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;
- 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.