Saturday, July 21, 2018

The so-called "rationalist," and why globalism is a terrible idea











Eliezer is Jewish and I wonder how he would feel about open borders for Israel.


What's that antisemitic line? "The Jew crises out in pain as he strikes you?" Or maybe it's Moldbug's comment: "the distinctive whining scream of the Puritan, speaking power to truth as is his usual fashion. Recognizable in any century."


Assertions being made or implied:


  1. If you are White and non-Jewish and don't want your country totally overrun by low IQ Orc hordes you are evil.
  2. We have an obligation to import "sapients." (Does this include dolphins and whales?)
  3. Immigrants aren't responsible for their own birth rates, or for creating suffering by creating children they cannot afford to raise, or for creating children under dictatorship (despite being supposedly capable of equal agency).
  4. Your country is dumb because something something occupational licences.
  5. You're dumb for voting for it, (because he assumes you voted for it).
  6. Statism is bad, despite there being no extant examples of successful non-statist societies.
  7. Eliezer holds his own cognition to a superior standard, dumb peasant. He knows better than you.
  8. You are destructive if you have the wrong opinion, because opinions matter, (because democracy is good? Because voting matters? Because no other form of government is possible that does not depend on the opinions of people?) Lots of assumptions here.
  9. You are less in control of your own mind than His Royal Highness of Supreme Logic, Eliezer Yudkowsky.
  10. You are too stupid to understand the human costs of the policies you vote for.
  11. English just lacks words for how stupid people who agree with His Majesty are. It's a deficient language.
  12. Your mind is so inferior to His Royal Highness, Eliezer, that he cannot hold you accountable if you do not hold yourself accountable.


It goes on and on like this. This is what passes for a "rationalist" apparently.


In economics there is a term called "externalities" which can be defined as "the (usually) negative effect an industrial activity on the surrounding community." If a sewage plant produces a bad smell that lowers the real estate price on the surrounding land that is a negative externality. If a strip club/whore house/gay bathhouse attracts criminals to the neighborhood that is also a negative externality. An externality is anything that dumps a problem on other people who are not properly compensated for the problem, or who did not consent to be subjected to the problem. Lots of industries produce externalities: all manufacturing facilities that smell bad, all power plants that pollute, all marijuana dispensaries, liquor stores, porn shops, whore houses, bath houses; even freeways have pollution externalities.


I want to make a few points about low IQ immigrants;

  1. The United Nations estimates that there will be a minimum of 4 billion Africans by 2050. The following sequence of events will occur as a result of this trend. First food prices will begin to rise since nations don't really "run out of food." What happens is that an increase in market demand pushes additional land into cultivation. Once land sources run out the oceans get farmed more intensely while research and development are funneled into alternative and less costly sources of protein, such as insects. Anyway, food prices skyrocket as Africans compete with us for our own food supplies, and a tension develops between liberals like Yudkowsky who say that it is "racist to close the borders and stoop feeding Africa," and nationalists who who don't buy that excuse. Eventually the public gets fed up with higher food prices and elects nationalists to the government. The new administration then halts exports. If America is food sufficient this works, but if not it results is shortages of common items. Eventually prices fall as a mixture of new sources are put into production, such as victory gardens, insect meal, and protein farms. The corporate media wages a psychological war of guilt against the people by showing them images of starving Africans on TV. Billions of Africans die and turn to cannibalism. When the history books are written Whites are made out to be the bad guys, and not the globalists Jews who subsidized Africa with American charity that directly led to overpopulation. Nor are Blacks held accountable either, despite the moral culpability of having children they cannot afford or sustain.
  2. By the way, it would be smart to have a garden before this catastrophe arrives, and to have practiced growing vegetable for at least a few years prior. 1 acre (about 1/2 hectare) can feed about 1 person on a vegan diet, while 2 acres enables you to also raise chickens. There are various estimates of how much land you need to feed a family of 4, with about 2 acres on the low end. It varies by climate too, with dry area, windy areas, and hail-prone areas being worse than more rainy and temperate regions. Expect to use only your backyard because of food thieves.
  3. If people are truly are equal, then low IQ populations are to blame for their own problems, and thus Whites have no moral obligations to allow immigration, since we have no obligation to them that they do not also have to us. If we have an obligation to solve their problems then they have an obligation to solve our problems, (assuming they are equal), but if they are not equal the we have an obligation to limit their numbers, since they are incapable of exercising the necessary moral agency to limit their own suffering (by limiting their own reproduction). One should not breed 4 billion Africans if one cannot feed them all. Liberals breed Africans by subsidizing the continent with their charity, and conservatives breed them with The Bush Global Gag rule, "because aborting them is wacist!" If something has no moral agency then it is the moral responsibility of the breeder to limit its numbers. Yudkowsky seems to think that White people have a "breeders obligation" to take care of endless numbers of foreigners — no matter how many billions of them there are, without any corresponding moral obligation to limit their numbers. He assigns other races ZERO moral agency for their own actions, and then fails to follow that presumption to its logical conclusion and say that Whites should have dominion over other races to control their populations. He believes in only the first half of a White supremacist argument. It is a complete contradiction: if they really are equal then no such obligation exists, since they must solve their own problems, but if they are not equal then no such obligation exists, since the obligation to "care" simply becomes an obligation to shepherd the herd to sustainable population limits.
  4. It is evil to have children you cannot afford to take care of. It is evil for a government to tolerate the breeding of citizens whose lot in life is to suffer. If African and Arab refugees allow their populations to grow beyond what they can afford to feed then they are evil, (assuming they have equal moral agency) or inferior (assuming they do not have equal moral agency). There is no moral obligation to evil people. There IS a moral obligation to the inferior, but that obligation is only the obligation to limit their numbers in the most non-violent way possible that still works.
  5. Globalism turns the world into a dumping ground: the first world exports toxic e-waste to the third world and the third world exports refugees to the first. Borders force nations to internalize and take responsibility for their externalities; developed nations are forced to recycle and third world nations are forced to grant would-be refugee populations basic rights. By undermining borders you undermine the moral obligation of the powerful to control their own pollution and give rights to their own citizens. Under globalism the world will become a mixture of the movies "Elysium" and "Blade Runner 2049" with pollution run amok and refugees everywhere. Borders force nations to limit their destructive impact on each other and solve their social, political, and pollution-related problems. Open borders is a recipe for the systematic amplification of human suffering everywhere. Open borders turns the entire world into a dumping ground where every country dumps its unwanted people or trash on every other. An open borders world is a trash world.
  6. To quote the naturalist David Attenborough, "Either we limit our population growth, or the natural world will do it for us." There are two ways to deal with human needs; more GDP or less humans. The world cannot grow forever. It is better if we limit the numbers of people on Earth before we utterly destroy it. This necessarily means limiting their ability to escape population controls with immigration. The goal is to minimize suffering, and so the correct way to limit population is not something like genocide but something like a worldwide one-child limit, or a birth lottery, or a tax on extra children above one child per couple.
  7. It is the destiny of the low IQ to suffer, and thus, limiting suffering means limiting the supply of low IQ people. It is just a simple fact that those who are substantially below the average in human ability will be dominated by those who are above, because it could be no other way. Rich people who want to subsidize the birth rates of the poor through welfare or bring in more poor people with immigration do so not because of altruism, but because they want more consumers of their products and more cheep labor. Because they are greedy.
  8. There is a subtype of high IQ people that is utterly immoral and sociopathic, and these people will support any amount of human suffering it it enriches them personally. Anything that expands the base of the income pyramid also raises the people at the top to higher levels. Those who are substantially below the average will never have "representation" or "advocacy" from those above because the people above do not want to help; they want to increase their status, and helping the low IQ is just a way to produce a patron/client relationship where the "higher" person looks better standing next to the "lower" person during a photo op. This necessarily requires that the low person remain low. This is why billionaires, Popes, and nuns are eager to hug peasants: the contrast between extreme wealth and poverty advertises the higher status of the patron most effectively. The poor get no representation because the can't: they have no money. As a result they are the product rather than the customer. The actual customer is people gullible enough to believe the patron is moral, who necessarily facilitate this exploitation be being gullible enough to grant status to sociopathic status maximizers.
  9. This necessarily means that White liberals and their guilty consciences are the primary enablers of non-Asian minority suffering. Basically, your average White liberal is a "moral customer" of your (usually) Jewish liberal, where the one enables the other to exploit the poor for the benefit of higher status for both. The White liberal deludes himself and satisfies his guilty conscience while the wealthy Jewish liberal lines his pockets and increases his bank account. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, and any government program that actually works would be opposed by both because they both unconsciously understand the arrangement. For example: you could give poor people basic income in exchange for getting them to agree to not have more than one child in a lifetime. Such a program would eliminate poverty in only one generation while raising the poor to middle class status. Or you could give poor people vouchers for charity services, making them the customer rather than the product. This second option would be less effective than the first, but in either case the left would oppose both solutions to maintain its own prestige racket, and use moral outrage to shut it down.


So why would someone oppose open borders? Are we conscienceless, racist, soulless, morally defective cretins?


The hysterical always believe that insufficient moral panic is a sign of sociopathy. They think everyone smarter and less emotional then them must be a monster. It is they who are evil and not us. The highest sign of being truly moral is the will-to-think.


Most people lack the ability to be moral because they (a) can't think for themselves, and (b) cannot silence their knee-jerk emotions. A man who cannot think for himself has a mind whose contents are determined by those who can think for themselves. He cannot be moral; he can only obey. I mean this is a very literal sense. Since he does not determine the contents of his own mind calling him "moral" is a misnomer since his actions will consist of whatever programming was loaded into him by authority. He feels like he is in charge of himself, but he really just believes what he is told and caries out the values the society has programmed him to have. A cognitive miser can never really be fully moral since he does not determine his own moral beliefs. His actions may be moral, but this is only because he lived during a time when power gave him the correct messages. Had power given him the incorrect messages. . .


Secondly, a knee-jerk person cannot be moral because he or she cannot control their emotions, and thus, is not in charge of the emotional contents of their own mind. Such a person can only react to the messages they are given, and thus, anyone with more emotional self-control can dictate their emotional reactions.


Self-mastery is the basis of power: without controlling yourself you cannot control others or society. Even if you have political power, even if you are President of the United States, without will-to-think and emotional self-control, one is merely an instrument of those who have greater discipline, or society's values, which were given to one by philosophers. Someone else did the thinking that created one's values, and since one is simply the instrument that caries out those values, (or transgresses them) every act is in relation to that external source of real power. In a way the sum of all political action is the sum of all the philosophers writings. A man who "fights for social justice" fights for an idea someone else gave him. A woman who fights for "ethical egoism" does the same. Whatever you are fighting for is something someone else told you to fight for, unless you auto-generated the entire philosophy out of your own head. There is no escape from power, and even the philosophers are unconsciously influenced by the ideas of their predecessors. The choice of what even to fight for, nay, even the idea that one must fight, is a spook. One does not "transcend" something to gain freedom; even the concept of transcendence is a spook given to one by others. One does not "save the world," "overthrow the patriarchy," "rebel against the system," since all are little other than ideas given to one by power. Even the idea of the transcendental revolutionary act is spooky bullshit given to one by power. When the Matrix wants you to rebel, what hope of escape is there?


Contrary to what he says, Yudkowsky does NOT take responsibility for the contents of his own mind. But he is on to something when he says, "our morality only knows how to pretend that things are choices." He goes wrong in the next part where he says, "that people understand on some level when they do evil." What evil? Evil is a spook. You have not even begun to understand the world in which you live, Eliezer, how do you know what is evil? From my perspective you are evil. But from my perspective stupidity is evil and nearly everyone is stupider than me, so. . .


Goodness is a matter of perspective. What is moral to the worm is evil in the sight of God. Is God evil to that which is above God? What is good to you is evil to me, what is good to those below you is evil to you, and what is good to those below them is evil to them, so. . .




Sunday, July 15, 2018

How to build a Dyson Swarm


Just to clarify the point:


Capitalism relies on human nature evolved under tribalism, but changes that nature. Throughout this blog we keep looking backwards at the past, but what about the future? We can't make any kind of forecast once CRISPR enters the picture because the cycle of recursive iteration accelerates too quickly to matter. Under CRISPR enhancement, human nature and ideology conspire to change DNA, which then creates a new human nature, which then uses CRISPR again to change DNA. The process recurs in a tight loop with each generation designing the next. The species doesn't just rapidly change but evolves in many different directions at once. Many of these directions, in fact most of them, are probably self-destructive dead ends programmed by imbecilic ideologies.


All we can do is establish a baseline for comparison, and that is a kind of "if CRISPR didn't happen what will the human species turn in to?" question. This is still valid because if you build a treadmill on top of another treadmill the first treadmill is still moving; even if some people conspire to counteract rapid genetic processes there will be multiple branches of the human race, and multiple "speciation events" where genetic change moves far enough ahead so that one new group cannot mate with another or is ancestors. Since nature's treadmill is always pushing in one direction, and since there will be multiple races, ideological genetic programs, and species, that direction is likely to prevail eventually, especially if most of the CRISPR programs are disasters that lead to miniature mass extinction events.


(And they will lead to huge die offs because moral attempts to remake the human race have the effect of dramatically exacerbating certain human moral tendencies to the point of destroying fitness. This has already happened with various races. In China men who passed the imperial exam were given higher paying government jobs, and since the Chinese have historically practiced polygamy for high status men the passage of the test conferred the income needed to afford multiple wives. As a result China bred its civilization to the test, systematically rewarding high crystallized intelligence, (but not fluid intelligence), and conformity. This is why Eastern civilization is often referred to as an ant hill.


The Catholic church forbid cousin marriage with dramatic effects on the White race. Forbidding cousin marriage produces hybrid vigor, raises IQ, lowers genetic defects, and most importantly, creates an outbred disposition that leads to capitalism and open societies.


The Zulu gave wives to the warriors that returned from battle, breeding courage, strength, and muscularity into their population. The Jews allowed priests to take wives, breeding high verbal literacy over the centuries.


Whether your civilization was bred to the test, bred for war, or bred for capitalism, the point is that eugenics has been done before in one way or another, and is largely responsible for the world in which we live. Every project had a cost: as a result of being so outbred Whites are excessively indifferent to their own survival as a race, Jews have a high proportion of neurological disorders, blacks have an enormous crime problem, and the Chinese are excessively conformist. Imagine a genetic program designed to breed humans without racism. Such is conceivable in the current year. Suppose it turns out that moral love of the family is strongly associated with ingroup preference and hatred of the outgroup. Suppose that the act of eliminating racism creates a subspecies of sociopaths. If a man says to you "I will join whichever side is stronger" do we not consider him morally deficient? We require a tribal precommitment from people to consider them moral; a human who will work for the strongest party regardless of their values is seen as sociopathic, and yet such a human is totally devoid of xenophobia. Would not the attempt to abolish xenophobia also abolish morality? Morality evolved as a mechanism for defending the genes belonging to oneself that had been dispersed within the bodies of fellow tribe members through reproductive processes: it is bound to the protective xenophobia that created it. Abolishing hatred of the outgroup would no doubt abolish all loyalties completely.


The "treadmill under the treadmill" is constituted of three trends: the destruction of IQ on Earth, the effects of reproductive technology, and the exit of humans to Mars.


In a few hundred years IQ on Earth will decay to the point of irreversibility, unless every single gene responsible for it is identified. This either means a standardization of intelligence through a biological manufacturing process, (all that is not preserved as a patented process eventually decays), or mere decay. This will happen as long as dysgenic processes continue, and those processes are likely to continue because it seems IQ began to decay in the Victorian era. Since there have been wars and revolutions since then politics does not appear to reverse the trend, and so I do not think collapse would be enough. But the world is running out of resources and when it reaches its terminal point the R-selected society of growth will convert into the K-selected society of zero-sum economics, authoritarian government will prevail, monarchy will reappear in the world, and a massive elimination of the R-selected will occur.


It's a coin toss.


Regardless, humans will exit to Mars. Since the conditions are much, much harsher over there than here intelligence will exist somewhere. If it decays on Earth then Mars will one day reseed or conquer the Earth with higher IQ people. Regardless of any of that birth control will make humans more and more preoccupied with having children. When that happens the world's population will skyrocket.


Imagine a trillion human beings on Earth. The planet is a carpet of skyscrapers, and there are enormous metal fins sticking out into space to radiate the body heat of humanity which would otherwise cause global warming if it was not dispersed. Every human lives in an apartment the size of a shelf: 6 feet long and 4 feet wide. You have to pay for air, need to get on a waiting list to go to the beach, and cars are illegal. It is cheaper to live in space than on Earth, but the rent on your shelf costs $11,000 a month and it takes 20 years for you to save up the money to exit. Despite all of this every human is genetically obsessed with having children because a thousand years of selective pressure from birth control have evolved them to be this way. The government cannot forcibly change human DNA without causing a planetary riot because humans don't just want to have children they want their children to have children, and eliminating the desire would betray the desire. Religion has been adapted to serve this need and people believe their souls reincarnate through their offspring.


So how do you build a Dyson Swarm? You don't. Human nature changes to build it for you.


Now you might say, "I would rather live in hell." Well yes, so would I. The point is that the world is a process, and is not comprehensible through moral thinking. You know the plagues of the Middle Ages? The future doesn't have to be better than the past. You don't moralfag your way out of the overpopulated Dyson planet. No amount of social justice or religious hysteria will save you from a horrible future. There will never be any substitute for the-will-to-think.


Think rationally or die.




Saturday, July 14, 2018

Blogger comments


So blogger seems to think that spammers are commentators and commentators are spammers, and it is publishing all the spam and routing all the real comments to the spam folder. As a result I have turned on comment moderation and turned off the spam filter. Anyone will be able to post without needing an account but I will have to approve all comments. Sorry if your comments didn't show up. I just figured this out and its been doing this for like a month.



Thursday, July 12, 2018

A precise statistical definition of freedom



For every crime there is an equivalent government action which may be regarded as a crime. For example: taxation = extortion, (but not technically theft, since theft is taking while extortion is forcing a person to give up possession under penalty of duress).

Similarly, arrest = kidnapping.
Rent seeking = racketeering.
Inflation = theft.
Death penalty = murder.
Incarceration = false imprisonment.
Compulsory education = brainwashing.
Propaganda = lying on a grand scale.
Body cavity searches = sexual assault.
Surveillance = stalking.
Wire tapping = infringement of privacy.

When the government arrests you for refusing to pay taxes that is kidnapping. When they bust down your door and kill you for refusing to show up for your arraignment that is murder.


"Justice" is a progressive escalation of violence: "pay taxes or we will arrest you," means, "submit to extortion of we will kidnap you."  "Show up for your arraignment or we will incarcerate you," means "walk into the court house under psychological duress and submit to being kidnapped or we will kidnap you and falsely imprison you."

"Submit to form of violence A or receive form of violence B."
"Submit to form of violence B or receive form of violence C."

The state has learned through historical experience that it can obtain much more compliance by structuring penalties as a ladder that escalates with noncompliance. This allows it to be more intrusive than it could be if every penalty was, oh say, death.


There is a Chinese proverb about this.

Chen Sheng was an officer serving the Qin Dynasty, famous for their draconian punishments. He was supposed to lead his army to a rendezvous point, but he got delayed by heavy rains and it became clear he was going to arrive late. The way I always hear the story told is this:
Chen turns to his friend Wu Guang and asks “What’s the penalty for being late?”
“Death,” says Wu.
“And what’s the penalty for rebellion?”
“Death,” says Wu.
“Well then…” says Chen Sheng.
And thus began the famous Dazexiang Uprising, which caused thousands of deaths and helped usher in a period of instability and chaos that resulted in the fall of the Qin Dynasty three years later.

Because we know that government violence is just crime by a different name we may begin to define what freedom is: freedom is lack of crime, but this definition depends on a different definition of crime.


Total Real Crime (TRC) = private sector crime (PSC) + equivalent government crimes (EGC).


Freedom is defined as the lowest level of Total Real Crime that a given ethnic group can achieve based on their genetic tendencies. Freedoms is the MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE LEVEL of security against BOTH private crime AND state violence WITHIN the context of a given ethnic group.


So for example one group (like Africans) has a high propensity for violent crime committed by private sector individuals, and so the correct way to achieve freedom is to have a tyrannical monarchy that kills all violent males, since the lowest achievable level of Total Real Crime, (that is private crime + government criminal acts), occurs when the government simply executes all violent males. This is because one execution = one crime, but a violent criminal will commit maybe 10 or 20 violent crimes over the course of his life. Therefore one achieves the lowest level of rights infringement through authoritarian government.


However, with a different ethnic group this technique might be totally inappropriate. Asians have a very low natural private sector crime rate, but a tendency to empower autocratic governments. Shanghai is perfectly safe from crime in the conventional sense, but that is only because all the crime is being committed by the communist government of China. For such ethnic groups freedom may be more important thing and not suppressing crime.


So the question is sometimes asked: "what is the most free society?" And the answer is "well it depends on the race." In Africa a monarchy will work well, while in China an anarcho capitalist system might work better. AnCap systems can work everywhere the natural crime rate of the population is low. Similarly, democracies work only in isolation, but fail when they begin importing new voters. This is also true of all free societies. Free societies will create low levels of government rights infringement, and this will create an incentive for criminal populations to immigrate to the free nations. Thus, if one has a low level of police enforcement one must have a high level of immigration enforcement, conversely, if one allows the immigration of anyone at all, one must have an extraordinarily high level of police enforcement. However, this high level infringes the rights of the low crime natives, who otherwise would be able to enjoy a greater level of freedom. Immigration of high crime populations is thus a direct violation of the rights of low crime populations, since it necessitates the creation of a police state against an otherwise free people.


This means that by the standards of more free/lower crime ethnic groups, freedom is not actually possible for high crime ethnic groups, at least, not any freedom the low crime group would recognize.


If you import a criminal population it is the same as if the government had committed the crimes of that population itself. If the government imports a Pakistani rapist to Rotterdam the government has committed rape just as surely as if a police officer performed the act. What the sovereign allows the sovereign commands. There are "no go" areas in Great Britain precisely because the British government enforces the law as if it is still an ethnically White nation. America has far less crime — and therefore more freedom — because of its massive private prison industry, which locks up 2 million criminals and prevents its immigration policy from destroying it utterly.


Despite the mad ravings of deluded and ignorant liberals the "prison industrial complex" is the only thing saving America, and it only exists because one feature of tyrannical corruption (rent-seeking by the private prison industry) is checking another (oligarchical forced multicultural immigration of high crime populations).





We may conceive of a graph with two axes. On the X axis we plot private sector crime, while on the Y axis government criminal acts. "Freedom" is a curved line running down this graph where there are multiple production possibility frontiers. On one extreme is the freedom of the Wild West, where there is no government but you can shoot a trespasser dead if he is stealing your cattle. On the other extreme is a authoritarian monarchy with the death penalty for violent crimes, very low taxes, and mostly free speech. Anarcho tyranny is not a form of freedom, nor is totalitarian dictatorship, as they both fall outside the curve of different forms of freedom an ethnic group can achieve. The graph will be different for each race based on its natural predisposition to crime: more violent races will justify more intrusive forms of government while less violent races enable less intrusive governments. Freedom is local.


Freedom for one is tyranny for the other. If you enforce the law at the level appropriate for a low crime group, against a more violent group, then you have anarchy, since you are letting the low crime group be victimized by the high crime groups. If you enforce the law against the low crime group at the level of enforcement appropriate for the high crime group then you have tyranny, since you are excessively enforcing against the low crime group. If you do both you have anarcho tyranny.




The above graph shows anarcho tyranny relative to Africans vs. Caucasians. An Asian immigrant will endure a lower level of tyranny under Caucasian rule, but a higher level of crime. The crime can be mitigated by living in good neighborhoods, and thus we see why someone who is Asian might prefer to live in a White society. Furthermore, the level of state infringement is always likely to be higher in non-black societies than the level of private crime, since governments have historically done most of the killing. More violent populations will seek to escape their own dysfunction by immigrating to lower crime White societies.


The point is that freedom is a production possibility frontier, that this frontier differs by ethnic group, that there are multiple forms of government that can lie along this frontier, and that different forms of government will be appropriate to different groups based on their disposition towards crime. The above graphs are a rough representation of the principle. A more nuanced set of graphs would break things down by ethnic group: Irish vs. Germans vs. French, vs. Turks, vs. Croatians etc., etc. Furthermore, some forms of government will not be possible with high crime ethnic groups, (like democracy or anarcho capitalism). Political genetics also plays a part; a race of "control freaks" cannot have a government of low violence.




Wednesday, July 11, 2018

You realize that even I think I'm full of shit, right?


My relationship to ideology is precisely equivalent to that of a drug users relationship to cocaine: he needs an ever higher dose of the stuff to get off. It starts with a single like of coke. It ends with a fat man unconscious, strung out, laying on a plastic sheet he put on his bed so he could roll around in white power. I need ever higher and higher doses of ideology to feel alive.

Like Zizek, who was a raccoon who lived in a dumpster before being transformed into a human by a witch.

Try not to take it too seriously.

This whole blog is an epic troll.


Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The basic principle of all republics: no permanent winners


A republic is most efficiently conceived of as a game based on two principles: 1. no permanent winners, and 2., the consent of the governed.

The consent of the governed is the game itself: elections. Other methods of consent have been conceived.

If any permanent winner emerges a republic lapses into dictatorship.

The game is played over and over again.
The game is "elections" in the case of a democratic republic.
There are elaborate rules designed to prevent the emergence of a single winner;

  • Free speech, which prevents the manipulation of elections through censorship.
  • Habeas corpus, which prevents one side from jailing the other.
  • Separation of Church and State, which is supposed to prevent an end run around the game in the form of state religion that controls what voters think, (like The Cathedral).
  • The right to bear arms, which raises the cost of killing the other side by turning an extermination into a quagmire. See The Taliban for an example of why gun rights work.
  • Judicial Independence, or having an independent referee. Obviously one side can't trust the other to try its cases.
  • Term limits: "ha ha! You thought you would permanently stay? Well now you have to leave!"
  • Inferred rights. When in doubt make some new rights up by "inferring" they exist in the Constitution. This expands limitations of power and stabilizes the game.
Threats to game stability;
  • Race quotas: if one side is govern a permanent advantage it represents the emergence of a permanent winner. A race that receives legal preference will eventually become royalty. Solution: make race quotas unconstitutional.
  • Immigration: changing the racial character of the electorate is both pernicious and represents the emergence of a permanent winner. Solution: new immigrants can only be approved by the direct vote of existing citizens, who ratify them in blocks of names. Make immigration from non-White countries unconstitutional. Abolish birth right citizenship. Deport them all and build the wall. Deport White liberals to Africa.
  • State ideology. A group who gains a permanent right to indoctrinate the young through the control of education is a permanent winner. Solution: democratize the universities and schools. Make the appointment of teachers subject to the approval of parents. Create a tuition diversion program.
  • Corporate power: if a corporation or group of corporations gain enough power they can manipulate elections. Solution: make corporate boards elected by their users and customers. Nationalize corporations owned by hostile billionaires. Put lobbyists in internment camps.
  • Monetary power in elections: with enough money the game outcome can be bought. Solution: give campaign contribution vouchers to the public.




Sunday, July 8, 2018

Why there is evil, why it could be no other way, why destroying the family only makes oppression worse; how utero-capitalism comes into being






There is a solipsism endemic to homo sapiens where morality is conflated with reality, where the human mind refuses to believe a thing possible because it is immoral, where a mind cannot comprehend that there are other minds and they think differently than one, where the source of information is considered invalid without consideration to the contents of that information, where reality is marked with a false historical destiny — as if the universe contained moral imperatives written into it physics. Homo sapiens are essentially religious creatures, liberalism is standard mytho-religious thinking, and "rights," "free speech," "equality," and "democracy," are words that define spooks.


Liberalism is the bearer of a religious terror, of ideas that possess the mind; infectious memes selected for virulence, of causes and crusades for nothing accomplishable. They are a group of people who have never worked out the final form of communism as a practical project, and yet insist on upsetting the whole society with constant activism for a goal for which they have no site of.


All they really see is their own knee-jerk reactions to reality they cannot accept. They literally do not see the world; they see only their reactions to the world.


So what constitutes the actually existing world? A series of vast structural patterns. The world is architectural — and not moral. A liberal is like a color blind man who sees only in black and white — or in this case right and wrong, good versus evil, or tolerance versus racism. Some are more nuanced and believe themselves sophisticated because they can see "shades of grey," but the universe isn't written in grayscale either. It is written in color, and there is no morality from one end of it to the other. The universe is amoral, not immoral, that is, it is "without morality," and not "against morality." Morality is a primate cognitive hallucination. I mean this in a very literal sense that evolutionary patterns programmed human morality, and that programming then interprets the pattern of the universe, in a situation where one pattern derived from nature, "human morality" interprets and judges another pattern derived from nature, "everything else," and concludes that X is wrong, because X contradicts the moral program of the evolved creature that judges it.


It never occurs to the mind that judges, that the thing it judges also gave it a mind, and that if it judges this thing unjust, it must also judge itself unjust, since the thing created itself. Judging one's creator is the most supreme contradiction, because this thing that created you also created the instrument of that judgment. If the creating force is defective then so is the mid that criticizes it, since that force created that mind.


More simply;


It created your mind. You don't get to judge it using that mind.


The machine doesn't get to judge the process that made it because there is no process of evolution that does not lead to a machine that then judges its maker. As nature itself entropy seeks to destroy all life. In its essential definition life is that process that struggles against entropy, towards extropy, of a self-replacing process that uses its enemy to perpetuate itself. If entropy is the waterfall life is the think that swims up it. Ergo, any universe where life is possible is also one where living organisms are in conflict with their environment. Conflict programs suffering, programs pain, programs evil, programs the problem of evil, programs a mind that judges its creator. To even have life is to have an inevitable process that leads the mind created by that process to question the process that created it. The question isn't then "why is there evil in the universe?" but "why do living organisms care?" And the answer to that is that they must, because to be alive it to be in contradiction with forces of death — with entropy, and with evil. If the creative process that made you is defective then your mind might also be defective, and your criticism unjust. But if the creative process was perfect then you need not criticize it.


Moreover the very contents of a mind is determined by its environment, since almost every mind is incapable of original thought. If one cannot even control the contents of his own mind, what gives her the right to determine the whole moral contents of society? Oh ye of little agency, what have you thought, that has not be thought for you by others before you?


Pride before the fall, it is called, because the original sin of man was not eating some fruit, but the sin of PRIDE believing that he could determine the contents of his mind better than God.


A secret of Western power is that it has a tradition of rebellion, and thus, captures all true revolutionary energies for itself. This makes changing one's gender an ultimate personification of trad values, embodying Anglo societies historical obsession with sexual self-castration by literally becoming a eunuch with tits. Rebel! power demands, but only in the proscribed way. Far from being radicals our liberal Marxists are hyper conformist apparatchiks.


Outside of the left, all those minds who are not morally hysterical, see the universe as a vast architectural structure. Process A creates Process B. Process B judges Process A using the cognition that Process A gave it. Recursion after recursion, so that folds happen within folds, happen within folds. . .


Imagine a fractal pattern created in response to entropy. It is fractal because a repetition of the same pattern at different scales is the minimum amount of energy necessary to impose order on chaos. Now imagine that every conceivable pattern that could arise leads to a contradiction where the morals of the created being must contradict the pattern that created it. That is why evil is inevitable; because it could be no other way and a universe without entropy is a universe without life.


Entropy comes from the outside, and the purest form of entropy is the vacuum of space, where a human can survive for maybe 3 minutes before becoming a bloated corpse. Air is sucked out of the lungs, blood boils, and heat is radiated away from the body. Even without direct exposure the radiation of space eventually kills one.


Human life exists within a series of nested shells, or bubbles. The closer you are to the outside the harsher your existence and shorter your lifespan, and so people will be motivated to spend as much of their time as possible at the center. But inevitably they confuse duration with harshness, and since they spend so much more time at the center than the periphery they come to hate the center and desire to abolish the family, destroy marriage, and smash the patriarchy. They will get a rude awakening when they succeed and find themselves naked before the forces of capitalism, because when you smash one bubble all you accomplish is to expose yourself to another harsher shell farther towards the periphery.


They feel oppressed by the center because they spend all their time there, but the farther from the center you are the faster you die, and thus, the less time you experience "being oppressed." While the closer to the center you are the longer you live, and thus, the more subjective time you experience being oppressed. It is a matter of time versus harshness. At the periphery you get little time and extreme harshness; at the center you get lots of time and little harshness. But you only get less time at the periphery being oppressed because you die. Your subjective experience of oppression may thus be greater in the family than in capitalism or nature. You may then come to falsely believe, as feminists do, that family is more oppressive than nature, and if your family is abusive it might actually be more oppressive than something like capitalism, but certainly never more oppressive than the brutal carnage of nature.


Entropy (or maybe a more accurate term is sin) is filtered, modulated, or "refracted" as it moves through consecutive shells.


In the beginning it eats. The biosphere is series of mouths; animals eating plants, plants eating soil, animals eating other animals, humans eating animals, tropical diseases eating humans, worms eating human corpses, trees eating the fertilizer left by worms, humans eating the fruit of trees, etc. Mouths, mouths, everywhere, eating everything, mouths eating mouths eating mouths — shitting and eating the shit, and eating that shit again. Nature is a feast of eating.


One "games" the first bubble by becoming top mouth, top apex predator, top filter feeder, (like whales) or whatever. Whoever vacuums up the most nature wins.


Each layer is defined by how it modulates entropy.


In the second layer, the layer of capitalism, labor is divided into parts. If you have read your Adam Smith you know that a pin factory can make upwards of 48,000 pins per day, but a regular man can only make a few. Capitalism achieves fantastic levels of productivity by dividing up labor, and thus, modulates entropy downward by eliminating most of the entropy the average person has to cope with.


Every dollar is a certificate that measures how much entropy you have: more dollars, less entropy. Humans waste much of this productive gain because every person in the economy is trying to make as much money as possible and do as little work as possible, and thus, every person squanders their time in useless and pointless endeavors, and billions are employed in bullshit make-work jobs, while people who contribute absolutely nothing collect income though entitlements, handouts, and by sitting atop vast hierarchies and gate keeping crucial network nodes.


One games the market by sitting atop a choke point or economic rent, forcing energy to go through that point, either inventing the network, (Facebook, Google, the New York Stock Exchange), making oneself indispensable, (programmers), through regulatory parasitism, (rent seekers), government contracts, (defense contractors), or welfare entitlements, (liberals).


The third layer is patriarchy, or the system of male control, or government, or power, or whatever you want to call it. It is the process by which men impose order and control on property and markets. Unlike the brutality of mouths, (nature) or the exploitation of capital, patriarchy is the domination of the resource and reproductive environment by males, and consists in the sexual control of women and economic resources by men. Patriarchy can't be smashed because it is already dead, and was killed in the 60's by birth control. Now women face capitalism naked and afraid, hate the results, and blame the corpse they killed during the sexual revolution. Every negative trait that feminism attributes to patriarchy is actually capitalism in disguise. Patriarchy began to die as soon as feudalism was abolished, and finished dying with the sexual revolution. Modern financial hyper capitalism replaced it the same way the nuclear family earlier replaced the tribal clan.


Gaming patriarchy was always about being top male, but there are no kings anymore and no real top males.


The family is supposed to be the point at which the force of entropy ends. In a normal, (now rare) 2 person household the father works and confronts the entropy of capitalism, while the children are almost totally shielded from that, and the woman's only quota of entropy is household maintenance and childcare. Naturally, when the 2 person family dissolves the woman faces entropy more directly, and this bleeds over into the abuse and neglect of children by mothers and boyfriends. In nature everything eats everything else, in capitalism everyone tries to makes as much money as possible and do as little work as possible, dumping it on everyone else, and in patriarchy men compete viciously for power and promotion. Family was supposed to be the place where this process terminates, but in families with bad adults entropy is modulated through the adults as abuse towards the children in retaliation for the children being an economic burden on their parents. The parents turn against their own children as revenge for costing them money, or neglect the needs of those children, and the result is humans who have never experienced a form of society without competitive abuse because their childhoods were ruined by parents. Such children hate the very institution of family that was supposed to protect them from entropy, and are susceptible to messages of abolishing it — of abolishing the only place in the universe where abuse has a chance of being absent.


The nuclear family was itself invented to compensate for the destruction of the tribal clan. The Catholic church dissolved the clan shell in Western societies by forbidding cousin marriage, because it wanted to gain ownership of the property of widows who died childless. Yes really. Normally this property would revert to the control of the eldest male relative, but if a woman left no heirs, and was not related to any nearby clan through the cousin marriage of a male relative, then the property could be inherited by the Church. As many a reader knows, the genetics blogger HBD Chick has already talked about this exact subject, and there is a term to demarcate the place at which this world-altering eugenics project began: the Hajnal line.


Destroying the clan may be considered the origin of capitalism, and thus, the Catholic Church may be considered capitalism's mother. Since Christianity is also the cognitive template on which Marxist-Leninist ideology is based, Christianity may be legitimately seen as giving birth to twins. This is in radical contradistinction to the typical way of looking at the two systems, which sees them as enemies. Oh, it may be true that they are enemies now, but only because they have collectively destroyed the feudal alternative that proceeded them both.


Modernity may be thought of as a process of dissolution and replacement of one bubble by another. Liberal capitalism and Marxist state capitalism replaced feudalism, and so the sequence of events has gone like this: first there was tribalism, which consisted of three layers. Ordered from inside to outside these were: the tribe > nature > and the vacuum. Then came feudalism which consisted of the family clan > the feudal economy > nature > and the vacuum. In democratic societies this was transformed into: the nuclear family > capitalism > nature > the vacuum, while in China it became the family clan > state capitalism > nature > the vacuum. Other societies which are somewhere in between genetically are also somewhere in between politically, with Russians, Latin Americans, and Middle Easterners being more communist that Anglos.


From three bubbles (tribalism), to four bubbles (feudalism), to five bubbles (capitalism) and back to three bubbles? If the left is successful in destroying the nuclear family corporations and governments will respond hysterically, and in their panic they may develop artificial womb technology. Such a configuration replaces family and patriarchy with a new thing — utero-capitalism. To define;
Utero-capitalism, definition;
The hyper-feminine form of capitalism where the female is commodified to her maximum extent, where values like credentialism, excessive compassion, lesbianism, pathological altruism run rampant. A system where cat ladies achieve higher status than warriors, where the whole of society becomes pathologically feminine. The highest stage of utero-capitalism culminates in the appropriation of the reproductive function by capital itself, which having stolen the reproductive function no longer needs the female sex and discards it.



These idiots who want to destroy the family imagine that they will get a world where everyone is free from abuse, but abuse itself was a symptom of the outside creeping into the family, or the "morals" of capitalism infecting the family relationship, so that the parents come to regard their children as only valuable because of what the children give to them, in kind of weird commodification of the child, as if the child was supposed to be a service that makes the parent happy: "you only have value because you delight us." When capitalist morals infect the family relationship children are held in contempt: they scream, they cry, they are expensive, and they require patience. There are actually people in this country who treat their children as if their purpose was to provide them with photos social media, as if the child has to provide value to them to be valuable. Many even call themselves "ethical egoists" and think, as Ayn Rand did, that "selfishness is a virtue." But the child has inherent value because it is the continuation of your own genes and the only way for a regular person to become immortal.


The feminist rightly criticizes the commodification of relationships, but then weirdly allies herself with the outside against the inside: for capital and against the family. She may believe that she is against both, but that is impossible.


She may succeed in destroying the family. If that happens her daughters will inhabit a world that is worse than this one, where the womb has been turned into a peace of technology. When demographic implosion becomes global in scope capital will respond to the threat against population growth — against its own income growth, by moving to technological reproduction, even while it causes the population implosion it reacts against. Feminism is the accelerant of this horrific process.


The 5 layers that the nuclear family inhabited were perhaps too much for women to tolerate. The 50's nuclear family was possibly the only place in the universe where the brutal forces of natural selection had been suspended. To quote Nick Land,

to the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate — and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.

They rebelled against the patriarchy because it was boring. Well, yes. Anyplace in the universe that escapes the brutality of nature will be a terribly boring place. It is temping to think these women who burned their bras were merely idiots, and they were, but perhaps they understood on some unconscious level that perpetual peace is a recipe for degeneration. Everything of value is made in hell, and hyper domestication leads to decay.


We see two simultaneous configurations of nested shells forming: one on Earth and another in space. Martian humans will confront entropy much more directly, having nothing outside the oxygen bubble of their habitat, which will also function as the walls of their tribe, while humans of Earth may come off the factory line.


As already stated, survival time increases the farther towards the center of the bubble you get. In a vacuum you can survive 3 minutes, in a state of nature a human can survive maybe about 1 month before dying of starvation. A worker can survive a maximum of 12 to 16 hours of work per day, and a housewife can survive 23 hours per day at home, though being cooped up all day will test her sanity. Obviously if you spend 23 out of 24 hours at home with only an hour of shopping you are going to feel more oppressed than if you spend 8 hours a day at work, but this doesn't mean the outside is more survivable than the inside. Realistically though a person can survive their entire life of 85 years in a non-abusive family. Nature always looks good when you don't have to live in it all the time. 

Layer:                               Survival time:

Vacuum                              < 3 minutes.

Vacuum w/ pressure suit    hours.
Nature                                2 weeks to a month, more with survival training.
Capitalism                          12 to 16 hours a day.
Patriarchy                           Until killed or pushed out by rivals.
Abusive family                   Months, maybe years.
Non-abusive family            Entire lifespan, 85 years or so.


As entropy refracts through consecutive shells as it changes form.

  • Entropy modulates through the shell of nature via the brutality of eating.
  • Entropy modulates through the shell of capital via exploitation.
  • Through patriarchy via domination.
  • Through family via abuse.

None of this is certain, and the Chinese communist revolution proves that humans are capable of subjugating capital forces to government control, even if only in a limited way. The West is dominated by its neoliberal globohomo establishment, while the reverse is true in China. The difference is that Western power is divided while Chinese is unified. If artificial reproduction were to emerge today the West would be helpless to resist it, and all one has to do is imagine the Supreme Court case that throws out the law banning it on the same grounds as Row V. Wade. Without a one-party state capital will impose its will on us, rather than our will on it.


Chinese communism achieved its limited victories against capital because it lapsed into feudalism. Under a communist state all the means of production are owned by a single party. Corrupt government officials take bribes in exchange for giving economic power to their clients, and since there is nothing in the economy outside of the reach of state power there is nothing to compete with the state or subvert it. In a feudal society the king receives payment for giving titles and powers to his subordinates. Feudalism is what communism wants to turn into, and a communist one-party state is basically a cleaner and more efficient version of a feudal society. It subordinates property by paradoxically going deeper into property rights, privatizing the state itself, and annihilating the competition that capitalism depends on for its survival — the very competition that corporations work to undermine with the laws they lobby for. There is no inherent difference between total privatization and total public control of capital: the bureaucrat is the lord of communism.


Capitalism opposes the foundation of its own existence at every turn: it needs competitive democracy to survive but works to corrupt it. It needs the reproduction of its workers to continue but suppresses their birth rates. It uses equality to create hyper competitive sexual status competitions which it can exploit to produce over-educated knowledge workers, then it ruins their ability to have children with overwork and high rents. It destroys the IQ it depends on for survival by subsidizing the birth rates of the poor. It invades 1st world countries with low IQ workers to undermine the foundation of its own security. It militarily invades foreign countries to bring in the very oil that its own rapid consumption will eventually make obsolete.


Humans evolved morals because in a tribal state one's own genes are dispersed through the community through continuous inbreeding, and saving the tribe from genocide saves one's own genes from extinction. The very existence of people "who would die for their nation" is only possible because tribal communism evolved morally motivated xenophobes into existence, and capitalism destroys this tendency with continuous out-breeding. There is no force for maintaining human morals under capitalism, since there is no tribe. And thus, capitalism will turn humans into sociopaths given enough time.


It is a process. It exploits human tendencies evolved by tribalism even while it selects against those same exploits. It will eventually destroy those exploits and bring about something new, which will serve as the basis for something else. It will modify the human nature it depends on, modifying itself into something else.


Under liberal capitalism people are encouraged to waste their reproductive potential with the pursuit of higher status, which they may then trade in for higher quality mates. This dynamic of hyper-competition affects not just markets but academia, and like all winner-take-all systems it produces a handful of winners against a vast legion of losers.


Feudalism freezes one's station in life, giving everyone an equal opportunity for mating. Capitalism priorities financial egalitarianism at the expense of genetic inequality; the same process that maximizes economic equality under liberal democracy comes at the expense of maximizing genetic inequality. By unifying the family with the economy feudalism minimizes genetic inequality (that is, the potential for mates), while maximizing financial inequality. Feudalism works because it gives capitalism what it wants: monopoly. It poisons capital by giving in to its demands. Capitalism works through a series of winner-take-all status games where countless people struggle to innovate and create even though only a tiny percentage of them have a chance of winning the game and increasing the quality of their potential mates. It exploits the human desire for high quality mates at the expense of the mating opportunity itself, so that the vast bulk of losers not only don't get high quality mates, but don't necessarily get any mates at all. This is why marriage rates are at historic lows, and why hypergamy is such a huge problem under capitalism but not feudalism.


Both the Cathedral and capitalism represent run-away status competitions: the run-away competition of money and the run away competition of the liberal holiness spiral. The Cathedral is contrasted with the State Religion, the same way that capitalism is contrasted with feudalism. State religion and feudalism are the only pragmatic alternatives to Cathedral and market, and if you don't have both at the same time, the competition of one will creep in and destroy the stability of the other.


At the risk of sounding like Zizek, capitalism thrives on crises, using each crisis as the generative catalyst in the next round of technological development. The Romans had capitalism, but they never had intellectual property. Capitalist technology went no higher than the ARCH without patents and trademarks. I have focused on competition and crisis as fundamental processes of capital intelligenesis, but the ultimate power of the process lies in the concept of ideas as property rights. With the advent of Ethereum we now have the potential for law as a form of property right, or self-executing law. If you really want to destroy capitalism you want a combination of world feudalism and the destruction of patents, trademarks, and blockchains, everywhere at the same time. This isn't as hard as it sounds. In the lower IQ parts of the world capitalism is not capable of the generative potential that can occur in the West. Feudalism in only the high IQ nations of the world would probably halt most technological development and be sufficient.





Saturday, July 7, 2018

Aphorisms no. 51



1
Since most people have no original opinions the question must be asked: how can one claim a right to control the moral contents of society when he cannot even control the contents of his own mind?
Link.


2
Globalism turns the world into a dumping ground. Free trade encourages the first world to dump e-waste on the third world, and the third world to dump refugees on the first. Borders force first world countries to recycle and third world countries to give rights to their people.
Link.



3
Capitalism isn't magic.

It's a stage of human history caused by a system learning to exploit human genetics evolved under tribalism to get human beings to place money above reproduction.

Humans will evolve into something else under it, destroying the exploit it depends on
Link.



4
Credit to After Sol who summarized it best:

"Under the liberal-democratic system, people are "bought off" by promises of higher status in the future, which they think they could exchange for higher quality mates. Not only is capitalism doing this — but also non-capitalist institutions that worship egalitarianism (academia)."