, they will continue to receive $625 per month for the rest of their lives. They will live until age 85, and so collect another $142,500 over the course of 19 years.

The total income from all three children is therefore $ 709,700 broken down as follows;

  • First lump sum payment of $34,200, and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 1, starting when the parents are 46.
  • Second lump sum payment of $34,200 and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 2., starting when the parents are 49.
  • Third lump sum payment of $210,000 and $652 per month thereafter from the son, starting when the parents are age 66.
  • A total of $1,285.32 in monthly income coming from all three children at age 66.

Cha-ching. Don't we love family values?

(Daughter No. 2 technically begins working 3 years later than Daughter No. 1 and therefore the total haul is $709,700, or $7,800 less than what you would think).

Now add this to the normal Social Security you get and retirement is looking somewhat comfortable. Naturally, smart parents will want to maximize the income of their children by pushing them into high paying careers. This may have a negative effect on college enrollment since parents will prefer to maximize aggregate income of the child's entire lifetime. Anything that delays work delays profit. The best strategy is to get them working and earning money at a young age, push them into some high paying trade that only requires a couple of years of education, and have the daughters take a few years off work to crank out a bunch of kids so the parents can get the payoff right now. Then use the payments your getting from your children to get a mistress and a second round of kids.

Breed. Train for high income. Get you kid a high paying job. Repeat.

Alternately you may specialize by training most of your kids for high income while having a few of them produce grandchildren. Or you might start a business to ensure they all have high incomes, or you might pass on the family trade to all of your sons, or have a brother train your sons in his high income trade. Whatever the case, the parents will want to get their child into a high paying job, and get them married off to produce grandchildren.

Of course the children will want to repeat the process because of their own greed. And the grandchildren, and great grandchildren. . .

Remember that all of these calculations are before decades of investment interest are calculated in. This money is not sitting idle. At 8% interest an initial investment of $100,000 compounded over 30 years will yield $1,006,265.69.

Transferable or Non-transferable Rights

Don't give me any horseshit about this constituting slavery, since by that definition all redistribution already is. The welfare state enslaves the productive to the degenerate, Social Security enslaves the young to the old, and liberals enslave the young, productive, and White to the old, degenerate, and brown. They do not actually have a problem with with exploitation and racism. If they did they would not have conspired with regulators to artificially inflate rents in the coastal cities they control. If they did they would not be using those same artificially inflated rents to exclude minorities and poor people. Either they are as racist as the people that hate, or they are so power hungry and conscience free as to place power above their morals. Liberals don't hate inequality; they love sanctimony and power.

Family capitalism represents a property right in the income of children. That right may be transferable or non-transferable. If it is transferable then the parent can cash out the right by selling it to a broker. The broker is going to want to get the son or daughter the highest paying job possible in order to maximize his own take. But the effort he spends on hooking the kid up with a well paying job will never exceed what he expects to make, and he will focus on the ones who show promise the most, and will be unwilling to take lazy and degenerate kids as clients. The brokers job will be to (a), identify the ones with unused ability who are being underpaid by the market, (b), use his connections to get the kid a high paying job, and (c), collect the resulting rents.

Since the broker will always have that kid as a client, so long as he owns the income right, he will always be looking to get him paid more, and map out his career progression. This is like having a social worker who occasionally calls you up to try to add thousands to your salary. "Hey, we have this new position that will help you progress in your career. It pays 18 thousand more than you are currently making. Want the job?"

With transferability there may be an economic incentive to enslave the lazy into jobs where they can be put to use. A criminal might cost money to society as a hoodlum, but getting him into a job as a heavy machinery operator or something might generate a large profit. What if he doesn't want the extra money? What if he would prefer a low paying life of crime over a higher paying life of profit? Then lobbyists might pressure the government to allow them enslave troublesome, but potentially profitable minorities, the same way they endlessly pressure the government to increase the level of slavery/redistribution against White men. Behold the horrific spectacle of a Black guy being forced to make too much money.

If income rights in children are non-transferable then parents cannot sell those rights right away, which means they cannot invest the profits from sale right away, which means that the spendthrift cannot blow those profits as quickly. Making income rights transferable lets those with low time preference invest at an early age, taking the lump some payment early to get more compound interest from investment later, while letting the stupid piss away their wealth faster, while encouraging the system to change the law and enslave troublesome people with potential. Prohibiting transferability does the opposite of all of this; it wastes talent, puts the income in the hands of parents who have less skill at making that income go up, gives the kid fewer job connections, and subsidizes high time preference degenerates by making them wait for the money.

Birth Defects Versus Longer Telomeres

A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome. The longer it is the longer lived an organism tends to be. Paternal age is associated with greater telomere length in male sperm, which codes for longer lived offspring. Many octogenarians are the result of multiple generations of men having children in old age. In contrast to this, the older a woman is the more birth defects her eggs will have. Paternal age is productive for health in offspring while maternal age is destructive.

Method 1 is designed to get women to hurry up and have children, since their period of fertility is shorter and young maternal age is associated with positive genetic benefits. Method 2 is designed to allow men to have children at a later age so they can concentrate more on earning income to support a family, and because longer telomeres breed longer lived children. Any method is possible and this post is just meant as an example.

How Do You Do This In a Democracy?

In a democracy only collective and publicly managed slavery is legal. How do you adapt this for commie madness? Why you collectivize it of course.

You peg Social Security payouts to the number of children people have. You do all the same crap but you call it a childcare benefit, and you have the government administer it. It's all about branding. Slavery is fine if it's "the will of the people."

FYI: this whole system of partial property in the incomes of children could be a plausible alternative to Social Security under a system of anarcho capitalism, so long as the patch of sovereignty is willing to use the courts to enforce it. But don't expect it to spontaneously work without enforcement.

Friday, June 15, 2018

The terrible psychosis of asexual women

Running in the circles that I do, moving in succession through radical right, and radical left, and back again, I meet a lot of interesting characters on the right, and batshit insane characters on the left.

Every asexual woman I have met was a power obsessed monster. If you want proof of this ask them their views on rape, and you will discover they all have a "rape for me, but not for thee" view of sexual assault. You will find that they believe that a man who even looks at them the wrong way is "oppressing them, and using violence" while simultaneously believing that a transgender "women" can have sex with a straight male without disclosing the fact, or being guilty of rape. You will find that they think it is alright for a woman to murder her husband in cold blood because he beat her 6 months ago, "because she is being oppressed," but that a man murdering a "transwoman" because it lured him into sex without disclosing what it was, is totally unacceptable, even though if you fail to tell someone you have altered your body to look female and they believe you are female then you have engaged in homosexual rape by deception, and murder is a completely justifiable reaction to being raped, since it is self-defense.

Rape by deception is still rape, just like command rape is still rape. (Command rape is when a military officer uses threats or blackmail to force a subordinate to provide sexual favors).

Liberalism is always riddled by contradictions. Everything is a construct accept victimhood, which is considered the only thing that is real. Everything is rape except the rape of straight men by women, and by "traswomen." Everything is racism except their racism. Everything is power except their will to power. Racism is "power plus prejudice," but nevermind that the fact that the left is always in power, and always prejudiced against White men.

These "asexual" women all believe they have a right to rape men, and therein lies the true nature of their so-called asexuality. Inevitably these women are in the process of "changing their gender" in order to "become men" (something which is delusional and impossible of course).

And the desire to become a man is not the desire to become a man, because these creatures only understand their sick caricature of masculinity. "All men are rapists" they say, while they surgically alter their bodies to become rapists/men.

Because they think masculine sexuality = rape, and thus, by becoming men they seek to become rapists, to recover the sexuality they have lost through self-sterilization, through the will to power, through the inversion of sexuality against itself. Asexuality is not the absence of sexuality but the presence of a will to use sexuality to annihilate sexuality.

In women, the will to power is self-sterilizing. All the defense ministers of Europe are childless. Feminism lowers birth rates because the pursuit of power by any woman destroys her sexuality. Female sexuality is by nature a receiver of sexual conquest, and not a giver. Among those women who give sexual power, all are dykes playing the masculine role. Among those lesbians who receive it they are still playing a sort of feminine role. A woman who can play neither the role of straight receiver or gay receiver, nor the role of gay giver, is directing the will to power against her own sexuality, and destroying her sexuality in the process. She is "asexual" as a result.

Every "asexual" woman I have met has implied or told me that she thought it was morally acceptable to put men in prison on false rape charges. Some have even admitted to it publicly at a dinner table in front of other people and myself. All of them were solipsistic to the point of believing that because they felt it was rape, that it actually was, even though no crime was committed, and they could not tell that an objective reality even existed.

The sexual compulsion here is to use sexuality to destroy, to destroy others with sex, to destroy herself with sex. Sex is supposed to be a creative act, since its normal state it leads to procreation, and since procreation is how the species propagates itself. Asexuality is the denial of life, or love, or procreation, of self, or creative capacity, or joy, of any ability to find children worthwhile or fun. Asexuality is the desire for self-annihilation, for suicide, for auto-genocide, for castration, for the end of one's race, one's species, one's survival. Asexual women are the single most dangerous and destructive people you will ever meet, especially if you are male, since the will to castrate herself becomes the will to castrate you, since the madness of suicide can easily become the madness of genocide. Because in the desire to take herself out she will try to take everyone with her.

Asexuality is the ultimate expression of protestant values, since one is never good enough, the flesh is weak, self-denial is required, children are considered worthless, joy is a sin, the body is disguising, masturbation is not engaged in, giving birth is like vomiting, take up your cross and bear it, sacrifice yourself to a vile mob because Jews demand it, destroy yourself for others, "morality." Asexuality is the perfection of self-annihilation and self-sacrifice inherent in the Christian dogma. No doubt the asexual sees herself as morally superior for destroying herself, and destroying those around her. Asexuality is the political worship of death made manifest and internalized psychologically as sexlessness; it is what happens when you politics/religion destroys your sexuality.

Avoid asexual women like you life and freedom depends on it, because it does.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Go-ocracy Rewritten

I have decided to re-write portions of the original go-ocracy post in order to make upgrades to the design. For the original article, click here.


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.

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.

The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.

Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive courts, each of which can fulfill the role of a supreme court according to a process of selection. The rest of the time when an individual court is not fulfilling this role, it fulfills the role a district court might normally fill. There is no circuit court level.

A supreme court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Allow me to 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 94 district courts. Each player fills out a card with a rank ordering of 48 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (48). 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 one overlap, and exactly one.

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 someones 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.

The Way Rules Get Made

Federal laws, aka., game rules are proposed in a parliament, 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. New constitutional rules may be created but the original ones may not be repealed. 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 a number of years n, to which the integer 2 is added, and then rounded up.

For example;

A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.

.65 - .50 = .15

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = n

n + 2 is 9.5

9.5 rounded up is 10 years.

The new game rule shall be in effect 10 years, and then automatically expire.

New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire. Any formula can be used. The point is to make federal laws temporary so that meddling in game play is kept to a minimum, and system diversity preserved.

How The Federal Government is Appointed

Using a process similar to the one described for the supreme court, a selection process occurs for who shall be appointed to a unicameral elected House of Game Players.

One player files a "Notice of Argument" against another. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would chose as a neutral third party. Instead of having players vote for federal representatives the format is like a series of fights where a third party is chosen for each argument. One does not seek power in this system, one cooperates with another player to choose a neutral player for power. Typically, strong players will choose weak or distant players as their third parties.

Just like when choosing an arbiter, when each player is choosing a representative, each of them makes a list of rank-ordered preferences with 50% + 1 of the members in the system. Each time a player is selected for a seat in the House a vote is recorded for that player. No more than one notice of argument may be filed per player with any other player. The 100 players with the highest number of votes fill the seats of the House. Law making then proceeds just like it would with a regular parliamentary system, except that bills must be approved by the direct vote of a majority of the population in accordance with the procedure outlined in Part III.

Discovery of a Method

The definition of a republic has never been fully clear, and has always relied on some assertion that republics differed from direct democracies because they upheld the ethical principle of individual rights, and that republics have representative rather than direct rule. While this distinction is technically correct, (rights vs. majority rule, representative vs. direct), it lacks precision and specificity. It is much simpler to say the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is simply a game-based form of government, while the latter has the game subject to a referee and rules. Viewing republics as systems built on games brings a remarkable clarity to political science, and also shows the way forward to developing other designs for systems, possibly even communist republics that actually work. It also allows the introduction of predictive elements, since games can be modeled with AI, can be played at a small scale before being played at a large scale, and can be designed iteratively. This opens the door to knowing in advance whether or not your communist revolution will work, or at least knowing that it has a pretty good chance of working. For ethical reasons complex systems must be simulated beforehand, and game design bridges the gap between theory and praxis. It is not morally acceptable to try a system without proof that it will work, and games modeled with AI can provide that proof. Marxism could never be as ethical as this, since no amount of words can compensate for observation of game play. The Founding Fathers were on essentially the right track before being derailed by the charlatan or Trier. If the deadbeat had known what he was doing he would have given us a constitution instead of a manifesto.

Furthermore, the whole point of a game-based political system is the rules. Having a game that decides how power is allocated suppresses the natural tendency of humans to engage in a violent struggle for power, since the power hungry do not really want to risk their lives to get it, and the game itself provides an excuse for the much more important introduction of constitutional rights, since rights are limits on game play, and keep them game working by limiting its viciousness. Seen in this light the game itself is simply the brilliant excuse for the rule of rights. Laws are restrictions on the people, but game rules are restrictions on the state, and that is wonderful. Games give you an excuse for rights.

With all of this knowledge we now understand that the correct way to seek a greater perfection of government is an iterative method that involves a sequence of events. First a literal game is developed, and it is played at a small scale with different individuals forming the three elements of any republican game; (a.) players/parties etc., (b.) referees (supreme court). and (c). the people who give their consent to be governed. The game is played in real life so that the kinks can be ironed out and the rules perfected. This is done for any new republican design. Ideally, the first step would involve a massively multiplayer online game that includes things like virtual currency and allows for bribes and side economies in order to predict the effects of corruption on the system. Once this is done, the second step is building a city-state to perform further real life analysis. And once that is done then, and only then, can you implement things at a larger scale. But something tells me revolution will never be necessary if your system is truly an improvement over the status quo, since it will be wildly popular by then anyway, and have proven results.

A form of patchwork is the ideal outcome of this. That is, a world where a thousand city-states compete for citizens, operating under a hundred different forms of government. Not a utopia of some worldwide monolithic communist dictatorship, from which no one can escape, but a series of competing systems where escape is the very essence of it all.

Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that anything becomes sacred if there is enough dust on it.

Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; (1) hierarchies, (2) "games" (republics), and (3) "anarcho capitalism."

In other words,

  • Pure hierarchies (dictatorships)
  • Games controlled by a hierarchy (republics)
  • Games not controlled by a hierarchy (anarcho capitalist markets).

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always join one faction or another. There are two major parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round. In contrast to a majority rule system, players govern their clients directly, and do not share power with anyone else, and in contrast to the layers of majority rule that comprise a federal republic, the only place majority rule exists is the top level, and there are no elections to get there, unless you count being in "the top 100" of non-threatening preferences an election.

Meta Rules of Republican Game Design

There are essential principles that govern the development of all political systems based on games. These principles are meta rules, meaning "rules governing the construction of rules." The first two of these are that (1), the system must be based on the consent of the governed, that (2), the people must not be intimidated by power, and that (3), no permanent winner must ever emerge. From these three meta rule all other rules flow, for example;

In a democracy the consent of the governed is obtained through votes, while in a go-ocracy it is obtained through delegation. Consent is essential, otherwise you do not have a free society. Even anarcho capitalism contains an element of consent by creating a transferable property in justice.

Next, you must prevent the usage of coercion against individual citizens by players or political parties of the game. In the past, political parties would beat up voters and send them to the polls to vote over and over again. Voter registration combined with the secret ballot was used to put an end to this practice. Political parties still use handouts to buy votes, and immigration is used to manipulate the outcome of elections. One particular political party in America has even at one time in history or another used gangs to ethnically cleanse Whites from their neighborhoods, or used White supremacist organizations to intimidate Black voters!

Ah, the good ol' Democrats.

The problem with introducing a game where the pieces on the board must give their consent is that a dynamic tension is created between the needs of power and the laziness of the citizen. This problem exists in all game-based systems, whether democracy or otherwise, but manifests differently depending on the system. In a go-ocracy it will be more necessary than usual to prevent political players from having their own police powers or armies, since territory is what is being argued over rather than positions of power. Thankfully, in a go-ocracy it is unlikely that immigration would be used for political purposes. A go-ocracy should be free of majoritarian politics, and thus, of a two-party system. With multiple players on the board it is unlikely they could get away with manipulating demographics, and with the consent of the governed being defined in terms of space rather than popular will, the individual citizen can delegate for immigration restrictions to prohibit illegal immigrants on their property, the property of anyone who delegates to the same player, and all the public property of streets and thoroughfares in between those parcels. This aspect of space over leadership shifts society from the stated preference system of democracy to a revealed preference system. A liberal might vote to bring in immigrants to someone else's neighborhood, but never his own backyard. Go-ocracy is therefore a form of republic based on revealed preference rather than virtue signaling, since all delegations concern one's own property, taxes, and benefits. It would probably be substantially libertarian.

Lots of other rules are actually restrictions on intimidating the citizenry. If free speech is compromised then the voter has an incentive to vote for the violent overthrow of the government. The right to bear arms raises the cost of violating the rights of game players. If you think guns are fruitless against modern armies then you have not been paying attention to Americas foray in Afghanistan, and the success of the Taliban at holding back the worlds most powerful army.

Rights are economic; they raise the cost of overthrowing the game (the right to bear arms), or prevent the development of perverse incentives (free speech), or get voters to behave more rationally (separation of church and state), prevent black mail (right to privacy), keep certain things neutral (eliminating the spoils system), etc.

Lastly, no permanent winner must be allowed to emerge, or the system will convert to a dictatorship. A one-party state eventually captures the referee, (the Supreme Court) destroying the game, and foreclosing the possibility of a future challenger to power. The first aspect of democracy is there there are elections at regular intervals. A government seat is never held permanently. The second feature is term limits. A nation should have party term limits as well, just to be on the safe side. If a party holds power for too long it should automatically lose the majority after a fixed period of time. In a go-ocracy similar procedures will be needed. The game will need to have a "partial reset" every year, where all territory not held through delegation or capture is uncaptured and played over again, and a "hard reset" where all territory is released once ever four years. It will also need "player term limits" where no one player can hold a piece of territory for more than, say, 12 years concurrently, and where after 12 years someone else must capture that territory for at least 2 years. Both parties and players themselves should be limited, so that every 75 years a political party/player is dissolved and new parties/players given the chance to enter the board.

Any other game-based political system will need analogous rules for its design. These problems will spontaneously emerge as a consequence of game play, and you will need to develop rules and rights to fix that. Every set of constitutional rights will differ based on the game chosen for selecting leaders, but similar patterns will abound with all of them.

The point this entire article is to demonstrate one possible configuration for the design of an alternative republic, in order to fire the imagination of the reader, and encourage them to develop their own alternative designs.