Global Envy: the alternative to ZOG hypothesis

What do Nick Fuentes and Hassan Piker have in common? 

Both pander to an audience that has global appeal.

The hypothesis goes like this: the real reason there is so much anti-white sentiment on the internet and in culture in general is not because of some conspiracy by jews to subvert and destroy the white race, but because the global south has plugged into the feedback loop of Western capitalism altering its incentives. 

Every Hollywood film has to appeal to an international audience. University classes need to appeal to foreigners who pay higher rates of tuition. Influencers have subscribers in India and other places. The sexist incel you are debating on Twitter is probably not even white. The fact that these global minorities are envious and plugged into the financial feedback loop means there is a monetary incentive for all culture and information that interacts with them to become corrupted in an anti-white way, and to develop an anti-white bias. This also explains the simultaneous rise of the anti-jewish bias. To the global south all whites are the same, all Jews are also white, and they are all privileged oppressors, and all need to be destroyed. The saturation of culture with messages that are toxic and envious towards white people is the inevitable consequence of white actors, directors, media personalities, influencers, college professors, lawyers, judges, politicians, and anyone else that works with information chasing these financial incentives. Whites sell each other out for brown globo-bucks. 

I have no idea if this is true but it's definitely a convenient narrative if you believe that continued alliance with zionism would be workable in the long run. I for one have zero faith in any ideology that depends on fearless leaders to implement it. Only well designed systems can untangle the human condition.

Foid came, foid conquered

Next time you talk to one of your female friends ask her a question, ask her, "should all children in the world receive an education and healthcare, even if they aren't related to us?" You will find that women always say "yes"  to this question while men say "no." Although I have no study to back it up all my anecdotal evidence says that women come down on the side of always saying yes to this question. It's a stark gender difference and it explains a lot. 

Now it's tempting to say something like "foids have little small female brains and can't handle reality" but that's not what's going on here. That's not where it's at. That's funny and misogynistic but there is something more happening here, something more accurate.

You're a foid, right? Society hands you a baby. Maybe it's your baby, maybe it's not. Whatever. It will die unless you care for it. This is kind of like being handed a live grenade. You're the woman and that means everyone expects you to diffuse this bomb. It's like being the only explosive ordinance disposal guy in the whole unit. It's your job to deal with this, to deal with this baby. This is why women want the power to not get pregnant and to terminate the pregnancy even if it happens. You're the foid, and that means that society expects you to care for the baby. NO MATTER WHAT. There is a social expectation here but there is also a biological imperative. If somebody hands you a baby you can't help but be emotionally entrapped by your need to care for it. You know this about yourself, you know that you will be suckered in by its cute little face. You know you could easily be trapped taking care of this baby for 18 years. Maybe you want to do that, maybe you don't want to do that, maybe you want to do it but you don't want to do it alone. Whatever the case you want the power to choose whether you do it. This creates a social expectation of care from women, but it also selects in favor of the type of woman whose cognition would not even consider disposing of the baby. Throwing it in a dumpster is not an option, and we consider it monstrous when women do that. If men were the primary caretakers of babies the dumpster option might be legal. Actually scratch that, men would just make infanticide legal. We would probably have some sort of drop it in the mail lethal injection program. Or maybe we would have some sort of horrible game involving infants, wood chippers, and catapults. Perhaps I exaggerate a little. Or maybe not. Ever heard of the Aztecs? Do you think the priests were women? Men literally built the Roman Colosseum and forced their slaves to fight in it.

But the point is that nature heavily selects in favor of the kind of woman who would never even consider killing a baby. This is good, this is how women should be, and one wonders why men haven't also been made this way. Because it is not true that men won't consider killing babies. Men kill babies all the time by dropping bombs on people. Men kill their wives and children (rarely). Men shoot up schools and blow people up and this and that and the other thing. Something like 100,000 people died as a result of the Iraq war. You think men cared that some of them were babies? I don't know, have we built a memorial to them? Of course not, men are monstrous. Men will build monuments to the conquerors but not their victims.

So what's going on in the genetic soup that makes women one way and men another? Well the Y chromosome is the only chromosome that can gain genetic fitness through genocide. Yes really.

You see every man is a clone of his father. Let's back it up though and talk about women. Within a woman's cells the X chromosome borrows genetic information from the other X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes and these share information with one another. When there is a defect on one of the X's it is compensated for by a strong allele on the other. The X chromosome basically uses the Y chromosome to reproduce with other X chromosomes. When a woman has a daughter her daughter gets one X from herself and one from her husband. That's another way of saying she gets that other X chromosome from her mother-in-law, her husband's mother. Also a woman passes on her X chromosome regardless of whether she has a son or daughter. During the process of reproduction the two X chromosomes will exchange information.

This means that any genocide carried out by women would result in a net reduction in genetic diversity for the female sex. This is why women don't carry out genocides. All women act like a hive mind because all women are (in a sense) the same woman. Every generation of women has borrowed genetic information from other women in the reproduction and creation of daughters. As a tangent, this may also be why men with mother issues are repulsive (creating a daughter basically means reproducing with his mother) and therefore a problem with the mother would indicate a problem with a future daughter by that man. Since genocide would result in a net reduction in genetic diversity there is a heavy selection effect against any personality traits in the female sex involving genocidal hostility. A woman killing countless other women would be reducing her own fitness.

Men are not like this at all. Every man is essentially a half clone of his father. He is what happens when his father's Y chromosome is combined with his mother's X. His father is what happens when the same chromosome is combined with a different X. His grandfather is what happens when the same Y chromosome is combined with yet a different X. Every single man in that man's lineage is the same exact man cloned over and over. Each clone is just the same man combined with a different female half. If that man fails to have a son he fails to pass on his Y chromosome. A man with three daughters and no son is in the same position genetically as an incel who never bothered in the first place. On some intuitive level men feel this which is why there is a misogynistic tendency in all cultures to favor sons. The Y chromosome contains palindromes (letters that read the same way forward and backwards). These palindromes repeat themselves over and over again billions of times. This is because the X chromosome is constantly trying to steal information from the Y, so the Y has adapted to fortify itself against this theft through massive levels of repetition. The X chromosome has already absorbed a significant portion of the Y chromosome, which is why the Y is smaller.

The "clone factor" means that if a man wipes out millions of other men who are not related to him he has proportionally increased the prevalence of his Y chromosome in the gene pool just as effectively as another man who had a few sons. The math works the same either way: more of me or less of them produces relative increase in genetic proportion. The man who can't get women to sleep with him might still increase the proportion of his genetic material in the species by wiping out competing males. This conclusion was so devastating to the geneticist who figured it out that he drove himself to suicidal altruism and eventually unalived himself.

Now of course nobody is actually thinking in terms of "how can I increase my genetic fitness." The human species is not that self aware. Thinking is not how evolution works. When we say that the gene makes people do something what we mean is that the gene favors the production of personality traits and cognitive biases which cause a person to do a particular thing. The person doesn't have to actually be aware of what they're doing, they're just doing it, and they're doing it because of an ancient neurological feature that biases them in favor of doing it. A man feels upset when he doesn't have any sons because the genes programmed into him an anger at not having sons. A man feels like killing all of the foreigners because the genes programmed into him a low key rage at their presence. A man is instinctively upset by a promiscuous woman because the genes make him feel insecure about his parentage (because men who did not feel insecure replicated their genes less).

It's all just math. It's literally numbers. The personality trait exists because the numbers  favored it's propagation. This is true with all personality traits. Humans are a vast collection of thousands of these personality traits bundled with a general cognition engine. We are made of math. The algorithm "whatever replicates will recursively replicate the personality trait that caused it" is behind everything. Any neurological bias that causes some people to have more children than others will spread through the whole species, including things like "lack self awareness, think the Other is evil, exterminate them, and take over their hunting grounds." Humans who have too much self-awareness don't breed, which is why all humans have just enough awareness to know that the other tribe is evil and need to be destroyed, never enough awareness to understand their own capacity for evil. Humans think the world is "good versus evil" when it is really just evil versus evil, and all the evil humans think they are good. That's because that is the cognitive trait that spreads, that kind of blindness to one's own self is more effective at spreading than self-awareness. This is why I think we are all demons in hell, but now I am getting off topic...

One may make the logical argument that you cannot guarantee that all children should receive an education and healthcare because if you do, some men will go around replicating themselves as much as possible and dumping their children on the welfare state. If you guarantee that all children will be taken care of some men will become hyper exploitative of that system and their DNA will spread through the whole species like wildfire. They will impregnate as many women as possible in order to spread themselves around. Then the extreme selfishness and narcissism of those men will become the default operating system of humanity and the welfare state that created them will collapse under the weight of a new low trust society as these men do everything in their power to evade taxes, be as unproductive as possible, and scam everyone including the government. Basically it's a recursively self-terminating cycle. A society that is too altruistic will create systems that exploit it and promote the genetic spread of more selfish and corrupt people. If your reward the genetics of narcissism by subsidizing its reproduction you will get so much more narcissism and then eventually the system itself will collapse, terminating the subsidy, with a new society that is more corrupt and low trust than the old one. This is like how bacteria in a Petri dish will spread until they consume every natural resource and poison themselves with their own waste products. System instabilities continue until the process that created them self-terminates. The logical argument here is that you can't engage in an unlimited subsidy for just anyone having children, you must assess the quality of people and only subsidize quality. Every good thing in this world is probably the result of some out of equilibrium temporary condition that can be easily destroyed by the slightest breeze, that is only held in place by some cultural or legal scaffolding. This truth works even if the natural selection is itself cultural rather than genetic.

But is this argument really logical? It is logical in a world full of men. In a world full of women no one would ever think to exploit the system in such a way. Oh sure, there are women who dump their countless spawn on others, but those women are drug addicts. And in a world of only women would there even be any drug addicts? Chances are that drug addled girl who's had six children and lost custody of all of them was introduced to drugs by a man. One could just as easily make the argument that in a logical world, or in a world where the logic is female, there would be no need to worry at all about the proliferation of low quality humans. Women would all take care of each other's offspring. No women would have much more offspring than any other. And nobody would be flying heroin in from Afghanistan because nobody would have planes (invented by men) or the kind of malicious desire to profit from human suffering that only men could practice. Hell, there might not even be any pilots for the planes. And the kind of evil greed that motivates people to sell heroin definitely wouldn't exist. Women are not that ambitious, or at least not that kind of ambitious. Many all-female businesses struggle to get anything done at all. Not women owned, but all female.

So in Foid World the moral principle "everyone's children must be taken care of" might actually work. The nature of women would make it work. 

The most obvious conclusion from this is the Radfem conclusion: men are demons who ruin everything. 

Of course men resist this obvious conclusion. We are always gaslighting women. Every man knows that in order to get pussy there are certain truths you must never admit out loud, certain things you must never say. Never admit that you might enjoy killing someone. Never talk about that time you groped a girl, or how you voted for Trump, or the shit you talk online about the female sex, and definitely don't tell her you want to use her as a broodmare to perpetuate your bloodline, or how you find most of what she says tedious and boring, and definitely don't tell her about the standards by which men judge women. You have to lie to get pussy and every guy knows it. Women do no sleep with men who tell them the truth and the obvious conclusion from this fact is that the continuance of the species is built on lies — or perhaps one might say even rape by fraud.

Let's put it another way. We live in a man's world and that means all the obvious conclusions are masculine coded. When we say that something is logical or rational we are saying that there is an underlying psychology that we are modeling, and that we must look at cause and effect without any illusions based on the psychology we are modeling. But we are modeling male cognition and male cognition is not female cognition. There is a completely different world out there, a world without men, where every conceivable altruistic thing that the government does does not automatically get instantaneously exploited in the most horrific way by the male sex, because in this scenario there is no male sex. 

"Logical" means male logical or logical according to an understanding of how men think and the deficiencies and motives of the male sex. There is another logical world that is female logical and this world works just as well when only females are factored in. This world is only impossible because of the presence of men. Now I am not some feminist saying the male sex should be exterminated, and I am a man, I'm just conceding the point because it's true, and because I need to make other points. A female logical world would be a world where only females exist, there are no males to muck up any process. That world probably wouldn't have certain features and technology because the current world needs a certain quantity of extremely autistic males (men with hyper masculine brains) to even have things like three nanometer chips for smartphones, transnational airlines, and pretty much the whole engineering field. Programmers are overwhelmingly male. But one might envision a world where women step up to do some of these jobs and also figure out workarounds; alternative "foid technologies" that let women get the same results in a distinctly female way. 

Oh sure there would be a partial technological collapse. But we can't know for sure how deep that would be or how long it would last or how women would compensate. 

The fact that we live under male logic is shown by how we build monuments to the conquerors and not their victims. There are great men and then there are terrible men we call great. Great Men cure polio and write Constitutions. Men we call Great slaughter millions. The point of building a monument to the victims is not to glorify victimhood, but to rub it in the face of their killers. Killing depends on a lack of self-awareness, it depends on thinking that others are evil and not yourself. As I already said society is not good versus evil, but one evil bastard who thinks they're good, versus another evil bastard who also thinks they're good. What's remarkable is that it has not occurred to anyone to build monuments of ridicule. Basically the opposite of a monument to glorify some man, but a monument to lampoon him, to ridicule him for the terrible things he did. Judging from the condition of the world these monuments should be everywhere. The purpose of such a monument is to force self-awareness on anyone who would consider emulating the "great" terrible man. A monument of ridicule is a feminine coded thing, a way for women to degrade the self-esteem of the kind of golem who thinks he is great by bombing children.

I am taking a new direction for this blog

I have a habit of changing my mind a lot. This is because I get swayed by the galloping herd of reactionary opinion but also because new information is constantly coming in and tactics must constantly adapt. Some people see this approach as a deficit and indeed it has cost me viewers, but I see it as a strength. People get swept up in the heard at an early age, lose all objectivity, and then our trapped and heard politics for the rest of their lives. The norm for people is a kind of cognitive rigidity that deepens with age and starts in their youth with running with the herd, wherever that herd was going when they were young. What I am saying is that it is better to keep changing your mind throughout your life than become cognitively inflexible because of values programmed into you during your youth. Everyone runs with the herd for at least part of their life and being able to resist it at all, like I have, is a strength. This resistance is the source of my constant opinion changing.

In the end I always come back to my method of analysis — even if the conclusions are scattered about like a cone of fire. It's also really difficult to stick to your guns when all the pressure is pushing you towards one direction, especially when everyone is gaslighting you into thinking you're wrong even though your viewpoint is more predictive than theirs. I admit that in the past I have flirted with Nazism but I have never been comfortable with it's genocidal conclusions. Now that my intuition about drone warfare is coming true in real life I can finally solidify my opinion that no centralized hierarchical solution will ever work, because to design any future resistance to globo homo / the Deep State / Cathedral / ZOG / imperialistic capitalism or whatever you want to call it is to design an organization made rapidly obsolete by assassination politics. The third world is already turning to low-cost drones in order to counter US Air superiority. The US is already turning to low-cost drones in order to take down those other low cost drones. Weapons are going to get radically cheap and autonomous and the last time weapons were democratized the American revolution happened. There are two periods in world history when democratic revolutions have occurred: one is the Greco Roman period when the phalanx was the height of warfare. The other was the colonial period when rifles made warfare inexpensive and democratic. In both eras the cost of weaponry came down to the point that ordinary people could wage war against the state. Ukraine's new interceptor drone is 3D printed for gods sakes. This pre-configures a world where no "Füh·rer" approach will ever work. This is going to get combined with social media that turns humans into borg-like swarms of warring ideological herds. Everything points towards the swarm: the swarm of opinion, the swarm of drones. Dictatorships are going to — once more — die and that's going to be the landscape of politics for the next few hundred years. Therefore the direction of this blog will be towards a kind of "constitutional anarchism". Because only a constitution can create order out of this problem.

Constitutional anarchism will be a theory that combines massive levels of decentralization with constitutional style governance. Basically, imagine a book. Imagine that this book contains the entire constitution of a society. If your leaders violate your rights you have the right to kill them. You then get called before a trial conducted by your fellow citizens who decide whether to give you safe harbor from retaliation. All of the rights in the Constitution can be enforced by any citizen and the government ceases to have a monopoly on violence. In place of this monopoly is a book of norms and procedures that governs how every situation is dealt with. This gives order and structure to what would otherwise be anarchist chaos. It's like the current constitutional government but radically more flattened. It also has room for constitutional provisions that protect races from destruction and subversion. Indeed, in a constitutional anarchist system the norms will go wherever popular will wants them to go.

This is the approach I'm going to take going forward. This is because the weapons make any other approach impractical. If Moldbug were to ever get his way it is likely that just as the CEO dictator is coming true just in time for the assassination of all CEOs. Yarvin once remarked that the DAO was not developed enough to be realistic. Technology moves faster than you think, bro. I put more stock in the arms race to low cost weapons than I do in any right wing "restoration." Cheap technology is guaranteed. Technology always comes down in price. Your NAZI or Civic Nationalist revolution has no guarantee of actually happening and is fighting an uphill battle against vast financial forces allied and conspiring to destroy it. Even if you succeed you will then be in a permanent war against Greater Israel and the Zionist project and they will treat you the same way they have treated the Arab world. And while all of this is happening the cost of drones is rapidly getting cheaper, it's getting cheaper to assassinate people, artificial intelligence will get so good and so compact that you can put face recognition in a drone. There will be bots flying around literally hunting people while you futz around with dictatorship and each of your fearless leaders will get assassinated one after the other. The only thing that overthrows capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) is its own productive technological forces, it's own new technologies, and the new technology is here.

In the future my recommendations will probably continue to be all over the place — I have a habit of designing many systems for different audiences — but the underlying logic of "drone anarchism is inevitable" will be the background presumption going forward. Rule-based decentralized systems are the only thing that can survive the future. This does not inevitably mean the liberal world order. Any value system can be encoded in a decentralized system as long as there is a sufficiently large enough herd of humans to support it. Not only is it possible for there to be competing DAOs with radically different ideologies but it is probably inevitable.

Assassination World: Drone Warfare, Prediction Markets, and the Coming Empire of the Trigger

Years ago I went to a housewarming party of a reactionary that I knew back in Denver and during conversations in his backyard I articulated my intuition that drone warfare was going to get democratized, and that a new regime of assassination was going to rise. He dismissed these claims and we laughed it off, but more and more I'm convinced that my initial intuition was correct. Now with the killing of the Ayatollah I know for certain the future I grasped back then is coming true now.

Three things are happening simultaneously and nobody is talking about how they fit together.

First, drones. The US and everyone else now has the ability to kill a specific individual anywhere on earth at low cost, with no risk to their own personnel, and with a reasonable claim to deniability. This is genuinely new. Previous long-range weapons killed in zones — cities, grids, general areas. A drone can, in principle, kill one guy at a wedding and leave the people standing next to him alive. It is distance combined with specificity. More than ninety countries now have some kind of military drone capability. Turkey's Bayraktar TB2, which performed well in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh, proved that effective drone warfare is no longer an exclusive club for superpowers. A middle power can buy or build one. They're getting cheaper, smarter, and more autonomous every year. Eventually the capability to identify and kill a specific person from the air will be available to well-funded non-state actors, private military companies, and wealthy individuals acting outside any institutional framework.

Second, the United States is exhausted. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ate trillions of dollars and produced outcomes ranging from equivocal to catastrophic. The American public has made it absolutely clear it will not accept significant casualties in discretionary overseas conflicts. The national debt is enormous. The force is spread thin across NATO, the Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa. The era of the 150,000-troop deployment is over. So what replaced it?

Targeted decapitation. Rather than deploying an army to occupy territory and reshape the political landscape through prolonged presence, you identify the specific individuals who are the source of the problem and you remove them. The Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA's Special Activities Center between them have built an apparatus for identifying, tracking, and eliminating individuals across dozens of countries. The public knows the famous examples — bin Laden, Soleimani, al-Baghdadi — but those sit on top of a vast pyramid of lower-profile strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere that constitute not exceptional actions but a continuous, routinized practice.

Third, prediction markets now exist that price the survival odds of political figures. Polymarket processed hundreds of millions of dollars in volume during the 2024 election cycle, and its prices were cited alongside polling averages in mainstream media. The information aggregation function of these markets is genuinely useful. They also create a problem that nobody wants to say out loud: if you can buy a contract that pays $10 million if a foreign leader is "out"  by December 31st, and you have the capability to make sure he is dead by December 31st, you have turned assassination into a financial transaction. The prediction market becomes a kill market. Not hypothetically — the logic of it is just plain arithmetic. This even allows intelligence services like the CIA to self finance their own operations independent of congressional budget approval.

Put these three things together and you get something that deserves a name: an Assassination World. A global political order in which great powers govern the internal composition of weaker states not through the expensive and visible instrument of occupation, but through the precise, cheap, and deniable instrument of targeted killing.

The empire of the trigger

You don't need to invade a country to control its politics if you can reliably kill anyone who tries to consolidate power in ways hostile to your interests. You don't even necessarily need to do much killing. If foreign elites understand that accumulating too much power or taking too confrontational a posture will result in their elimination, they will self-moderate without any killing being required. The most efficient form of domination is one where the dominated police themselves.

This is not a new idea. The CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Allende in Chile in 1973, and the documented plots against Castro and Lumumba demonstrate that the United States has long viewed the removal of inconvenient foreign leaders as a legitimate tool of policy. What changes now is not the intent but the capability. The tools are dramatically more capable, more precise, and more deniable than anything available to the Cold War CIA. The infrastructure for global assassination management has been built. The question is what gets done with it as the technology matures.

This infrastructure is also not going away. Bureaucracies persist. Capabilities, once built, get used. Programs, once established, expand. The JSOC and the CIA's paramilitary apparatus have their own organizational culture, their own career structures, and their own momentum. Nobody is going to dismantle them when the strategic environment changes; they're going to be repurposed and extended.

The United States won't remain the only actor either. China is rapidly developing armed drone capability. Russia has conducted poisoning operations against dissidents in multiple countries. Israel has run one of the world's most sophisticated targeted killing programs for decades, including the cyber tools (Stuxnet, Pegasus) that are essentially the digital version of the same thing. As the technology continues to democratize, middle powers and eventually non-state actors will acquire comparable capabilities. The assassination world, initially a product of US technological dominance, will gradually become a multipolar regime. Multiple powers competing to eliminate each other's proxies and clients is not a stable equilibrium. It is a recipe for perpetual covert war.

The new tyrant is algorithmic

The tyrant that comes out of this is not the strutting dictator of the twentieth century with his rallies and his gulags. The new tyrant operates through markets and intelligence services and corporations rather than through identifiable institutions of state repression. His instrument is not the concentration camp but the targeted strike. Not the midnight knock but the sudden and unexplained death of someone who might have threatened him.

This tyranny is harder to resist than the old kind because it's harder to name. You cannot organize resistance against an algorithm. You cannot rally public opinion against a kill list you're not allowed to know exists. The traditional mechanisms of resistance to tyranny — collective action, legal challenge, international solidarity — are all severely weakened by a system where the violence is invisible, deniable, and technically sophisticated. And the surveillance required to run targeted assassination at scale is mass surveillance of everyone, because you can't identify specific targets without first watching everyone. The two technologies reinforce each other: better surveillance enables more precise targeting; the demonstrated capacity for targeted killing creates incentives for broader surveillance.

There is no obvious clean solution to this. Revolution requires organizing large numbers of people in physical proximity — targeted surveillance and preemptive killing can prevent that from reaching critical mass. Legal challenge requires courts with jurisdiction, independence, and information. International pressure requires an international community capable of agreeing on what the problem even is, which an assassination tyranny that operates covertly and deniably is specifically designed to prevent.

Distributed and decentralized counter-infrastructure is the direction that makes the most sense, for the same reason that it's hard to kill: you can't decapitate a Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) the way you can kill the leadership of a conventional organization. Encrypted communications, open-source intelligence, distributed storage networks, and censorship-resistant financial infrastructure are the building blocks of whatever resistance eventually limits this system. These aren't utopian projects; they're practical necessities for the medium-term future. The tools that will limit the tyranny need to be developed before the tyranny is mature enough to prevent their development. This is the work of decades.

What comes out the other side

Here is the uncomfortable conclusion: the capability for targeted killing cannot be uninvented. The formal prohibition on assassination as a tool of statecraft—enshrined in US law since Executive Order 12333 in 1981—has been consistently violated for decades. Demanding that existing international humanitarian law be applied to drone strikes is not wrong, but it treats the problem as a deviation from norms rather than asking whether the norms themselves require revision in light of capabilities that are now permanent.

If targeted killing capability is going to exist — and it is — the choice is not between a world with it and a world without it. The choice is between a world with regulated targeted killing and a world with unregulated targeted killing. Regulated is better. A framework that narrows the permitted targets to state officials who have themselves committed serious human rights violations—genocide, crimes against humanity, systematic torture—and that requires real procedural accountability before action is taken, is better than a formal prohibition that everyone violates and that therefore provides no constraint at all.

Getting from here to there is likely to take fifty years. It involves the tyranny deepening, the counter-infrastructure developing, and the accumulated weight of documented abuses eventually making the status quo politically unsustainable. It is not a comfortable arc. The generation now entering political consciousness will live through the worst of it.

What I am saying is that history has two possible paths it can take with this technology. First it can take the long route. In this scenario some sort of assassination tyranny sponsored by the nuclear powers of the world rules despotically over the so-called third world and probably its own citizens. This involves a combination of technologies: Palantir style mass-surveillance, lethal drones (from large to microscopic), and assassination market coordination mechanisms into a supercharged tyranny of corporate domination, clothed behind anonymity of the killers and potential obscurity of the victims. It would start as killing political tyrants like the Ayatollah and evolve into lower and lower levels until ordinary local elected leaders, business competitors, and bureaucrats live in fear. Technology gets cheaper the more it is deployed and that means the capability of autonomous killing should get democratized over time. Into this situation a counter-resistance of the distributed autonomous organization first attempts to resist and regulate the assassination system and then attempts to control it. Eventually The tyranny combines with the DAO to form a kind of DAO-Assassination Republic. This arrangement arrives because the Distributed Republic provides moral legitimacy to the process and structure to chaos. Formalized rules let people know where they stand and let people avoid running afoul of the lethal system. The first route involves a long tortuous process where the state actors who initially control the lethal system refuse to give up that control or democratize it and face distributed resistance that eventually overthrows and captures their power. The second path, and the path humans never take because they procrastinate, is to cut to the chase and create the DAR (Distributed Assassination Republic) sooner rather than later. I don't really have a time horizon but this process could last anywhere from 30 to 150 years in my estimation. It will start as a thesis-antithesis dichotomy and eventually arrive at a synthesis organizational structure.

My point here is that this technological arrangement is inevitable and you should just cut to the chase rather than enduring the pain of a century or so of tyranny, humiliation, and resistance. The reason I think that the tyranny will win in the short term, is that assassination markets don't necessarily have to limit themselves to foreign leaders but might be employed by financial oligarchs against judges and politicians themselves. This is a system that can rapidly escape containment by the oligarchs who invented it. It's consolidated power only lasts as long as lower levels of the system don't have access to the same kind of mass surveillance, software, and drone capabilities as the oligarchs. Keeping things consolidated seems plausible until you realize that competition drives innovation and this competition is international. If the Soviet Union had trouble maintaining control of its nuclear arsenal; how much more could foreign powers have trouble containing their software? All it takes is one spiteful regime to develop mass surveillance killing tools and open source them. Since state actors have sponsored terrorism this is probably inevitable. Everything is subject to the law of supply and demand, even nuclear bombs, and even more so drones. Technology has a habit of coming down in cost. In the beginning this system will remain heavily gate-keeped: we might even get a golden age of peace for about 30 years as foreign tyrants are systematically eliminated and US hegemony asserts in a total capacity. But pressure breeds resistance and software is the one thing that gets cheapest the fastest. In the end there will be no "moat" around the assassination system. I had an inkling the things would go down this path when Ukraine started using drones and my view has only strengthened since then. This is also why I was studying DAOs even back then. I saw this thesis coming years ago.

What I see for the future is a sequence of events unfolding like this:

1. The military industrial complex builds out the assassination system 
2. Foreign governments copy this and develop their own systems 
3. It escapes containment and winds up in the hands of terrorists 
4. The price of the technology comes down and it gets democratized 
5. Targeted killing becomes a regular feature of society flattening hierarchies, or perhaps consolidating them. Tall poppies get cut down. Tyranny sets in.
6. DAOs rise to contain the threat, first opposing it, and then co-opting it
7. A new regime of order is created around basic rights enforcement. The DAOs become DARs, synthesizing the two forces into a new organizational structure

In order to achieve moral legitimacy (and therefore Order) the "network state" must enshrine a Bill of Rights, enforceable only against politicians and corporate officials, that substantially aligns with the attitudes of the public. It should prohibit starting wars without provocation, genocide, terrorism (by both state and non-state actors), and enshrine free speech, freedom of association, freedom from association, and freedom from economic rent seeking laws. These are the crucial ones that make a regime stable. Freedom from state-sponsored rent-seeking is especially important since it gives longevity to government systems. Governments have a habit of accumulating laws and also of making corrupt laws that impoverish the people. The combination of these two forces: legislative accumulation and rent seeking are lethal to nations causing their long-term collapse. If you really want a government to last a thousand years you have to prohibit rent seeking provisions in the laws and limit the total length of the legal code. The architects of the Distributed Assassination Republic won't design it properly, but if they did, it could lead to a golden age of humanity, where all nations respect a set of rights worldwide regardless of whether or not they hold elections. The DAR ONLY ENFORCES RIGHTS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS. Having it make global law is a severe mistake that would lead to another round of thesis-antithesis overthrow of the system on a global scale. There is no one legal or cultural system that is appropriate for all humans everywhere because humans vary in their dominance hierarchies, genetic strategies, and religions that further those strategies, and any single cultural or political order marginalizes one or more of those strategies leading to a backlash of terrorism. Variance is good, actually, prevents all eggs from being in one basket. Genetically diverse cultural and religious strategies are a resilience mechanism of the species. The attempt to create global monoculture is a mistake, so the DAR must only enforce a very minimal set of rights with no feminism/LGBT/woke queer monoculture in the mix. Humans of course won't limit themselves to this sane respect for diversity and history will continue.

All of this ties into the system of blackmail they are building. Unless decentralized governance wrests these methods away from centralized control we are in for a long dark age. History is proving that classically liberal and rights-based decentralized anonymous governance are the only thing with any chance of surviving the future. Both centralization and governance by identifiable persons are vulnerable to assassination. This Distributed Assassination Republic becomes the only viable form by default. This intuition is one of the reasons why I have rejected—I will admit somewhat inconsistently—the notion of any kind of rule by a dictator. How could fascism possibly protect itself from assassination? Stability requires rights and moral legitimacy, and apparently will also require decentralized anonymous leadership. There is only one form of government that complies with all these requirements.