Why I Trust the "Masses" Enough to Propose Review Democracy

Moldy refers to the masses as asses, (his language). As a peasant and a member of said asses I have some things to say.

Ask any economist and they will tell you that voters do not vote for their own economic best interests. I want to make the case that while voters do not serve their own economic interests, according to the criteria of economists, they do serve their own genetic best interests. To make this case I will use as an example rent control, which they use to prove how foolish voters are. I will use their most cherished example against them. 

The economist will say that rent control destroys the housing stock, creates hostility between landlord and tenant, raises rents on all non rent control units, causes a housing shortage, and discriminates in favor of older more established whites against immigrants and minorities. Additionally, by limiting the amount of rent people can charge it limits the profit they can make off of their properties. Therefore in every way rent control is lowering net utility for the human race. 

Fine, maybe it is. I concede the point. But when the fuck did I ever care about people not related to me, not even by race? Economists will sell out an entire wealthy nation in order to increase the pay of africoons by $2 an hour. These people implicitly believe in the concept of a utility monster, they believe one should feed the utility monster forever, but in their case the utility monster is low IQ foreigners. 

For those who don't know the utility monster is a thought experiment in utilitarian ethics. The basic concept goes like this: imagine there is a creature that gets so much utility from ___whatever___ that giving it that thing causes a net increase in happiness. Oh sure it decreases everyone else's happiness by some small amount, some negligible amount. But that decrease for everyone else is more than made up by the sheer amount of orgasmic joy the utility monster gets. Therefore if one wishes to maximize overall utility, then one should feed the utility monster whatever makes it happy even though doing so will gradually make the world more and more miserable. 

"Equality" is just a sincere belief in the moral validity of utility monsters, only it's even more perverse because the vast numbers of low IQ biomass do not even get joy from their existence, and in fact the more of them there are the more suffering there is in the world. Stupid and low agency people are destined to suffer. Helping them is destined to cause suffering, disappointment, and frustration to the people who help them. Letting them breed is guaranteed to create more of them and more suffering. By believing in the perfect equality of all humans, by subscribing to this lie, one is subscribing to the idea that utility monsters are valid. But it's even worse than that because feeding this utility monster actually increases net misery. The lie doesn't even do what it's supposed to, it doesn't even increase net utility. 

I'm going to make a bunch of points and then tie them together later. 

Happiness is achieved by serving one's own genetic interests. This should be obvious and tautologically true to anyone who thinks it through for a few seconds. Evolution has obviously programmed within us certain impulses. It rewards us when we fulfill those impulses with happiness and pleasure and punishes us when we betray those impulses with misery and loneliness. It drives you to make friends, get laid, start a family, acquire possessions, protect your community, kill invaders, all because it serves your best genetic interest. If one creates some sort of holistic measure for measuring gross national happiness it takes into account things like mental health, relationships, sex, fulfillment, and so forth one has simply recreated by statistical proxy a national genetic interest. Fulfilling the impulses that make us happy it's obviously going to wind up serving our genetic interests, since genetics program to those impulses to begin with. 

Voters will consistently vote for their own genetic interests even while they betray their financial interest. Rent control might not be good for the housing stock but it's great for establishing strong communities that never move and keep immigrants out. They even have a term for this, it's called "aging in place." It means that white people get to stay in their homes and apartments without being forced out by rich jews who want to raise the price on their already overpriced slum. It means hordes of foreigners brought into enrich those jews have to go somewhere else to find apartments. It means you get to know that chick down the hall for the next 50 years and establish strong rooted connections with all of your neighbors, even if your neighborhood is some progressive shit hole in Greenwich Village. Fuck, if you have one of those rent control apartments that takes up an entire floor you can raise a family in the city. You can have a stable community too where your kids get to make lifelong friends. This obviously serves your genetic interests, even if the term "genetic" is passe among the wokescold.

My argument is very simply that voters will do this consistently for everything. They will always serve their own genetic interests, whether it is on the subject of immigration (against), living wage (for), rent control (for), anti-pollution laws (for), anti-trans laws (for), safe communities (for), gay propaganda (against), world government (against), and so on. Right down the line, on every. single. issue, voters prefer the option that maximizes their own genetics. The human brain might be terrible at computing what makes capitalism run well but it is absolutely fantastic at understanding its own genetic interests, it does this intuitively without any education at all. Even low IQ africoons will be against fag trannies in public schools and hordes of immigrants that don't look like them. 5 million years of primate evolution didn't make humans stupid at understanding  what's good for them. But is does make them incredibly bad at obeying the financial imperatives of jewish billionaires. Hell, those africoons are probably even better at understanding their genetic interests than whites, but it matters not because the impulse is fully intact in every race. Only extreme levels of Disney cuck propaganda and bad education can warp a people into betraying those interests, and even then the majority seems immune to it. Even after decades of propaganda a plurality of white Americans still oppose immigration. This means that if those same white people had been in charge the entire time, the demographics would had never changed, then a review democracy would never have voted for or tolerated massive immigration. Indeed when one looks at the country with the most direct democracy, Switzerland, one sees one of the most restrictive immigration systems in the world. The Swiss will literally deport you if your neighbors complain. It doesn't really get more based than that. Everyone hates direct democracy, Moldbug says "the masses are asses," but those asses are the most consistent haters of immigrants and everywhere they have solid control over a government they have restrictive immigration policies. The masses of asses know exactly where their interests lie.