Call them cowards; the accusation that stings as much as "racist!"

The best insults are both true and highlight a character flaw to everyone including the recipient. They are really great if they cause introspection. 

Tolerance and equality are the highest virtues of cowards just like courage and truth are the highest virtues of the racist. Aristotle said that virtue was found in moderation but I think that people only have vices, and virtue is the lie they tell themselves and others to cover the turd in perfume. There's no moderation because the extremes are just two craven impulses masquerading as virtues. There's really only the craven impulse underneath it all. Are you a cowardly weasel or a bigot with the will to dominate? Your "virtue"  will be tolerance if the first one and courage if the second one, assuming you have either. 

The mirror image of calling someone a racist is calling them a coward and culturally it is just as powerful as an accusation. It is powerful because it is true. It is powerful because it induces self-reflection in the target. It is powerful because every time somebody quibbles or refuses to understand things like mass replacement it's because they are coward. When they inevitably call you a racist tell them they are a coward. It works, and it's embarrassing, and it's true. 

When you become so communist you become capitalist again

 One of my hobbies is studying how corruption works in different countries. The reason for studying this is that every political system has both a formal structure and an informal structure. The formal structure gets recorded by history books and teaches you almost nothing since the informal structure is what's actually governing a country. In the US, for example, instead of giving bribes to cops, the law itself is the product of bribery. In many countries it does not work this way, with most corruption being extra-judicial (giving some plausible deniability to the politicians in charge). The laws will be reasonable or (morally rationalized but stifling for business) while pervasive bribery and insider dealing happens under the table. Doing it this way gives the people in charge my parents of moral legitimacy while allowing them to remove uncooperative subordinates whenever they want using charges of corruption. I find it fascinating how Russia has an entire pyramid structure to its bribery. In essence they have reinvented feudalism as a workaround to a failed communism. In ancient British feudalism everything was a property right and even a job like tax collector could be purchased from the king. In Russia you get a government job so that you can stifle the ability of anyone to get anything done without paying you a bribe. Every position from the lowest clerk to the highest senior official is collecting bribes from subordinates. In fact you MUST collect or you will not have the money you need to pay off your bosses and keep your job. Your boss will fire you and replace you with somebody who generates more revenue if you don't pay him enough in money or favors.

I have talked in the past about legislative accumulation and how it can destroy a nation's ability to get anything done. Once it is impossible to get anything done one might imagine that the bribery mechanism would become much more important, as a way of lubricating transactions and getting bureaucrats out of the way. This informal structure then becomes the new structure. And this process by which the functionality of a system is destroyed by an inherent flaw that no one bothers correcting might just be the engine of change that causes nations to cycle through the various constitutional forms described by the Greek philosopher Polybius: (Monarchy, Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Ochlocracy). But many nations do not cycle through these forms in any fixed sequence and discovering the exact cause for a change of form would be really interesting, and might explain why cycling between forms is so irregular from one country to the next. 

But it is interesting that a nation could become so stifled by its own regulations and past communism (laws they never bothered to repeal) that everything would require permission from a bureaucrat, and the bureaucrats would all wind up taking bribes, and so a form of feudal capitalism would re-emerge.

We are lucky that most Sci-Fi technologies are nonsense

If you look into it closely the supposed physics behind most science fiction technologies is complete bullshit. This is actually a great thing since the cultural, military, and political implications of these technologies are absolutely disastrous. Science fiction rarely explores these implications instead opting to project current year values into the future. Let's think about the real results:

Teleportation: this is one of the most obvious disastrous technologies. You think immigration is bad now? Imagine a billion Africans having the ability to materialize in your living room, steal everything you own, rape your whole family, and be back to their village in time for dinner. There is no way that humanity operating under its existing genetics and culture could endure teleportation. Imagine a corrupt cop watching a woman sleep, imagine instantaneous movement of vast quantities of lethal drugs. In every conceivable way it would make crime that involves moving things around much easier.

Imagine what it would do to real estate prices. It would cause the cost of all real estate everywhere to basically be the same except for prime locations like buildings that overlook Central Park. One block away from Central Park the real estate prices would instantaneously drop back to the global level since only the views would have value.

Thankfully it's impossible to deconstruct the entire pattern of a person's atoms and then reassemble them. Doing this would also kill them and the person who came out of the machine would not be the same as the one going in. The transporter would kill the ability to keep people out of one's home. Repeated use of the transporter would also probably cause degradation of DNA patterns leading to horrific mutations in the species and the eventual extinction of humanity. Humans would probably create some sort of cult of the transporter that involved human sacrifice, since the machine is killing you every time you go through it.

Technological feasibility: 0%

Cultural impact: totally destructive

Usefulness: extremely useful for crime and moving things

 

Wormholes: these would require "exotic matter," which is just another way of saying something that doesn't exist but can be plugged into a math equation. There's no observable anything with negative mass and so no way these things could exist. Even if they existed going through one would shred everything that entered and what came out would just be a soup of atoms. In a sense most black holes are wormholes anyway that take you trillions of years into the future when they finally evaporate.

Wormholes would create time travel and the implication of that is being invaded by both humans and aliens from the future. Creating the smallest navigable wormhole would require something like the mass of Jupiter.

Technological feasibility: 1%

Cultural impact: none because it doesn't work

Usefulness: pointless, takes too much energy, shreds anything that enters it

 

Faster than Light Travel and warp drive are probably impossible. For complicated reasons it violates causality and leads to time travel paradoxes. Most scenarios require planet size levels of energy or negative energy (which is just a made-up math concept to plug into a formula). Really any kind of faster than light travel does this. Additionally, a warp bubble produces a bomb of gamma rays at the front of the ship as soon as the warp drive is turned off. This would kill all the passengers on board and anything in front of it. It would even fry the electronics. If warp drive existed it would probably serve more as a weapon than a means of transport. It would probably also be limited to less than or equal to the speed of light which makes it no better than really any other form of slower than light transportation. Even if it existed it would probably never be used since there are less energy intensive ways to get around.

Culturally, the implications of warp drive are basically galactic empires and the destruction of planets. Star Trek is presented as utopia but you'll notice in its own fiction various planets get destroyed or almost destroyed all the time. In Star Trek the Earth is almost destroyed when an alien probe shows up and wants to talk to whales. Then it almost gets destroyed by the Borg. Before that it almost gets destroyed by the Xindi. Vulcan and Romulus get destroyed in one alternate timeline. This is a surprisingly grounded scenario for a franchise built on utopian nonsense. A universe without warp drive is a much more libertarian universe where planets are forced to leave each other alone. One with warp drive is one filled with empires, vast political struggles for domination, and the never-ending specter of terror that comes from living on a big target like a planet. In fact in a universe with warp drive it would probably be best just to live in space and to keep moving. People would abandon living on planets altogether. Culturally, any kind of FTL automatically involves being invaded by aliens or at least extraterrestrial immigrants.

Hyperspace and "jump ships" are complete nonsense with no physics to back it up and have all the same military problems associated with them that any other FTL technology does. The biospheres of different planets are not compatible and merely shaking hands with extraterrestrials could do something like transfer bacteria to Earth that would convert the entire atmosphere into nitrous oxide or whatever. If aliens ever landed on Earth the consequences to the biosphere would be even worse than all the various invasive species that have been unleashed by global trade. If you think cats in Australia decimating wildlife are bad imagine something whose DNA is not even compatible with the existing biosphere and thus cannot be digested by predators. Imagine something that is like a walking prion disease and if a buzzard eats its rotting corpse it transmits some sort of wasting disease through the food chain. Nobody knows what horrors could be unleashed by mixing two biospheres and so it's great that this technology is nearly impossible, and even if possible, pointless.

Technological feasibility: 1% probability

Cultural impact: utterly destructive

Usefulness: mostly destructive

 

"Shields" and directed energy weapons for starships. The problem with shields is that once you have these governments will inevitably put them over entire cities. This abolishes the balance of nuclear terror that keeps the world from engaging in hypersonic nuclear warfare. You really don't want to speed up the ability to strike foreign countries since it gives them the idea that they might be able to hit their enemy blindsided before they can react and that's a very dangerous presumption. Hypersonic missiles are worrying in and of themselves but America has nuclear submarines and even if a first strike is possible without missile retaliation it is not possible to avoid retaliation by submarines. Defensive shields potentially change this calculus. In Star Trek they put their shields up and then proceed to tap each other repeatedly with antimatter weapons. This means they are showering each other with gamma rays in space. In real life such weapons would have negative consequences to any planet below the battle. Shields are a pointless escalation of warfare that makes everyone worse off than when they began.

And they are impossible! There is no magic substance they could be made out of. Plasma is the closest thing and it is a superheated material that might vaporize small things that touch it. But even a plasma shield can be penetrated by a big enough object with ablative technology. Just wrap whatever it is you are trying to protect in a giant heat shield and fly through, or fly through fast enough to survive. Making a shield hot enough to disintegrate everything would be pointless since that same amount of energy could be turned into a directed energy weapon. Concentrating that energy in one spot is far more effective than distributing it over a bubble. Navy ships already have Close-In Weapons Systems that defend them far more effectively than any energy weapon or shield ever could. Literally a rain of projectiles will always beat plasma. There is no such thing in physics as a "phaser" either. Antimatter weapons are also kind of pointless since they require trillions of dollars to produce a tiny amount of antimatter and the money could be better spent just building lots of nukes. It is possible to make tiny amounts of antimatter in particle accelerators and capture it but this is totally pointless and expensive. Projectile weapons will probably always be superior so while you might technically be able to make a shield out of plasma controlled by magnetic fields there's no point.

Technological feasibility: 0% for "phasers," 100% for plasma weapons/shields

Cultural impact: politically and militarily negative

Usefulness: pointless, nothing that a gatling gun can't handle better

 

FTL communication or Sophons like those described in the Three Body Problem. There is no way to inscribe an artificial mind onto a proton by unfolding it and then folding it back up. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. Also, quantum entanglement doesn't work over light years and even if it did a single fluctuation could break the connection and then you would have to send another at sublight speeds. "Subspace" communication is also nonsense. There is nothing in the laws of physics that lets you send anything faster than light, and for reasons I won't go into quantum entanglement simply doesn't work that way. Also it would cause causality paradoxes. If the technology worked as portrayed in science fiction it would probably change very little culturally it simply is impossible. All the technologies in the Three Body Problem are impossible except one. The droplet attack is impossible. The dimension folding foil is probably impossible since astronomers would observe two-dimensional regions in space and they don't. "Death lines" caused by "curved space propulsion" (warp drive) probably don't exist because warp drive will undoubtedly never exist. The one technology that is possible is a small amount of matter accelerated to near light speed.

Technological feasibility: 0%

Cultural impact: moderately positive

Usefulness: high

 

Kinetic kill weapons. The "photoid" is the one technology that is sort of possible. The reason it is possible is because the cross section of such a tiny object means that it is unlikely to run into any interstellar dust. But to hit a star you would have to hit it using dead reckoning from light years away since making course corrections is basically impossible. The photoid has no mass to shed and therefore no thrusters to change its own direction. The logistical problem of such a weapon is being accurate enough to hit something from light years away. This is like firing a bullet and trying to hit another bullet traveling in a different direction from the other side of the planet. The most likely outcome is that your photoid simply sails right by its target. But launching these things is cheap so an alien civilization could shower the entire solar system in these tiny kinetic kill weapons and we would basically be helpless to stop them. HOWEVER, you are talking about the amount of energy released by a small nuclear weapon at best and more likely a grain of sand dropped from a few feet up. If the kinetic kill vehicle was the size of a BB it would hit like a small nuke, but also have a much higher likelihood of running into space dust on the way here. Making it smaller would make it more accurate but more pointless, and you are assuming that you could even hit anything at such distances. More than likely such a weapon would just piss off whatever civilization it was intended to kill.

You can make larger kinetic kill vehicles and they are basically impossible to defend against unless you want to live as a swarm of rotating habitats around the Sun. Even then you might take some losses. The KKV will have to be big in order to make course corrections and that means it is more likely to run into space dust (which will explode with the force of a nuclear bomb) this means that it will have to go slower. KKVs will either be tiny and incredibly accurate or huge and slow with multiple warheads. The huge and slow ones are more likely to reach their target. The problem is that if you detect a civilization with radio signals and then launch a KKV by the time it reaches them they probably will have already evolved into a Dyson swarm or gone extinct through technological self-destruction. If you hit them it is actually next to impossible for them to trace where it came from, but it's kind of like, what's the point? It takes hundreds of years to get there. You either won't destroy them completely (because they are now a Dyson swarm) or they won't be worth destroying when you arrive (because they already destroyed themselves).

Technological feasibility: 50%

Cultural impact: devastating

Usefulness: dubious

 

So when you look at all this stuff you realize that science fiction is basically selling us a bunch of impossible technologies that would be absolutely terrible if they actually worked. The fact that physics doesn't allow most of this crap is probably the only thing keeping humanity and any other intelligent species in the universe safe from total annihilation. We're stuck with slower than light travel and kinetic weapons and honestly that's probably for the best since it means we can't immediately destroy ourselves or get destroyed by aliens showing up out of nowhere. The universe is set up in a way that forces everyone to leave everyone else alone and that's a feature and not a bug. 

Parasitic storytelling

 

Hierarchical Review Democracy

I want to describe another iteration of the concept. 

To recap: in a Review Democracy the public reviews the votes of politicians, collectively approving or disapproving of the way they voted on proposed legislation. This creates a scoring system with the highest ranking politicians at the top of the leaderboard and the lowest ranking at the bottom. This leaderboard then determines who advances to higher office, in essence it functions like a primary election and is used in place of primary elections. The highest ranking politicians at the local level become eligible to run for office at the state level, and the highest ranking politicians at the state level become eligible to run for office at the federal level. There are  of course still elections as normal. The lowest ranking politicians at each level are banned from seeking election or re-election at any level and so the system acts like a kind of natural selection that continuously filters out politicians whose actions are hated. This forces the public to pay attention to what politicians do and not just what they say and creates constant pressure for politicians to conform their behavior to the will of the public.

In a regular review democracy the public reviews politicians at every level: Municipal, County, State, and Federal. But in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public reviews only their leaders at the municipal and county level, while the politicians at those levels review politicians at the state level, and the politicians at the state level review politicians at the federal level. This is similar to the Chinese system the presently exists where the Village People's Congress votes for Provincial People's Congress which votes for National People's Congress. The Chinese have hierarchical elections but in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public still vote for for all levels and it is only the primary process that becomes hierarchical.

Each level of government reviews the way politicians voted at the next higher level, determining who is allowed to run for office. The public still votes for all levels of government as usual. 

Perhaps this will mollify critics who are worried about such a government being too populist in nature. I am not sure hierarchical review is a good idea since it fundamentally alters the nature of the system from one where the people are forced to be aware of everything their government does to one where insiders are reviewing insiders. Granted, a system of insiders potentially insulates itself from outside financial influence much better, and would not be populist at all, but I am reminded of the Catholic Church where the Pope appoints bishops and the bishops elected the Pope. It's a completely circular system of power totally immune to outside reform efforts. One immediately notices the effects of that lack of accountability on it's abuse metrics. Overall I have more faith in the people than most—or perhaps less desire to have my preferred oligarchy dominate since all oligarchies betray.

Der Führer in English

I am of course categorically opposed to genocide in all forms. But a man's diagnosis can be correct even if his methods are horrible. For that reason I am linking to this:

Imperialism by gaslighting tolerance

Every in-group only exists because it has an out-group. For a thing to exist it must not be other things, it must not be identical. For there to be "us" there must also be a "them." 

But one special in-group wants to abolish all out groups by making them in-group. This predictably leads to no one having an in-group; total social atomization through altruism. 

Since no one can police the borders of their own group without being intolerant only the homogenizing swarm can have an in-group, and it does have an in-group within the in-group, a kind of in-group made of super-tolerance.

Congratulations, you have reinvented imperialism through hyper tolerance. No one is allowed to have an in-group but you. You are the perfection of tolerance, therefore everyone must be tolerant like you, therefore everyone must be part of your group, except when you exclude them by being even more ultra-tolerant. Thus no one can have an in-group but you, for you are the Holy Super High Goddess of Super-tolerance and all others must come to know the benevolence of your tolerance through the understanding of YOU.

Ultra tolerance is a form of hostility and it's remarkable that anyone falls for it. Ultra tolerance is accomplished through gaslighting both the target and the one targeting. You must first gaslight yourself into believing in your own supreme tolerance before you can gaslight others into believing you are tolerant. Once you are super tolerant enough you have earned the privilege of being intolerant of anyone who is also not super tolerant. You can now have an in-group, and your cowardly ass can live secure in the knowledge that no other in-groups are coming to get you, because your super-tolerance has defeated them. They are all part of the homogenizing swarm now, and you control the swarm by gaslighting everyone—including yourself—into believing that you have the right to define the definition of tolerance, and through this definition all else must accept YOU, but you do not have to accept all THEM, for they are insufficiently holy and super-tolerant. You now have a license to both be intolerant and have an in-group while no one else has a license to do either.

All worship the Supreme Goddess of High and Mighty Super Tolerance! Behold the majesty of the Tolerant One, without from which we would be lost and degraded in our shameful bigotry. Oh hi and mighty Super Tolerant Goddess, please tolerate us so that we may tolerate others.

"Our Super Duper Tolerant Goddess, whom tolerates our intolerance, hallowed be Thy super tolerance; Thy un-problematic world come, Thy therapy be done, on earth as it is in Thy un-problematic world."

"Give us this day our daily guilt; and gnash your teeth and bear our microaggressions as we gnash our teeth a bear other like us; and lead us not into wrongthink, but deliver us from racism, for We are the unproblematic world, and the lust for power, and delicious glory of wielding it, forever and ever, Amen to Us"

Tolerance says: " we are more tolerant than you because we don't believe in the in-group, therefore we are the only ones who are allowed to have an in-group, and if too many people join our in-group we will make the things you have to tolerate even more unbearable to ensure you reject it and stay the out-group. We practice exclusion through making ourselves insufferable and forcing you to tolerate it. This we call radical inclusiveness."

Ideology and the ugly Asian bitch

Back in my real horny days I once used one of those international dating sites to meet women across the world. Surprisingly, it was not a scam and I actually did meet some lovely Asian women in the Philippines desperate to escape their country. 

There was this one bitch, she kept going on and on about how ugly she was. Now I'm not Asian and all Asians kind of look the same to me, so this Asian chick just kind of looked Asian, maybe a little bit different than most Asians—a little unique, but otherwise just another Asian foid. Mainly I just cared about finding one with a good attitude, finding one that wasn't damaged by all the other "white breeder pigs." But she kept talking about how ugly she was, she couldn't stop mentioning it and eventually I began to see it too, and once I saw it I could not unsee it. That bitch became totally ugly in my eyes and I lost my attraction to her. 

That's kind of like how ideology works. You create some really elaborate ideology whose entire purpose is to convince people that white men are evil. Or maybe you want to trick everyone into hating foids so they become gay, or maybe you want to convince white women that men are all predatory so they die childless. Ideology is like a pair of glasses and you put it on somebody's face and once they have it on they can't take it off. Once you train them to see white men as evil, or women as traitorous hypergamous sluts, or jews as rats, or all blacks as speer chucking barbarians, they can't stop seeing it, they can't take off the glasses. You've got em! 

Now if your ideology is honest I suppose it reflects some truth about reality. I mean white men kind of are evil and blacks are definitely spearchucking barbarians! In fact if there is a lot of truth in your claims the glasses work a lot better. The more truth the better the glasses work and the harder they are to take off. In fact truthful ideologies can be the most pernicious and toxic to human happiness. But what even is truthfulness? How do you even know you're being honest? Before you put the glasses on someone else's face somebody put the glasses on your face, right? I mean I'm convinced that I'm right, but am I right? How do I know I'm right? How do I know ZOG is real? You're just going to have to put these glasses on and trust me. (Evil laugh) Of course once you put them on you won't want to take them off. You will be convinced that you are right and won't want to take off the glasses. Someone convinced me to switch out my Cathedral glasses for ZOG glasse and now I can't unsee ZOG.

Are the glasses just schizophrenia? I mean, let's put it another way, is schizophrenia just normal human cognition turned up to 11? Everyone I know thinks there's some sort of conspiracy to keep everyone down. Some call it capitalism, some call it financial oligarchy, some call it The Cathedral. I have never met a primate that did not believe there was some sort of great conspiracy to keep him on a farm. After all, civilization is a farm and we are the animals, right? The glasses you choose will simply show you a different version of who runs the farm depending on which pair of glasses you put on.

Some think the conspiracy is patriarchy while others think it is capitalism, some think white supremacy while others think it's ZOG. Believing there's a great conspiracy to keep you down is schizophrenia, right? Everyone thinks there's a conspiracy—schizophrenics just take it personally. It's like what's the difference between negative self-talk and hearing voices? Well when you hear voices the self-talk talks to you! See, schizophrenics are just normies with the dial turned up to 11.

Once you see the ugly bitch you can't unsee her. Since everyone is wearing glasses the purpose of ideology is to preemptively convince somebody of your personal flavor of schizophrenia. I could say something like, "before you promote your ideology to others you should try to make your pair of glasses reflect the world in which you live," and that's definitely nice although that just makes the glasses more pernicious. A better heuristic might be that you want a pair of glasses that makes you happy and not one that is accurate—because the accurate ones are pernicious. What is accuracy anyway? Who even knows what is accurate? The worst pair of glasses is the most accurate and what if it is also the most shunned? What if the schizophrenia of seeing ZOG is more pernicious and destructive of one's mental than seeing patriarchy everywhere? What if some pairs of glasses are worse for you than others? There might be some sort of ranking of how horrible the evil glasses are. But under this theory if you believe something that everyone believes—like that white men are evil—then you should have better mental health than somebody who thinks it's all ZOG. Running with the herd should make you happier but bovine normies seem just as miserable as anyone else.

What if it's a wash? What if all the glasses are equally destructive. What if no matter what pair of glasses you put on, seeing a conspiracy is destructive to mental health? What if accuracy is destructive to mental health? Mental health and accurate perception may be orthogonal to one another. What I really long for is the ability to take off the glasses and go back to a child like wonder.

The Cathedral vs ZOG

It was always about ZOG the whole time and we have been played for such idiots; fool me twice, shame on me. 

I was thinking about who was most likely to cancel me, the left or right? I'm pretty hard to cancel. As a veteran canceling me would mean changing the law to cancel the pensions of vets who make anti-Semitic remarks. That would require an executive order which would make national news. I would probably get a free ACLU lawyer and threatening people's pensions would anger a lot of men with military skills. If there's one rule every empire follows it's that you pay your fucking veterans. 

This means that obviously the person most likely to cancel me would be Trump himself. He has already talked shit about the disabled and tried to cancel food stamps. While I don't collect EBT it's obvious he views anyone who gets a check the same way, even veterans. He would do anything to lick the boots of Israel. I voted for this guy and he is the one most likely to cancel me. And why? Because Israel bribed him to pass hate speech laws. The guy who stood up for free speech, who built his whole political career on pissing off leftists who tried to cancel him for exercising his free speech is canceling people for free speech on behalf of a foreign government. Not even to get revenge, not even on behalf of the right wing, but on behalf of Israel.

Here is what I think has happened: it was clear that "The Cathedral" was becoming woke to the JQ. Moldbug and the entire Dark Enlightenment were astroturfed into existence by Israel with most of us being useful idiots along the way. ZOG needed to overthrow the Cathedral before it overthrew them. Browns were paradoxically more resistant to the guilt tripping that kept whites in line. Who would have thought? The ascendancy of browns in the ranks of The Cathedral terminated the power of ZOG mind control over that domain. Turns out you can't use browns to rat fuck whites that easy. Browns are suspicious of all whites, especially jews, who they view as neon white. A new strategy is needed. Form a new coalition with the whites against the browns. Take over and sock puppet white nationalism. Bomb and eliminate the Palestinians. Got to accelerate the timeline and realize the dream of Greater Israel, like yesterday. Trump is suddenly our man and we can use him. When Trump first said "America First" they hated that slogan because it implicitly turned against the Israeli lobby. This was back in 2016 when ZOG and The Cathedral were one entity. Now everything has changed. We will use this Epstein blackmail to get Trump in line. Actually let's just pay him $100 million dollars. That worked and now Trump is our man.

Oh shit this guy Nick Fuentes is making whites anti-Semitic. Let's throw these idiots a bone, have Nick go on Tucker Carlson. We will make some concessions with the Groypers in order to peel off and fracture his audience. Got to stop everyone on the right from becoming a Groyper. Got to co-opt the narrative and tone police it before it gets out of control. We will have our goyim cuck Matt Walsh say something like "import the 3rd world become the 3rd world" a line that's like 9 years too stale.

It's all management of our perceptions. It's all lies. It's soy faced IPA drinking hipser conservacucks all the way down. It's such bullshit. They want to define the limits of acceptable discourse just like they did before Trump. They want to do it on the right using the right against the right. It's all so tiresome. It's not a cathedral it's a farm and we are the animals. We are the goy cattle on a ZOG farm.

Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws

Let us imagine that you install trading machines on the floor of the House and Senate. Each one of the 535 members of Congress set a quota for their yes vote and no vote. Let us say that the senator wants a particular issue to be voted "no," so the senator sets their no vote at a cheaper rate than their yes vote, oh say 3 million dollars for a "no" and 5 million for a "yes." The contributions then roll in and whichever of the two options for that senators vote reaches quota before the end of the trading day is how the senator votes. If both options reach quota prior to the end of the trading day then the senator is allowed to adjust their quota upwards for one or both votes. If neither yes or no reaches quota then the senator effectively abstains from voting. The Speaker can extend the trading day into the night in order to milk the market for more money. 

This is basically a more efficient version of how Congress currently operates. Congress, you see, is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. 

The way it actually works is that a Senator is thinking about voting on a given issue. This is because the bill passes through committee and gets put on the docket by the Speaker or Majority Leader of the relevant house. In the meantime the senator is flooded with calls and emails and maybe even in person visits by various interest groups and activist groups that tell them things. One group says "we represent the petroleum industry and we think this bill is a bad idea." The petroleum industry group is of course giving him money and if he votes for the bill they will withdraw those contributions. It's the same with every group that meets with him. Everyone is either threatening to withdraw money, implying that they will bribe and give more money, or threatening to withdraw activist support. The senator is flooded with bribes and threats from dozens of sources trying to manipulate how they vote on each and every issue. A senator will sit there and count all the emails for and against a bill and tally up the amount of contributions that come from voting yes or no. They will also consider the fact that other senators are under the same pressure and that if they vote against a bill which is profitable to the other senators they may make enemies of them. There's a whole bunch of factors and political drama at play including not upsetting the Speaker or Majority Leader who's trying to buy their second yacht. The whole process is a drama-filled high stress high pressure sales environment with shifting alliances, frenemies, and snakes using each other to get ahead. It is of course completely sociopathic.

It is a far less efficient version of a trading floor with a lot more stress. Even threats of prosecution come into play. 

Now I want to make clear I'm not advocating that the floor of the House and Senate both have trading machines on them. I'm not advocating replacing the cannibalistic sausage making machine of Congress with a trading floor. Or maybe I am? Whatever, I just want the reader to understand how it works and a marketplace for the purchasing of laws is the most apt comparison.

Beyond the fact that these people are greedy and want to buy their fifth house, third yacht, and 20th sex trafficked underage girl, there is the issue of financing your next campaign. You see voters are apathetic retards who vote for candidates with name recognition. That means you have to buy the name recognition with advertising, and that means you need money, and lots of it. You need as much money as you can get because the other guy you're running against is going to spend as much as he can. You can't afford not to spend money. All this means is that voters are cooperating with the donor class by voting retardedly for whoever has the most name recognition. You would think voters would be smarter than that, you would think that they would research how their candidates voted and then vote based on the voting record of their candidates. You think they would care about consequences and results, but the voter is not only an apathetic retard but actively harmful to their own interests because by voting for name recognition they vote for the greatest sellouts and the only way you sell out is by worsening everyone's quality of life with corrupt legislation. The average retarded voter is an active participant in their own destruction and doesn't even know it. On top of that these idiots vote for incumbents who already have a 95% re-election rate. The most obvious way to get change in government policy is to change the government by voting out all incumbents. Do they do this? Of course not. These Congress people are also incredibly good at positioning themselves as unique and "challenging the system" while they underperform on their promises. In fact the whole purpose of being a fire brand is to position yourself as unfireable. You see, the voters all want more or less the same thing but you're going to have to betray them to keep those contributions rolling in, and you need those contributions so you can buy more child whores and purchase the name recognition and that game recognition is going to get you re-elected. Since all voters want pretty much the same thing there's no alpha in just giving people what they want. Being a rebellious fire brand who shits on the establishment is a great way to become the establishment. You want to make yourself unfireable and the way you do that is by making voters retardedly loyal no matter how much you fuck them. And the way you do that is by getting them ideologically committed beyond their own rational best interests.

Now you need to coordinate people because there's a lot of money and power in being able to control a large number of votes. The only real way to do that is to have some sort of devastating blackmail on each and every person you're trying to control. The blackmail has to be absolutely heinous so that it shakes voters out of their complacency and makes them actually vote against an incumbent. If homosexuality is stigmatized you can use that to control someone. If cheating on your wife is stigmatized you can use that to control someone. If child rape is stigmatized you can use that to control someone. The more uptight and stigmatized society is the easier it is to provoke outrage and the easier it is to form a conspiracy. Deconstructing societal values has the effect of forcing conspirators into ever more depraved behavior since there is less and less that provokes outrage. Maybe 50 years ago you could run a competent government on a conspiracy of homosexual men with fake heterosexual marriages to maintain appearances. Now that homosexuality is the stigmatized that will no longer work so controlling people require something more depraved, and this is why there's so many pedophiles in our government. 

Normalizing Nazism is actually kind of foolish if you think about it. Let us say you wanted to position a bunch of nationalists in the government back in 2016 when racism was still highly stigmatized. You could have had all your men make a private one-on-one video where they recite the 14 words and sieg heil on camera. Then you encrypt the videos and have only one person with access to them who is also the leader. If any of your men ever betray the mission you can release the video and embarrass them, costing them the election. Oh sure there will be investigations but if people are smart, keep their mouths shut, and don't talk to the police the remaining members of the organization can remain hidden in plain sight. You would employ a cell structure where all the members of the organization are oblivious to all the others, thus no one can point the finger at each other because they don't know anything to tell. There is one leader and only he knows who the members of the conspiracy are. You don't keep any written records of any of it except those encrypted videos on archival ceramic CDs that you keep under the floorboards, or sealed behind some drywall, or in a plastic wrapped safe buried in the woods. Basically if you want to defeat a conspiracy you have to create one. 

How can we convert left wing women?

Unfortunately nearly everything is downstream of women's sexual power. You have a society where men can't be openly racist because women will punish them. In fact women will punish them by denying sex for really any honesty on any subject. Society is deceptive and two-faced because honesty won't get you laid. Society is cowardly and jew dominated because you can't tell women the truth. Society is patriarchal because women are attracted to power. Society is an endless war for status and power for the same reason. Everything is downstream from pussy so the question then becomes "how do you control who women will fuck?"

Everything, all of it, all of the dysfunction of our society would be bearable if the women were Nazis. Just knowing they hated the real enemy, and therefore were not complete traitors, would make all their other nastiness bearable. Even a nasty blue haired septum piercing tatted up whore of a woman would be more bearable than any slut that forces you to conceal the truth. At least you could come home to someone who shares a basic understanding of reality. At least you could be free from zionism inside your own home. At least real intimacy would be possible. 

This is the real issue here: how do we make women antisemitic? Or in other words, how do we make them have the most basic bare minimum understanding of reality? In this the anti-zionist left actually makes more progress. The real task is to build a society that names the jew. Everything else is secondary. And yes I am aware of how bad the Holocaust was, and I don't believe in genocide. For me the ideal outcome would be a society that simply turns its back on ZOG. What I want is a society where somebody like Ben Shapiro expresses an opinion and everyone just rolls their eyes and chuckles. Not a society where they are killed, but a society we're killing them isn't even necessary. I want a society so thoroughly immune to ZOG talking points that when people watch movies in the movie theater they laugh at the subversive messaging and teach the children what's going on. I want a society so woke to the JQ that teachers and new anchors openly talk about the message (as the Critical Drinker calls it). This is the true revolutionary act; mass shunning.

Mass murder and mass shootings are not revolutionary since they feed into the image of the National Socialist being a lunatic. True revolution makes knowledge of the jew an ordinary and openly discussed feature of society. Every time you lash out in hatred, every time you use obscenities, every time you call for unhinged responses you undermine your own movement. Talking about the JQ needs to become as commonplace and normal as discussing sports. There should not be a single utterance out of your mouth with the flavor of hatred. You should talk about it matter of fact like talking about the stock market or the weather.

Whenever you want to cook someone with the truth you have to introduce a concept to them on a gradient. The definition of a "gradient" as I'm using it here, is a slope of increasingly complex theory and knowledge. When you learn math first you learn numbers, then addition and subtraction, then multiplication and division, then algebra, then trigonometry, then calculus. Each level of knowledge is based on the previous ones and when you were trying to introduce the truth to people you have to use the same technique. First you talk about zionism. You get them to agree that the genocide against the Palestinians is wrong. This then leads into discussions about the ideology that motivates it, which leads to discussions about the Talmud and jewish eschatological beliefs, about plans for greater Israel. Later you mention quotes about the goyim being viewed as cattle, about Tikkun Olam, and so forth. These discussions are the foundational math behind linear algebra. 

Only after a person has been thoroughly cooked by an extensive understanding of the evils of zionism do you introduce more high strength caffeine to them. This is a gradual process of awakening and we need to build an entire apparatus of social media and conventional media that algorithmically moves people towards that greater understanding of the JQ. For awhile this was Tiktok and when Trump handed it over to Larry Ellison he committed one of the greatest betrayals against the long-term survival of the West. It is ironic that China, a mortal enemy to the West, would be the one to do something as helpful as allowing free discussion of the JQ on their app, but I guess the world is full of surprises. Now that the app is owned by zionists that discussion is gone and it is filled with the same toxic crap that all the other apps are. Live discussions on TikTok are now stuff like atheist debating against God, feminist saying that misandry isn't real, and debates for and against MAGA. The palestinian accounts are buried under algorithmic shadow banning. This is the formula for dominating you in the future; the shadow ban. 

What we need is the opposite of this. We need an app that slow cooks a person with the truth. For a while this was Tiktok. Before tiktok (back in the Stefan Molyneux days) it was YouTube. It used to be that if you simply allowed the YouTube recommendation engine to show you the next video it would feed you ever more high strength red pill content. It was literally the perfect slow cooker app for introducing people to the truth, but then the jews who owned it figured that out and shut that down. Now it is all slop punctuated by scam commercials. The only reason YouTube was ever so effective is because the jewish lady who ran it was literally the one who let the Google bros start their website out of her garage. In other words, she was an incompetent nepotism hire who fell asleep at the wheel. They wrote a good recommendation algorithm and the human desire for the truth did the rest. 

And of course before YouTube there was blogger, (like this blog). Here we are after a hiatus going strong almost 14 years later. 

But we want our movement to have reach and sorry to say it but censorship works and algorithmic ghettoization works and breaking out of algorithm prison is the only way forward to a future where the JQ is openly discussed around every dinner table. Normalization won't occur until the normie sees it, and the normies won't see it until they are allowed to see it, until power says it's safe to see it, by showing them it.

All the exits on the Titanic are blocked. How do you make a law when they control Congress? How do you talk openly when they control pussy? How do you invent a social media app when they control the app store? The only solution is to convince the jews themselves that zionism is the problem. This actually works and the existence of anti-zionist jews is proof that it works. You may not like the rhetoric of decolonization but this is fundamentally a decolonial struggle, a struggle against cultural colonization and not a struggle for genocide. The goal isn't to kill them and if you think you're going to get millions of people to go along with that you're very foolish. But if your goal is to throw off the shackles of cultural colonization you have a much more practical and achievable goal, and a struggle that can be won.

The Left and Right Gatekeep Each Other to Keep the Pedoelite In Power. Also Some Design Thinking to Possibly Defeat it

Two forces: compromise and money

The centrist cuckservatives (on the right) and neoliberal shills (on the left) can always say "there is no alternative to us so you have to vote for us even if we betray the mission." They use the fear of the radicals in the posing parties to gate keep their own party and prevent radicals from emerging. Whether this is Bernie Sanders or Nick Fuentes the extremes are always excluded by the mainstream power structure of their own party.

Systems: One-to-many (hierarchies), many-to-many (networks).

War: the inevitable outcome of hierarchies.

One-to-many systems are hierarchies. They are based on asymmetries of need. You need your boss for 100% of your income (assuming you do not have a second employer). Your boss needs to for like 1% of their labor supply or less. Ergo, your boss has control over you. Hierarchies stack asymmetries of need: you need your boss, who needs his boss, who needs his boss, and so forth. Stacks of asymmetry are one-to-many systems. If your boss needed you as much as you needed him you would become difficult to fire.

War and terrorism both involve the same activity of targeting the populations (assets) of governments. Terrorism is when you do it, war is when the government does it. It's not terrorism when the government does it, it is classified as war instead.

War happens because leaders of hierarchies conclude they can wage terrorism on each other's human farm animals (assets) instead of the more risky direct combat between leaders. Leaders wage terrorism because it is a cowardly way to humiliate the other leader and punish them without risk to oneself. 

Types of currency: money, vouchers, and votes.

Chess pieces: Queen, King, Rook, Knight, Bishop, Pawn.

Money is a vote you can do anything with. You can give it to others, trade it for anything, receive it from others, and loan it for interest (more money). You can even control how Congressmen vote by giving them money. Money is the Queen on the chess board: the player with the most freedom of movement, the most powerful player. This is especially true of cash.

Votes are the weakest player. You can only use a vote for one purpose, one time, for one out of two or more candidates. The only thing you can do with a vote is control—who is elected—who will then control the one-to-many system—that controls you, and even then your vote is aggregated (watered down) with the votes of others. A vote is money you can't do hardly anything with.

A voucher is the weird in-between thing. You can only do what the voucher allows you to do according to whatever rules are attached to the voucher. If money becomes a digital currency it will become a voucher. Since bank accounts can be frozen any money in a bank account is already a kind of voucher. Though vouchers can usually only be used for one intended purpose to pay one provider among a range of providers any form of money with limits and restrictions is more or less a voucher. The more laws there are telling you what you are not allowed to do with your money the more like a voucher it becomes. A law that says you cannot gamble is now a voucher that can be used for anything but gambling. A law that says you cannot buy cocaine turns the money in your wallet into a voucher that can be used for anything but cocaine, etc.

Money is the queen on the chess board, votes are weak like pawns, and vouchers are something else and can become worthless at the discretion of the issuer. 

So far power is based on money + hierarchy (stacked asymmetry of need). We are searching to design some bottom-up solution; a kind of super-hive that controls one-to-many systems. It's an interesting thought exercise and the problems created by hierarchies are legendary: war, subjugation, abuse, getting fired.

Potential Alternative Designs

Iteration #1: Review-Based SuperPAC

In a Review Democracy people vote to approve or disapprove of the actions of their leaders. This then determines a ranking, which in-turn determines whether or not they are allowed to run for office. But we want to construct a collection of techniques that counteract the abuse of one-to-many systems altogether. What systems could wreck hierarchy?

One possibility is to use Review Democracy to determine a voucher for a donor. We know that Congress is controlled by the donor class. We know we can use Review Democracy to control what a leader does. Ergo we can construct a system where everyone contributes money to an account holder that then has the ability to spend that money on elected officials in order to reward them for voting certain ways (it's not technically bribery to reward an action as the payment comes after). Let us call the account holder the trustee.

The trustee tips politicians for voting for or against certain bills. The trustee then lists what bills they rewarded in a report. The Review Democracy reviews the actions of the trustee on a regular basis by reading the report and decides whether or not to increase or decrease their budget. There are multiple competing trustees. This still suffers from the principal-agent problem since the trustee can lie about what they are paying for. A trustee whose budget has been reduced to zero has basically been fired and while having competing trustees makes firing one easier it does not completely eliminate the possibility of lying by any one agent.

Iteration # 2: SuperPAC Social Network

We cut out the middleman and have a kind of social media system determine the amount each politician gets tipped. You sign up for a membership and pay a monthly fee. Then your fees are used to give you points that you can tip politicians for their actions. You can give a politician a tip by reviewing an action and voting "approve" or "disapprove" of that action. Approve gives them points and disapprove takes points away. You can earn points by finding things to approve and linking to a source in a process similar to community notes. There is a small staff that ensures that all votes get added to the review system even if the users overlook it. When an action by a politician (a vote on a bill or signing an executive order) receives more approvals than disapprovals the politician gets a payment. Some sort of algorithm determines the value of each payment and value of points. 

This basically lets millions of users co-ordinate campaign contributions accoring to whatever their shared values are.

I asked ChatGPT for a critique of this idea. Here are some snippets:

2. Theoretical Problems

2.1 Reviewing actions is not equivalent to reviewing governance quality

Most politician decisions are:

• highly technical,filled with tradeoffs,short-term unpopular but long-term beneficial,or long-term harmful but superficially appealing.

A review system risks:

• incentivizing symbolic gestures over structural reforms, punishing necessary but unpopular decisions, rewarding performative behavior, messaging bills, and optics.

This is Goodhart’s Law: once a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

2.2 Voters are not ideal reviewers

Most voters cannot track:

• thousands of bill amendments, committee actions, procedural votes, ambiguous or strategic “no” votes.

Yeah but there very existence of such a market creates disincentive for procedural votes. 

Your staff can help, but this creates a new bottleneck and potential bias injection point.

3. Incentive/Mechanism Design Issues

3.1 Sybil attacks & brigading

Unless each member is verified and contributions are identity-linked, you get:

• bot armies, partisan brigading, or billionaire-funded mass accounts.

Easy enough to prevent. 

If verification is enforced, then:

• cost of membership becomes a barrier, inequalities re-emerge through “whale users”.

3.2 Transparency paradox

If all payments are public:

• politicians will optimize for visible, rewardable actions, but real governance often happens in dark, procedural corners.

Which the system will bring to light. 

If payments are less transparent:

• the system becomes vulnerable to manipulation, you risk reintroducing the trustee problem.

3.3 Incentive to sensationalize

Any approval/disapproval system tends toward:

• outrage-driven feedback, shallow metrics, popularity-contest dynamics.

Feature not a bug. 

You'll create a “TikTok politics” ecosystem where attention equals money.

4. Legal/Regulatory Issues (U.S.-specific)

4.1 This almost certainly counts as a coordinated expenditure

The FEC is extremely likely to treat this as:

a PAC,

• making contributions to candidates, coordinated based on explicit political actions.

Could definitely be a problem.

This could violate:

• coordination rules, contribution limits (per donor per candidate), independent expenditure restrictions, anti-bribery statutes if intent can be inferred.

The argument “it’s not bribery because it’s after the action” rarely holds legally. Quid pro quo can be inferred from patterns.

4.2 The system risks enabling legalized bribery at scale

Even if technically legal, it resembles:

• mass micro-bribery, tied to specific votes, algorithmically enforced.

So what. 

Courts might strike it down or impose severe restrictions.

6.1 Tip actions indirectly via issue-area outcomes

Instead of rewarding votes:

• reward performance metrics (e.g., constituents’ economic well-being), reward bipartisan or evidence-based behaviors, reward procedural transparency.

No we are not doing Futarchy. 

6.2 Use random citizen assemblies to curate review categories

Avoid direct mob dynamics by embedding deliberative mini-publics.

Nope, that gives SJWs a way in. 

6.3 Introduce anti-Goodhart safeguards

For example:

• no financial rewards tied to single votes, reward accuracy in predicting bill impacts over time,

This is just a prediction market by other means. 

• delay payouts until after multi-year evaluation.

This might be a good idea since it prevents Goodhart's Law but it could also water down the effect of rewards if virtue signaling gets into the mix. Perhaps speeches should only be punished and not rewarded. 

6.4 Make the platform an opinion-aggregator, not a payment system

You could separate:

• user sentiment tracking, donation routing, politician engagement.

This would be more legally feasible.

Weakens the effect though. 

7. Summary

Strengths

• Creative attempt to democratize political influence.
• Correct diagnosis of principal-agent and donor-class problems.
• Clever mechanism in decentralizing “trustee” authority.
• Draws on familiar user-interface paradigms. 

Weaknesses

• Risks turning governance into a popularity contest.
• Highly vulnerable to manipulation and polarization.
• Legally likely to be considered coordinated bribery.
• Goodhart’s Law: incentivizes performative rather than substantive governance.
• Overestimates voter ability to review complex actions.
• Creates new bottlenecks despite attempts to remove them.

 "Legally likely to be considered coordinated bribery" is a killer here.

Overall:

The idea is bold and intellectually stimulating, but in its current form it would likely produce pathological incentives, legal conflicts, and severe vulnerability to manipulation. Some elements (community-based review, decentralized tracking of politician behavior, aggregated micro-donations) are promising if restructured to avoid direct pay-for-vote dynamics.

The discussion continues here if you want to see some raw output.

What if we have three levels? If money has the most optionality, vouchers less, and votes the least, what if society is organized into levels where more power means less optionality?

In this monetary architecture, society is organized into three layers of capability objects: money, vouchers, and votes. Money is held by the poor and middle class and operates as true, unconstrained currency. It retains full optionality, meaning it can be used to buy anything, pay anyone, donate freely, invest, save, loan, with no restrictions or programming imposed by any authority. Ordinary people may hold and use money because their accumulation of it does not pose a systemic threat; their financial movements cannot distort politics or governance at scale. For them, money functions as the queen on the chessboard, the most flexible and powerful instrument in daily life.

 

The wealthy, by contrast, do not hold money at all once their assets exceed a certain threshold. Everything above that line is automatically converted into vouchers. These vouchers look like wealth, but they have reduced optionality and are limited by design. They can be used only inside approved domains such as capital markets, philanthropic channels, investment networks, and political review systems. They cannot buy direct political power, cannot serve as bribes, cannot be converted back into money, and cannot purchase coercive capacity. Their effectiveness is governed by a mechanism called Review Democracy, in which ordinary citizens rate wealthy actors according to transparency, fairness, trustworthiness, and behavior. The rating directly affects the strength of the vouchers: good behavior amplifies their influence, while bad behavior weakens or nullifies them. This transforms large-scale wealth into a conditional privilege rather than a blunt instrument of domination.

 

Politicians, in the third layer, do not use either money or vouchers. They hold votes, which are the weakest and most narrowly defined capability object. Votes can be used only within the governance system to elect internal leaders, pass internal rules, allocate budgets, and maintain the institutional charter.

To limit the corruption of politicans they get their own kind of voucher as payment for services and this voucher is not directly convertable to cash. 

Together, the three layers interact through a strict one-way flow. Money may convert upward into vouchers when someone becomes wealthy, but vouchers never convert back into money. Vouchers may influence political oversight systems through review democracy, but cannot compel or corrupt politicians, whose votes remain sealed off from economic exchange. Votes (in theory) cannot convert into anything else. This sealing of each layer prevents cross-contamination and ensures that no single class of capability object can capture the entire system. The result is a private-sector order where ordinary people retain genuine monetary freedom, the rich are constrained to a supervised form of influence, politicians remain unbribable, and the overall structure prevents hierarchy from becoming abusive or self-reinforcing.

Or so we hope. In reality their would be plenty of cross contamination. But these elites are paid entirely in vouchers which are traceable, and diminish in value when they get out of line. There are powerful incentives here to keep them whipped. If leaders cannot be trusted with power let them be whipped little bitches.

Do you think it would work and do you have a better idea?

Progressive values are capitalist values (and that's a bad thing)

There's a certain thing that happens when you hold a microphone up to a speaker. You hear this high pitched screeching sound caused by a tight feedback loop. That's basically what it's like have a donor class running your government. You have money running the government which in turn makes the laws governing money. The result is a deranged screeching dysfunction in the whole society. 

In a capitalist society the smart thing to do is to undermine the competition. Since you're in sexual competition with your own children you should undermine the next generation. Since you are in competition with other women you should fill their heads with toxic ideas about men and dating. You should tell them to walk away from any relationship over the most trivial thing. You should encourage other women to be totally insufferable in order to make them unmarriageable. You should subvert young women because you can subvert the competition that way. You should promote toxic ideologies because that will destroy the competition. You should corrode all the values and traditions of society because those traditions are altruistic and interfere with pure unadulterated evil competition. 

Teaching young men to castrate themselves and become transgender subverts the competition. Teaching women to be insufferable bitches subverts the competition. Importing tens of millions of violent foreigners increases competition. Every single progressive value is a capitalist value (and that's a bad thing obviously).

When Karl Marx wasn't beating his wife and mistress and abandoning his children to starve, when he wasn't mooching off of Engles and refusing to work, the jew was praising capitalism for not going far enough at destroying the traditions and values of the white society around him. People forget that the only reason Marx hated capitalism was because it didn't go far enough. Well if he has lived long enough to see his people climb into power and spread their values he would be very satisfied. Are modern Boomer values capitalist or jewish?

Yes. Yes on both counts. Progressives do this thing where they hate capitalism but love all its (anti) values. Conservatives do this thing where they love capitalism but hate all it's values. This weird split is what happens when you allow yourself to be colonized by a hostile foreign tribe who defines all your values on both sides of the aisle. A more natural division would be between socialist traditionalist patriarchs on one side, versus capitalist transhumanists feminist semite cretans on the other. The log never chops along its natural seam because jews are always there to distort each side. Both sides have been pozzed. A very simple heuristic you can ask yourself to determine whether something is good or evil is, "what are the results?" People are putting "morals" first when they should be determining results first. When a hostile tribe controls your morals you have to start putting pragmatism before ethics, and rebuild your moral system from a deep understanding of the social good. Morals should be developed after the general good of everyone is considered and the best morals do not require a person to choose between individual rights, the family, and the nation, but rather manage to serve the good of all of them. Following abstract principles without considering the consequences is deranged. Watch Star Trek TNG if you want to see a deranged moralfag in charge of a spaceship.

I have praised capitalism in the past and this may create confusion. No doubt uncorrupted capitalism has many superior benefits and may even be a superior system to the alternatives but the problem is that it has an enormous attack surface for being hijacked by foreign interest, and once foreign interests get a hold of your economy you're screwed. Fascism, socialism, monarchism, feudalism—are all systems of power above money while capitalism is a system of money above power. This creates the screech and feedback loop because winners in the capitalist system wind up writing the very laws that govern the markes. It turns capitalism into a system with a limited lifespan, kind of like how anarchism is only a temporary state. If the winners of the game writes the rules then the game doesn't stay a game for long. As a game, capitalism wants to abolish itself since the winners use campaign contributions to control politicians and destroy the game because they are tired of competing. The book Zero to One by Peter Thiel my body is this mentality and says "competition is for losers." The ultimate victory in the market is to force your customer to buy your product, and not to compete.

In order for capitalism to function permanently it would have to be reset periodically by canceling all the debts and redistributing the most highly concentrated wealth back to the bottom. It can't do that because it gets control of the lawmakers, and because of its vast attack surface it gets hijacked by Zionists, and then hijacks your government. Power-above-money systems may indeed be less prosperous (in the beginning) than capitalism, but their attack surface is much smaller and it is clear who has power, the number of people with power is fewer, and if the person or people with power are malevolent it is much easier to take them out.

I have had jewish friends and I want to make clear that I do not think jewish people are inherently evil. But as I wrote a long time ago—back when I was still in atheist, religion is a form of transmittable mental illness. While I no longer believe this is true for Christianity I see no reason to think it isn't true for all the other religions. Every religion is like downloading the mind of the founder into your head. If there is a single defect in the thought process of the founder it will be propagated into the minds of his believers for all time as long as that religion exists. Judaism believes in Tikkun Olam, or repairing the world. Zionists believe this is more than just repairing the world but controlling it. Whatever the case, everyone else is going to interpret it as meddling in their affairs, and meddling while being a foreign tribe is a great way to make everyone hate you. Moreover I do not think judaism is capable of true pragmatism. A rational and intelligent man is born into it a jewish family. He looks around and concludes that if he stays jewish his children or grandchildren might be exterminated so he does the smart thing and converts to literally any other religion. Even if the conversion is only superficial he brings his children up to sincerely believe something else—anything else, other than judaism. As a faith judaism is an entire religion living in defiance of acknowledging reality. Because the smartest most intelligent thing to do is to simply leave the faith behind prioritize genetic survival. The fact they don't do this leads to pervasive cognitive error and that error combined with a mandate to meddle in the world, combined with their history, produces this thing that gets itself killed. I don't know how else to put it, but something in the water, something in the ideology, will always lead jews back to getting shoah'd.

Let me put it another way: Muslims are going to blow themselves up because that's what their transmittable mental illness does. Hindus are going to throw feces and pollute the Ganges River because that's what their religion does. Scientologists are going to jump on couches and sue you because that's what scientology does. Mormons are going to knock on your door, that's just what they do, and jews are going to get shoah'd. A religion is a personality transmitted to all its adherents through a book. Every member of religion is kind of like the Unity organism from Rick and Morty, and they are all one mind. If a religion has the personality of an annoying kid that gets pushed in lockers by bullies you don't download that personality into your head. To study a religion is to adopt the personality inherent within it, is to download the personality into your mind, is to become it. To some extent all scientologists are L Ron Hubbard. To some extent all Muslims are warlords. To some extent all buddhists are layabouts who sit under a tree. To some extent all jews are annoying locker kids. Some of them grow up and become the better genocidal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but they all started in lockers.

Let's tie it all together because I've made a bunch of different points here. 

Putting the donor class in charge of the government puts capitalism in charge of itself and creates a tight screeching feedback loop of madness. It creates a wide attack surface for hijacking by a foreign tribe. The tribe and then hijacks your capitalism which lets them hijack your government. Religion is a form of transmittable mental illness and never is this more true than with the tribe that hijacks you. Pure free market capitalism might very well produce some superior results but like anarchy it is a temporary state before corruption sets in. Each side in the culture war has been pozzed by introducing a corrosive component into it. In the case of conservatives this corrosive component is addiction to the economics of capitalism, while in the case of liberals it's addiction to the anti-values of capitalism. This creates a deadlock enabling the tribe to stifle revolutionary energy and preventing a resolution into some sort of culture-preserving outcome. The deadlock enables the corrosion of your values, your culture, and your women. Without a French style revolution against the donor class no amount of progress is possible. They are the giant paper weight holding the door of mass immigration open. They used their Epstein Island blackmail on Trump to turn MAGA into MIGA. It seems the entire Neoreactionary sphere (of which I was a part) was this giant sci-op to put a small group of Zionists in charge of America. Either it was that way from day one or they hijacked the revolution. Whatever the case it only makes me more angry and willing to fight. It seems like we white nationalists are destined to ally ourselves in a multiracial struggle against international jewish power. We are fighting a struggle to de-colonize our nations of foreign power and that is an awkward spot to be in.

"A revolution does not march a straight line. It wanders where it can, retreats before superior forces, advances wherever it has room, attacks whenever the enemy retreats or bluffs, and above all, is possessed of enormous patience." 

— Mao Zedong