The flaw behind all the other flaws

Liberal epistemology or whatever it's called, go something like this: 

• People with agency are responsible for everything including the crimes of others 
• People without agency are not responsible for even their own actions 
• Responsibility is bad, a source of personal anxiety, not a source of empowerment 
• All power should be vested in the hands of those without agency 

It's a lie of course. There is no such thing as an adult non-retarded human without some agency. Everyone is in fact always at least somewhat responsible and power without accountability is tyranny. To empower a victim is to give power to someone you can never hold accountable. This means the inevitable destiny of the liberal project is crybaby tyranny.

Those with agency cannot help but victimize those without agency. The very act of being hot, or successful, or capable, is going to make some loser jealous and marginalize them. If the girl wants the capable man and you're capable then the bitter loser will be marginalized by not getting pussy. Capable people always victimize those around them. 

And there's no avoiding it, because everything depends on the capable, because if you want your electricity to work and your water to flow, and your garbage to get picked up, you need capable people. If you want competent surgeons and bridges that don't collapse you need capable people. It is the destiny of the loser to feel like a victim.

In Johannesburg South Africa they can't keep the power on and the water flowing because they put blacks in charge of the utility companies. They promoted based on race instead of competence—they put losers in charge. 

The feeling of being a victim that you have when you are a loser is completely valid. YOU ARE A VICTIM if you are a loser and honestly there's no way for any system to function any other way. I suppose we should work hard to make the amount of abuse as minimal as possible but that is the same principle as "minimum deadly force" that the police operate on. 

Genetic engineering could achieve real equality by making the incapable, capable, but paradoxically the left hates that. Got to keep people incapable. I guess if you believe that high agency white men are literal demons you would oppose making everyone high agency on moral grounds.

The problem with worshiping the agency-less person is that if the whole world were reduced in its level of agency in order to abolish the "evil" of people with agency it would collapse the whole civilization. And it wouldn't even accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish—there are still chads and losers in the trailer park, even mental hospitals have high status patients the other inmates are trying to fuck. There is no abolishing the victimhood of the loser except by becoming a winner. Are you fat? Have you been to the gym lately?

The search for corn

Everyone's mind is filled with shit. Most of what everyone believes is shit and their opinions are diarrhea. Truth is like little nuggets of corn in the diarrhea. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to get those little nuggets of truth, to accumulate as much corn as possible. 

Don't get hung up on whether or not every word out of somebody's mouth is true. Everyone's opinions are diarrhea and people vary only in what percentage of truth their opinion is. Some people have minds filled with mostly shit while others are mostly corn. You'll never find a mind that is 100% corn fed truth. It will always be tainted by some small amount of shit. There will always be some small amount of falsehood, some lies, because that's just the way people are. Nothing is 100% corn. 

New houses are a scam

I think it's obvious that the best use of socialism is to defend a volk against the various predatory forces of the world. I think we need to replace conventional business where the customer and owner are separate with a system where every customer becomes an owner and purchasing from the business is identical to purchasing stock in it. People need to adopt a rule where they avoid doing business with any corporation that is not worker owned, and if customer-owner businesses are brought online they can then refuse to do business with any company that is not customer owned.

I studied architecture in college and the video below has explain something paradoxical to me where I find it utterly mystifying why builders use the materials they do. The video below explains how planned obsolescence has entered construction. 

Going forward if you want a quality House built you're either going to have to do it yourself or buy something built prior to about 2,005. As an architect I'm a big fan of ICF construction because it lets a novice build their own home out of concrete.

 

When authenticity itself gets farmed

 Summary: going forward only the Luigi method will work

National Socialist Loyalty Democracy

The goal of Loyalty Scorecard Democracy is to solve the Principal-agent problem by forcing the agent to serve the principal more closely. Politicians constantly betray the voters who elect them and so Loyalty Scorecard Democracy solves this with a continuous performance review.

To recap: the actions of the government are continuously reviewed by tens of thousands of citizen-juries around the nation. These citizens approve or disapprove of every action their government has taken: all votes by elected officials, all executive orders, and any other actions they deem necessary to review. This then generates an approval ranking score where every politician is ranked from first to last. Voters then fire the lowest ranking ones and promote (by making eligible to run for the next higher office) the highest ranking ones. This is accomplished by choosing an "eviction rate" for politicians ranging from 10% to 50%, with the voter choosing in 10% increments and the median score of all voters determining the outcome. This median determines both the percentage to kick out while the percentage eligible to move up is equal to 40% minus the eviction score. If the resulting number is zero or less then that electoral district simple does not field any candidates eligible for the higher level offices.

This means that the system continuously sheds hated politicians while promoting well liked ones.

A part of solving the principal-agent problem means excluding outside influence from corrupting the system. You want the system to let citizens influence it without letting money or activists influence it, so let's talk about some systems.

In the Catholic Church the Cardinals elect the Pope and the Pope (Bishop of Rome) appoints the Cardinals. The term Cardinal is like the term voter, it is not a rank like bishop or archbishop but a role one performs that overlaps with whatever other rank they have. This system is infamous for being resistant to outside pressure. It is both resistant to reform and (outside induced) decay.

In the corporate world businesses conduct internal performance reviews of their employees to decide whom to promote and do a performance improvement plans when they want an excuse to fire them. Corporations also demonstrate resilience against outside influence. This can be observed when looking at bureaucracies themselves, which, at least in the Anglo world are run very cleanly. Other places (like Russia) have hierarchies of bribes where the local cop demands a bribe and then turns around to bribe his boss to keep his job, who then bribes his boss to keep his job, and so on up the system. Vertical bribe chains are the norm in societies where this happens and while one can say that represents outside influence it is the kind of influence that only exists because the government not only tolerates, but demands it at the highest level. Your local cop is not taking a bribe unless his superior allows it, and if his superior does allow it then he is demanding a cut, and if the superior does not allow it then the FBI is going to find out soon and a lot of people are going to prison. The point is, bribery is very much an activity that politicians can prevent their subordinates from doing if they want to. This is in contrast to the politicians themselves who can never seem to stop each other from financial influence.

China has hierarchical elections, meaning that the "municipal" politicians vote for the "county" politicians, and the county politicians then vote for the "state" politicians, and the politicians at the "state" level then vote for the national level. Replace the terms municipal/county/state with village/county/province and call each level a "People's Congress" and you've got an understanding of the basic structure.

In theory this system should be airtight against corruption but in practice it is saturated with it. This is because firing people is not easy. Commies love doing things by committee and the group structure diffuses accountability and responsibility. It is even harder to remove politicians when they all elect each other.  And it's hard to fire people for corruption when they are hard to remove and can point the finger at each other. Pure corporate hierarchies can be more resilient to outside influence because every person is in charge of their own duties and can be fired at will. This creates a direct path for responsibility and blame.

My readers are probably very well acquainted with the American system of government and how it has failed to prevent outside financial influence. If you really want a deep dive into that you can read this. The European Union may have a high reputation among Americans for being a bastion of democracy but it's own estimates say it is somewhat corrupt.

The simplest system for eliminating outside influence while guaranteeing voter control is to stack two systems of review on top of each other—kind of like how the military stacks a hierarchy of officers on top of a hierarchy of enlisted. In this case the voters become the higher ranking officers while the politicians fill in for the enlisted. One is the Loyalty Scorecard Democracy which sits on top of the corporate review system. Basically the voters review their politicians while the politicians review their staff. In fact one might even replace the system of elections with a typical corporate governance style where personnel are promoted from the inside and becoming president of the nation involves rising up the hierarchy. In this iteration of loyalty scorecard democracy POTUS appoints two competing successors to run for election and replace him at the end of his term, and the people then vote for one of these two successors. The Congress goes through the normal process of being elected with reviews determining who is eligible to run for office and who gets fired. There is still a Supreme Court and separation of powers, but the executive candidate is themself chosen through promotion rather than primary election. This could be replicated across all government agencies with all agency heads appointed by POTUS and fired when given a negative citizen review.

This means that while corruption might play a part in some appointments once a well-loved agency head gets into power they cannot be fired unless the citizens change their minds. This creates a more nuanced form of government where the military and immigration might be right wing while things like healthcare policy are left wing. It makes the form of the government—even its exact contours—follow the popular will. If the agency heads are the only ones allowed to propose bills then the entire apparatus of state is effectively a populist deep state; a kind of NSRD that combines the rights inherent in the Bill of Rights with the policies natural to a populaist socialist right-ring government. It could create a marriage of the vision of The Founding Fathers (with emphasis on personal rights) with the policies of a NacSec government (sans genocide). After all, the people have always been against immigration and for socialism. They have always been right wing on race and left wing on economics. This is why I believe a true democracy—one that serves the populist will, can give you the best results. The people always serve their own genetic interests even when they don't serve their economic interests.

For further reading on this issue see my explainer here.

"Elite human capital" they said, genetically superior they said

The worst people you know are making completely valid points roasting each other. If you can't have self-awareness outsource it to your enemies criticism of you. People think that right wingers are motivated by fascism. This omits an entire category that wants to be victims of fascism because if the world abuses you so much the least it can do is put you out of your misery. Also if a hierarchical world is just then your abuse wasn't that bad.

Some people don't want to kill, they want to die, they want to die at the hands of a glorious dictator because then all the 

abuse they endured was worth it. If one can form a parasocial relationship with the strong man and be his human sacrifice then one can matter!

The world is a cowardly shithole and the elites don't have the morals to put their human pets out of their misery. Many a fascist longs for an honorable world where the sociopathic owners of our human farm are decent enough to kill us—to kill their "low human capital" rather than just neglecting us to death. Modeling the right wing mind as fascist is uncharitable. Right wingers lose political fights far too often to be motivated by malice; therefore they must be motivated by masochism. If the goyim didn't want to be pets they wouldn't, right...  right?

Elon never received any love from his father unless he was the best at everything. The rich are not above right wing masochism and not incapable of false consciousness. Yes this is a boring take.

Jefferson just wanted to whip his slaves in peace without having to pay a percentage. He said "fuck the king all men are created equal." Little did he know that 300 years later everyone would take the joke way way too seriously. "You mean you gave rights to negroes and foids? LMAO" 

Politics is a great way to hide emotional distress. You know that thing about yourself you can't stand? That weakness or inadequacy? That's running around in the form of all the political enemies that annoy you. Kill the thing inside you by killing them!, your subconscious says. And it might even work sometimes.

Welfare is a subsidy so that the middle class can feel better about themselves and have someone to look down on. If you actually gave the poor a living wage and they would become middle class and then everyone is the same. Can't have that, the system needs buy-in from its managers. See, being a cuck isn't so bad because you get to fuck the people below you. Sadism isn't a bug in the corporate machinery but a lubrication keeping the whole system running.

The system distracts you from class consciousness by saying look at "those fucking rapists immigrants and jobs they took from you." Trouble is, they are fucking rapists and they did take your jobs. The best lies are truthful. Turns out the QAnon conspiracy was true—we really are ruled by pedophile elites, and we all voted for them regardless of who we voted for. What choice did we have? They're is actually no third alternative and third parties are just cope.

The system of course is the elite human capital who run it; men who are subject to the same motivated reasoning and false consciousness as everyone else.

Turns out elite human capital isn't elite. You know they all have the same mental disorders as the population whose mental health needs they neglect, right? Far too many of our elites are pedophiles to have good genes. No one with pedophile genes is elite human capital. That seems tautological. Jeffrey Epstein believed in the superiority of his own genes. A lack of self-awareness is a strong characteristic of literal demons.

Communists are just as fun. Will Stancil just got kicked out of his domestic terrorist club without knowing where the order came from or where to appeal to. What did you expect buddy? Due process from commies? Did you expect them to follow procedure and rule of law?

I model the world not as a fight between good and evil, but between one evil asshole who thinks he's good versus another who also thinks he's moral. It seems if you're right wing you get to defend pedophiles in high office but if you're left wing you get to defend immigrant rapists and murderers. Spanish is a gutter language offensive to my ears so you know what side I'm on. If I must be surrounded by human demons I prefer them to be fit and Aryan rather than dumpy and Mexican. Aesthetics matters and I appreciate good art just like any other racist. If I can't live in a moral world at least I'll live in a pretty one.

Insightful

 

How you know the jews are in error

If you are jewish your people have been expelled from nearly a hundred countries. There are two conclusions you can draw from this: either you are in error or the world is in error. 

If the world is an error the world must be defeated. 

If you are an error judaism should be disbanded.

Trying to defeat the world inevitably leads to abusing a hell of a lot of people. If you were not in error before you tried to defeat the world you will be afterwards. If you are undergoing this dilemma then other people who are jews have undergone this dilemma before you. Some of them must have tried to defeat the world. Some of them must have been in error.

If some were in error then all the jews who were punished were punished because some of you were in error, because some of you tried to defeat the world.

Ergo, the members of your religion have always been at least partially in error since some of them tried to defeat the world, and the world punished many of you for the trouble.

Therefore your history of being punished is your history of enduring revenge by a world your people tried, and failed, to defeat.

Scissor Statements

As you probably already know there is something called a scissor statement. Here's the definition;

A "scissor statement" is an intentionally inflammatory phrase or idea, coined by Scott Alexander, designed to cause intense polarization and irreconcilable, angry disagreement between groups. It acts like a wedge, highlighting ideological differences to divide people, often used to create social conflict or to, in marketing, target a specific, passionate audience. 

Key Aspects of Scissor Statements:

Definition: A statement that causes, rather than just reports, a massive, emotional divide.

The "Scissor" Effect: The argument becomes so intense that participants become incredulous that the other side could possibly disagree, viewing the issue as an existential battle.

Origin: Coined by author Scott Alexander in his short story "Sort by Controversial," illustrating how certain topics (e.g., the "Ground Zero mosque") act as social scissors.

Purpose: To force people to take sides, making it impossible to hold a neutral position.

Marketing/Strategy: Used to stand out by appealing intensely to one group while alienating others. 

My argument here is that judaism has a scissor effect on the human mind and specifically on the minds of jews themselves. You cannot learn about something like the holocaust, especially if you are jewish, without reaching one of two conclusions: either the world is capable of extraordinary evil (and that evil must be defeated by managing the culture of the goyim) or the jews are profoundly in error. 

The claim I am making here is a meta-claim about the psychological nature of judaism. Scissor statements are explosive in their capacity to produce division and hostility between people. What I am claiming is not the Judaism is evil per se, but that the psychological effect of having a group of people who have been profoundly traumatized and victimized by society will always create in those people an anxiety that compels them to try to manage the culture of others, that this managing will be interpreted as meddling, and that the meddling will then produce a backlash that gets them killed. Judaism then becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of victimization where the attempt to ward off victimization incites it. 

I was reminded of this mentality when I watched a video about the Jewish filmmaker Ari Aster and how his movie Midsommar has the following plot: 

A couple go visit a maypole festival that turns out to be run by a cult that practice is human sacrifice. The cult has a girl drug and rape the boyfriend of the character played by Florence Pugh. She is so upset that she offers him up for human sacrifice because he cheated on her. She then watches and smiles as he is burned alive as a human sacrifice offering. 

The purpose of this plot of course is to demean the entire maypole festival and that is why the movie has generated a lot of animosity and resentment among Swedes. The subversion of the film acts on several levels. First, it's a grades a pre-christian non abrahamic religious festival that gives its people some national pride. Second, it portrays a woman, female character played by Florence Pugh as indifferent to the rape of her boyfriend and willing to enjoy his murder to get "even" for his "cheating." This drives a wedge between the white couple and therefore between white people who watch the movie. White women are unlikely to realize that the character was raped because he was drugged, and therefore, may have some sympathy for the vengeance plot against him. White men well then look at these women and be horrified at how unsympathetic they are. The psychological effect is that white men will perceive their own women as being untrustworthy and dangerous, while the woman's soul is toxified with vicarious pleasure at getting even with white men.

Following divisions and subversions are successfully created: 

1. Degrading the international perception of the festival 
2. Making white men suspicious of white women 
3. Making white women indifferent to the rape of their partner 
4. Teaching white women that it's okay to be violent towards the cheating partner
5. Portraying the triumph of evil over good in a movie, and the demoralizing effects of that on culture

So I was thinking, what would compel Ari Aster to produce this film? A garden variety anti-semitic response might be because jewish subversion is a collective evolutionary response.

But I find genetic explanations unconvincing.

I think it's the nature of jewish history itself. I think the problem is cultural. I think judaism is an entire religion in the form of a scissor statement that compels the individual who is born into it to conclude that the world is a fundamentally hostile and evil place, that people are bad, and that the goyim must be managed or defeated. How can you, as a jew, not look at the holocaust and conclude that the only way for jews to be safe in the long term is for all whites to go extinct? A scissor statement is a statement that creates profound hatred and division between people to the point to where you no longer even see your opponent as human. There is no way to belong to a group that has been purged in a factory killing machine by the millions without concluding some pretty awful things. A jewish man of strong moral conviction will see this situation and conclude he must be prepared to do drastic things to survive and protect his people, and that friends is why judaism is the problem.

Most people are not evil. Most people are good people who do evil things. It is not a world of good versus evil but of stupid versus stupid. Every person who does profound evil is convinced that they are right, convinced that they are acting under an absolute necessity to vanquish and enemy that is implacable. Evil doesn't look like a cackling psychopath plotting your extermination. It looks like an incredibly afraid man who thinks that subverting you, (or holocausting you) is the only way he can survive. Evil is fearful. Evil is driven by fear. "We must do what must be done," they say before burning a village alive in a church. "We must never let the holocaust happen again," they say before subverting your whole culture and making you hate them. The greatest threat to a man's survival is his own moral conviction. Ari, like Hitler, is probably a profoundly moral man. I say that without irony because there is no irony, because there is no separation between a man who thinks he is moral and a man who everyone else thinks is moral. Whenever you find a man of strong conviction you will find his surrounded by other people of similar conviction. He is therefore moral in the eyes of the people surrounding him even as he does objectively evil things. That's how evil really works. Evil feels like doing good.

What is a woman? Gender weirdness and the burden of proof

 

I don't know what a woman is and don't need to care. Conservatives treat this like some sort of gotcha but then you look into the issue and you find out that there are all kinds of weird little intersex conditions that can make you have female parts while being a male or have male parts while being a female. There's a whole discussion on the subject of intersex individuals so defining a woman as a person with two X chromosomes doesn't quite work. Defining a woman as a person with larger gametes also doesn't quite work. Defining a person based on how they present externally doesn't work either because of the very same surgical modifications that transgender individuals practice. Then there's a second entire discussion about what constitutes gender. There is one discussion about biological sex and another about gender, and that adds even more confusion to the issue. I think that all of this is a giant red herring that distracts from the real thing that needs to be discussed, and it isn't the gotcha that conservatives think it is—and makes you look quite stupid when you bang on and on about "define a woman!" "See, you can't even define it!" Yeah but that's the point, they can't define it because nobody can. 

Everyone's missing the real issue here. 

Which is that patriarchy, or heteronormativity, or whatever feminists want to call it, is undoubtedly required for the continued survival of the species. You can't just deconstruct something is ancient as male dominance and expect humans to continue to survive and reproduce. The oppressive structures (and I say that with no irony) that feminist rage against are probably the reason we all exist. 

Whatever the case, there is a non-zero probability that deconstructing those oppressive structures will result in the termination of the species. With such drastic consequences at stake the burden of proof is on anyone tampering with it to establish beyond any doubt—not just a reasonable doubt—that it is safe to do so. Sorry bitch, you have to prove that abolishing patriarchy is safe. We look around and we see that the more education women receive the less children they have. We see that allowing women to have access to the internet has ruined their mental health (far more than it has affected men). Every statistic is pointing to the conclusion that giving women freedom crashes birth rates. 

Feminism, and genderfuckery in general, need to meet the following minimum requirements and burdens of proof to be taken seriously;

1. That the human species will have the numbers to continue even with women liberated.
2. That these numbers will skew sufficiently in favor of the high IQ to prevent the dysgenic collapse of civilization.
3. As a contingency regardless of the above two;
1. Come up with a configuration for a system to replace patriarchy that guarantees the survival and reproduction of the species, and establish that this new system has a high probability of working 
2. Describe in detail the methods by which the species will continue to survive: artificial wombs? Education and lifestyle choices? Men hooked up to sperm milking farms? Trad lifestyle with safe words?

The discussion is completely backwards because they have shifted the burden of proof to you to argue against change even when such change may be disastrous. No one is obligated to consider the opinion of someone who is engineering the collapse of the species and won't even consider that what they are doing is disastrous. No one is required to respect these people. It is dishonorable, dishonest, weasel behavior to use vague terminology to evade responsibility for one's program, to pretend one doesn't have a program or system, to pretend that one only wants to deconstruct the existing system, to ignore the potential implications of that deconstruction. Feminism proposes an alternate system even when it refuses to propose anything. The burden of proof is on the weasel to establish that humanity will continue.

And this goes to an entire problem with modernity; the problem that people who question technological progress are treated as mad and not the people engendering revolutionary change. There's micro plastic in our balls for God's sake, and you want me to have blind faith in revolution? We have endured a thousand revolutions already and gotten for our troubles: global warming, microplastics, ocean acidification, low sperm counts, collapsing birth rates, transgender suicides, 95 million dead from communism, mass migrations, dysgenic demographic change, the loneliness epidemic, porn addiction, a fentanyl epidemic, political tribalism from smartphones, should I continue? Every technology is a revolution. Every social change is a revolution.

Demanding proof before another revolution is not oppressive. It is revolution which is oppressive, it is revolutionary change which is oppressive, and it is all the revolutions of the past that must be cancelled if humanity is to survive. Technology must once again be made to serve man and not man to serve it. That is going to mean drastically limiting its use. It is going to mean canceling gender ideology and feminism and everything else revolutionary.

Thank you Mr. Hanson

If going to high school teaches you anything it should teach you that the annoying kid gets bullycided. People think that when they grow up high school goes away, but grown people show all the behaviors of children who believe in make-believe, how else to explain magical thinking among adults? 

The annoying kid always gets bullycided, and always has. This is because no one can tell if the annoying kid is psychologically torturing you because he enjoys it or is just stupid. People with social skills assume that other people also have social skills—because that's what social skills are. Social skills constitutes putting on a performance and assuming that everyone else is also putting on a performance. If you are annoying it must mean that you want to annoy. The first rule of social skills is that all emotional affects must be intentional, and even if they aren't we are allowed to react as if they are because it's the obligation of the person doing the performance to produce a pleasant effect. Social skills are an implicit moral obligation—a moral agreement—to produce effects in the minds of others that they enjoy, or at least that are deliberate. 

Look at the history of genocide, look how the annoying always get killed. People pretend this isn't the case, like being an adult means we are more "objective" than that or something. Who even knows what the word objective means in this context. The point is that if you become too annoying you get killed. 

The left virtue signaled for ages. This is a puritanical and performative behavior designed to inflict humiliation on anyone who watches while giving the person who does it, the performer, an immense sense of superiority over others. Part of this performance was presenting oneself as a victim and therefore beyond the questioning of others. America has a very long history of tolerating Puritans. It's possible free speech was invented just so Puritans could get away with virtue signaling, but then it got out of hand as those damn racists also used it as a excuse to be annoying. Hence we need limitations to enforce the proper expression of free speech.

The right discovered this interesting trick; if people want to virtue signal on their feet you can make them virtue signal on their knees. The left is too dense to realize that their enemies figured out a way to turn the suffering that rightists experience at the hands of leftists into pleasure for the rightist. We now have a whole agency that does that called ICE. This agency says "Oh so you want to throw yourself in front of the cops huh? Here's a bullet for your trouble." The right figured out a way to convert the pain of dealing with Puritans into a pleasure. 

Leftists cannot not virtue signal about minorities. Rightists cannot stop enjoying punishing leftists by punishing their pets. Brown people are caught in the middle. The whole purpose of right wing authoritarianism is to make the spiritually Puritan suffer, because the spiritually Puritan make everyone else suffer with their virtue signaling. It is remarkable that it took 384 years to figure this trick out. I guess you have to name something before you can do something about it. We have Robin Hanson to thank for that since he invented the term virtue signaling. To name a thing is to create a world where changing it is possible, so thank you Mr Hanson.

Since putting the virtue signaler on their knees is a brand new trick for the West it is unlikely to end soon. There are too many hundreds of years of seething resentment against leftist Puritans—too much rage built up. Virtue signaling has the effect of destroying the values it ostensibly upholds. It does this by making those values a suffering to all who witness them. In real morality only the criminal pays. But in (old fashioned) virtue signaling both the criminal and the witness must pay. The criminal pays with justice, while the witness with degradation. Today modern Puritans don't even believe in justice anymore—they clearly don't want the criminal to pay. In fact the goal is that both the witness and victim pay. First the victim pays by being a victim of crime. Then both the victim and witness pay by being victims of virtue signaling where the Puritan leftist defends the criminal to the humiliation of both the victim and witness. This completely inverts justice, making virtue into evil and an evil out of virtue. Demon energy. 

People were content to let leftists make the witness pay as long as the criminal also paid. In the late 90s a TV show called The Practice came along and taught Puritan leftists that criminals were also victims so long as they were brown. This was the beginning of the end for virtue signaling. Although nobody talks about this TV show it's effects and all subsequent shows that borrow the motif reinforce the notion and it has been internalized by academia. Maybe the TV show got its ideas from academics, maybe academics got their idea from the TV show, whatever the case it corrupted the public notion of justice with the idea that "systems" can abuse people and that abuse will absolve them of not just sin, but crime with real victims involved.

Here's the thing about equality. If people are equal they're obviously equally accountable, and therefore equally punishable for the same crime. Justice can therefore not make exceptions. On the other hand, if people are not equal they are not equally deserving of Rights, and therefore the fate of the brown is even worse. In neither case does the brown colored person get to exempt themselves from any of the same moral standards as anyone else. If you are brown it is far preferable to be equally accountable, since the alternative is slavery. Thomas Sowell understood this which is why he was such a staunch defender of equal standards. To participate in the defense of exceptions to equal standards is to participate in undermining the whole notion of justice, since turning good into evil and evil into good was the whole point of humiliating the witness and victim with virtue signaling. Once equal standards are killed by virtue signaling there is nothing to stop the return of slavery. So anything other than equal standards attacks the brown man. If the brown man benefits from exceptions standards will be corrupted until nothing stops raw power against him, and if the racist wins he will be considered inferior and (again) nothing will stop raw power against him. His only chance to benefit from equal rights is to play the game on a playing field of equal standards. Sowell instinctively understood this.

Since a trick has now been learned to punish the liberal Puritan by punishing their pets, and since 300 years of resentment is now built up, and since virtue signaling corrupts all respect for justice, implicitly endorsing raw power, there is nothing to stop a few centuries of counter-punishment. I wonder if raw power was what originally lead to Puritan fanaticism. It's too bad I can't look into the past and see the attitudes of people back then, at least not without reading a large pile of ancient and obscure books.

For progress to happen the myth of progress must die

The myth of progress, or the Right Side of History is a blindfold that prevents us from seeing what we need to see, doing what we need to do, and changing what we need to change. This is because the idea of eternal progress is based on flawed assumptions. 

First is the assumption that technology is always a net good

Second is the assumption that culture must always become more liberal 

Because of these two assumptions it becomes impossible to course correct. We have a number of fatal problems;

Birth control may lead to the extinction of the species through low birth rates

Microplastics may lead to the extinction of the species 

Endocrine disruptors are lowering sperm counts and may cause the extinction of the species

Birth control creates women's rights, women's rights lead to the invasion of the First world by the Third world. Women's rights are dysgenic

Smart phones are a dumb tech destroying community and creating social isolation 

AI and weird internet ideologies are creating psychosis 

All of these problems are enabled by faith in technology. Solving all of these problems is inhibited by the belief that the world must always become more liberal. 

For progress to occur the myth of progress must be smashed. 

We need gladiators. We need death races. We need triumph style parades where we march captured foreign leaders through the streets and pelt them with garbage before beheading them. We need to embrace barbarism in order to demoralize the liberal myth of eternal progress. Legalize and promote duling and fight clubs.

Then we need to ban and limit certain technologies. We need to ban plastic. We need to ban the flame retardants used in furniture and cross laminated timber that destroy sperm counts. We need to ban synthetic rubber and artificial fabrics since most of the microplastics in our balls come from synthetic rubber and synthetic fabrics. 

We need to genetically engineer bacteria that breaks down the long lived chemicals destroying us. One bacteria for each and every chemical. If there are a thousand long lived persistent organic pollutants we will need a thousand unique strains of bacteria.

We need to shut down social media at least two nights a week. We need to ban every kind of pornography except magazines sold out of the back of some creeps trunk. All digital porn on the internet will be laced with viruses that brick your computer. We need to raise birth rates by tying the number of children you have to status and even promotions.

We also need selective breeding and genetic enhancement. We need embryo selection and designer babies. We need people riding horses through the street and growing wheat on their front lawns. We need mandatory organic food.

We need privateers that round up non-whites and deport them. We need a whole private industry that enriches itself through deportations. We need to deport the most insane communist too — to Africa so they can live among their brown pets.

We need to lean into a blend of Warhammer 40k barbarism, Mennonite style Ludism and return to nature. The future is going to have to be weird and inconsistent. It's going to be based on whatever works and not dogma. We're going to have to throw moral consistency in the trash. You're going to sip your soda from a glass bottle, grow corn on your lawn and watch the fight club tournament at your church. You're going to get a raise because you had your second child — but not before that. We're going to build commie blocks in the art deco style for families with children on the way. Your wife won't be able to get a birth control prescription until you have two kids. You can get some porn but not on video without destroying your computer. Your social media and streaming will be turned off twice a week to make you bored on purpose so you go out and have a life. We're going to parade Keir Starmer through the streets and behead him with a guillotine after a show trial on national television where he is convicted of aiding and abetting the rape of Europe. We're going to watch this on TV while sipping craft beer at a bar with a weight lifting room. Then you can ride home on a horse to your house with a wheat field in the front yard, fuck your state appointed trade wife drunk and pass out.

You still don't know what you're up against

I told myself I would stay away but apparently I have one more thing to say. Things have gotten way stupider with me gone so I feel the need to weigh in this one time.

Moldbug's entire strategy proceeds from the flawed assumption that decentralized governance would never work for the right wing. This is because he has no actual experience with government. Dude has literally never been to a city council meeting. 

I keep harping on city council meetings, I keep saying that you should go to them. Local government seems like the most useless thing, right? Why would you sit in the galley and watch these tedious proceedings? And yet a person can never really know a thing until they have some hands-on experience with it. An architect who has never laid a brick is not a real architect and the academic architect is always the one that produces garbage modernism. Old cathedrals are beautiful because they were designed by stonemasons who touched every single stone that went into the building. When you can touch a stone, carve a stone, and place a stone with your hands, it affects how you see architecture in ways that sitting in front of a computer aided drafting interface never could. Even the most basic experience with local civics is better than nothing. You can just go into State houses and sit in the galley watching the proceedings, you can just see how the sausage is made, no one can stop you, at least not yet.

The vice president is taking his advice from a man who never even sat in the galley. Unlike Moldbug I have real government experience.

Getting back to decentralized governance. Government is divided between two groups: lunatic activists and grifters. At the local level the grifter side is composed of real estate developers and construction companies that receive government contracts to build roads and stuff. The other side of the local level are crazy activists who show up to every city council meeting and push for communist policies. These guys also have a homeless grift since they are embedded with "nonprofits" that generate jobs in the homeless industrial complex. The activist will show up for everything no matter how tedious. The right wing grifters will only show up for money. This asymmetry is why the right wing loses and not the decentralized nature of the situation.

The only reason the government is not complete lunacy is monetary influence. Watching the two groups try to dominate my city government I quickly came to realize the developers are far less harmful. The activist would turn the entire city into a homeless pile of garbage and needles it they could.

To get right wingers to show up there has to be money. To get right wingers to do activist things, or the sorts of things that neutralize left-wing activists, you need privateers. There has to be money involved to get the right wing to do anything at all.

The definition of a privateer is basically a pirate who has been given official endorsement by a government to seize foreign vessels. (As a side note this is how you deal with Chinese fishing boats invading our waters). I am going to be using the word privateer in a much more expansive definition that includes mercenaries, private deportation agents, bounty hunters, thugs who crack the skulls of lunatic activists, and even the existing police. Really anyone that gets paid to attack gay race commies, and I do mean attack, as in lawful or pseudo lawful violence. Privateers can also include the lawyers that make their money suing companies for failing to follow DEI policies. These lawyers are currently left wing but as the situation at the University of Oklahoma shows they can become right wing. Since discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint is now illegal it is possible for the right wing to use DEI to harass the left. If the list of protected categories (discrimination prohibited on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, veteran status, political belief, pregnancy) was changed (oh say prohibited on the basis of Christian belief, Caucasian descent, white male descent, veteran status, stay at home motherhood, or conservative political belief) the entire DEI apparatus could be weaponized as a lawyer-based privateer against the left. I believe I have said this on Twitter but nobody seems to care.

Privateers are a sustainable form of right-wing activism because, (a) government is ruled by monetary donations, (b) privateers will give donations to keep their jobs, and (c) the combination of the two will cement an industry that works tirelessly against the activists, and (d) the very nature of a privateer repels left wing personalities. 

The only thing that sustains itself in government (is sustainable) is that which gives money to the government and then receives power from the government. Without a cycle of money and power nothing is sustained. The left has a collection of cycles of money and power while the right only has cycles of money and money. Meaning: the left gets power from the government and gives money to the government through left wing billionaires. The right typically gives money to the government and then receives money from the government (through contracts and defense spending). The left also receives money from the government (through welfare spending). Basically, you have to destroy all their cycles of money and power and build up your own cycles of money and power. 

Here are some of their cycles: 

Money for somalis in exchange for votes 

Money for latinos in exchange for votes

Salaries for college professors in exchange for indoctrinating students 

Salaries for teachers in exchange for indoctrination

Donations from lawyers in exchange for money/power to DEI lawyers to harass people 

Salaries for activists in exchange for activism (See USAID)

Salaries for spooks in exchange for color revolutions 

Salaries for experts in exchange for bogus science

Private donations to leftists in exchange for prestige

The right wing needs to conduct a deep survey of all cycles of left-wing money and power, identify those cycles, and pass laws and executive orders to destroy them. The right wing then needs to construct its own cycles of money and power. This is how you entrench yourself beyond a single election.

People think the entire reason that immigration occurs is because of ZOG who hate you, and that is somewhat true, but there is also a tremendous amount of institutional inertia and governments are shockingly unwilling to repeal stupid and corrupt laws. This is because politicians are generally uncreative and dull people, but also because the existing collection of cycles entrench themselves and resist repeal. 

Power is destroying the cycles of your enemy and building up your own. These cycles will outlast you, they will outlast your administration, they will even last for centuries after you are dead. Right now there is a huge cycle of money and power that profits from bringing foreigners into the United States. You need to build up a huge cycle of money and power for deporting those same foreigners. You need a giant industry of privateers. The shape of power is its cycles, and you alter that shape by altering those cycles. Contrary to what you may think a lot of the people involved are much more cognitively flexible than you would imagine and will change allegiances and go wherever the money is so if deporting a somali is now profitable and giving him free legal aid is not profitable and lands you in jail they will switch allegiances. Anyone whose sociopathic enough to destroy their country is generally sociopathic enough to deport immigrants. Most of these people are sellouts whose values are an after the fact justification for selling their souls. They go wherever the highest bidder makes them go so become the only bidder and destroy all competing bidders.

The right wing thinks that it can challenge power by electing inexperienced businessmen to run things. This then gives you an inexperienced politician who spends the first few years of his administration simply figuring out how to ride the proverbial horse. Meanwhile the activists have been going to every single city council meeting and sitting in the galley of every state house watching the proceedings and gaining understanding of its machinations. The right wingers only show up when they want their contracts renewed or the police budget increased — only when there's money on the line. In fact as soon as they get their business completed they almost run out of the room. I have seen developers walk out of council chambers the absolute instant the vote ruled in their favor — so eager are they to leave, so uncomfortable are they with power. This naturally gives the left a lot more experience with power. Privateers help to solve that by bringing the kind of right wing people who like power into government. The Police Union is always the right wing power source that left-wing activists fear the most: shitting on them literally risks them taking a couple of hours to show up for you 911 call (or so they believe). I have seen leftists who talk about abolishing the police openly worry on Facebook about retaliation from the police. Because that is what they would do.

We need privateers;

Private deportation agents 

Literal privateers who go after Chinese fishing boats

Reprogrammed DEI lawyers

Paid Christian activists who get leftist professors fired 

And

Money for white South Africans in exchange for votes 

Money for Russian immigrants in exchange for votes

Salaries for conservatives college professors in exchange for indoctrinating students 

Salaries for conservative teachers in exchange for indoctrination

We also need some system that removes leftist judges.

Power builds on itself. The ability to harass your enemies makes it easier to repeal their cycles. Any system of privateers will make getting and keeping power easier. Getting power makes getting power easier. You build up your own cycles and destroy the enemy's. That is how you create power that outlasts an election. 

Also, one last thing. A right wing alternative to Hollywood is desperately needed. And it can't be some stupid ham-fisted Christian thing like "Angel Studios." It has to be actually good fiction. Larry Niven is an excellent right-wing author who has never been made into a media. I'm sure there are others. The fact that there are right wing multi-billionaires who have never even considered starting a movie studio is remarkable to me. Everything should not depend on The Will Stancil Show. Cultural production is severely underrated among the right. If I were a billionaire I would have recruited Emily Youcis long ago and given her millions for a whole new right wing Cartoon Network and she would be supervising a dozen different shows right now as their producer. Cultural production matters but especially media that ridicules the enemy.

Indefinite Hiatus

When I started this blog I had a collection of rants in my head for things that I would like to get out. These rants eventually turned into a comprehensive worldview where all parts interlock and support each other. I don't know if my worldview has any contradictions although it feels like it doesn't, or at least like it doesn't have very many. Each and every entry on this blog was crafted with the deliberate intention of creating profound insight into the problems of America. I absolutely hate wasting the reader's time, and unlike your teachers who forced to to write unnecessarily long essays about boring subjects I took it as my mantra never to waste a single word of print, making everything I wrote as computationally dense as possible.

I have done the thing that I came here to do, which was to put in writing the ideas in my mind. Having done that I'm not sure which way to go or if I should go anywhere. I could rehash my old ideas into increasingly comprehensive essays. I could dig into my own viewpoint looking for contradictions and try to iron them out. I have also strongly considered pivoting to fiction. I've also considered pivoting to news about current events. But for now I'm going to do nothing and take a break. This blog will remain idle for the time being and may be reactivated in the future if and when something new comes to me. 

The archives will still be here and you can peruse them at your leisure. Most posts contain a unique thought or insight into a problem and they all more or less reinforce each other and help flesh out a comprehensive worldview. That worldview may still be somewhat of a rough draft but it's now complete, so until then,

On Hiatus

@smolfeelshaver

Got tolerance? The new landscape of warfare

The purpose of a thing is what it does and not what it says it does. This is the basic axiom that can disentangle all kinds of lies and nonsense. The instrumental purpose other thing is the effect it accomplishes and not the words of politicians trying to morally justify things.

Let's first talk about the instrumental purpose of intolerance.

Intolerance makes people straighten up and fly right. It makes people conceal they're inadequacies. It makes people "mask" their mental health issues. It makes gay people lead straight lives. It makes mentally ill people pretend to be functional, get married, and have children. In short, intolerance keeps people with bad genes in the gene pool. Human society did this for reasons that will become apparent in a minute.

Tolerance does the opposite. It baits people with bad jeans into exposing all their inadequacies so that women can judge them and refuse to have children with them. Paradoxically these same women also don't believe in having children and want to lead the "child-free lifestyle." Tolerance is all the runts of the litter encouraging each other to expose their weaknesses and inadequacies so they may be judged lacking.

Males who make the mistake of believing that tolerance is real don't breed unless they already have hot and handsome genetics. Only females get to enjoy the benefits of tolerance, although these benefits are superficial and a false economy. What is a "false economy?" A false economy is when you buy a cheap pair of shoes that wear out quickly and have to buy more shoes as a result. A false economy is when something looks inexpensive but actually cost more in the long term. Tolerance is a false economy for females, because in the short term, yes, men will fuck them no matter what—a hole is a hole—but in the long term men don't want to marry a vegan woman with two mental diseases, a chronic illness, and a lot of excuses. They don't really want to breed with her and certainly can't stand living with her. The "child free life" becomes a glamorous cope for rejection. 

Why do people do this? Well if you think about it, there are two worlds. There is the world prior to the invention of birth control and the world after it. These worlds operate in two completely different modes. Before birth control life is a death struggle against malthusian conditions. The population is going to constantly grow and you're going to outgrow your resource base. You're going to have to conquer your neighbors in order to get food to feed your growing population. In this situation you want to keep as many people in the gene pool as possible, you want even the most inadequate person to have children. It doesn't matter if they have bad genetics because the next famine or war will take care of that. It's not your job to judge whether they have good or bad genetics. Nature is so harsh, so brutal, so utterly terrifying, that all you have to do is sit back and let nature do its work. Nobody has to organize a regime of tolerance. Everybody is incredibly harsh and expects you to straighten up and fly right and conceal your mental illnesses and this thing and the other thing. Who knows? Maybe that bipolar guy who's occasionally manic will lead his nation to victory. Nature is the one that decides. This is the first mode of human existence, it is Mode 1, and it strives with futility to defeat nature while brutal natural selection does it's work.

But then you invent birth control and the population is no longer growing relentlessly. This means you're no longer outstripping your resources, famine and war are no longer inevitable. For a brief period of time in the 1980s you enjoy a blissful period of complete relaxation of both nature and society's rules. They're still sort of telling you to straighten up and fly right, you're still being encouraged to conceal bad genetics. Women are still normal and don't necessarily have a bunch of mental illnesses. Or at least they don't look like they have a bunch of mental illnesses. Whatever the case, they're more or less tolerable to be around. They are nice, and feminine, and demure, and caring. The men are basically competent, and heroic, and functional with money. You think nature has been banished so you get the best of both worlds, but little do you know you're entering the era of Mode 2.

In Mode 1 they force you to stay in the gene pool and nature kills you off if you're inadequate. In Mode 2 they usher as many people out of the gene pool as possible since nature is no longer doing it. Mode 2 weaponizes tolerance to remove mutants from the gene pool. It baits people into advertising their inadequacies. It kind of makes sense that the baby boomers would sabotage their own mutant offspring. In Mode 2 the whole culture is low-key subversion. 

But Mode 2 suffers from a bunch of problems. One is that because of birth control the population is imploding and subverting everyone is going to drastically exacerbate that. This could lead to extinction if not careful. The second is that it is untethered from reality. How do we know the bipolar guy is genetically inadequate? He might have stormed the beaches of Normandy in a previous era. He might have been the most effective killer in his Roman cavalry unit. The doctors tell us what's normal and abnormal. But what the fuck do the doctors know? They won't even deal honestly with the subject of eugenics. And what is eugenics other than natural selection untethered to nature? In the Mode 2 subversion era the 1940s are the hidden standard everyone references since that was the last time selection mattered. Therefore you are worthy of breeding with if you would have fought against Hitler. Why? Because that's the last time natural selection mattered and that's what they did. Or maybe it's just decades of Hollywood propaganda, or maybe the Holocaust really is the thing all ideology should be centered around and against, and no new ideological inventions that are indifferent to it should ever be invented, because the liberal worldview is magnificently perfect and explains the entire universe with zero gaps in knowledge, and nothing better will ever succeed it.

Mode 2 is really a secret other thing called Mode 3. What is Mode 3? It is ideological natural selection. In this system society fragments into competing tribes and cults. Natural selection works by favoring some of these cults and destroying others. The feedback loop is all about having the right mindset for navigating the world. Not necessarily even a functional mindset, not even necessarily a sane mindset. Just "right" enough to get you to breed.

Ideology becomes the point of natural selection and this becomes increasingly true as designer babies and genetic engineering are introduced. In fact an ideology might turn out to be a blind cul-de-sac, meaning that for the first few generations you think you're going in the right direction and everything seems to be going well. A cul-de-sac is a point of termination. You are practicing genetic modifications according to your ideology and it seems to be working fantastically. But this process is recursive and maybe you push one trait too far and the result is you get people who don't want to have children of their own, or who insist on designing their children in maladaptive ways. Mode 3 is all about avoiding both visible and invisible cul-de-sacs. It's not enough to have the right ideology you have to also have the right meta ideology, your ideology has to work not just today but after centuries of recursive self modification.

Of course in all the different Modes ideology is a weapon to destroy others. In Mode 1 you use ideology to hype up your own tribe to destroy the other. In Mode 2 you weaponize ideology to subvert people you hate, even people within your own tribe, even future generations. In Mode 3 you concentrate the most on having the correct meta ideology for your own survival and treat all ideology with suspicion, especially outside ideologies. The goal is long-term survival and reproduction, you must not only have the right ideology, your children must also want to adopt this ideology without being forced, and it must not lead them into a cul-de-sac of self-termination. It's really really really important to get it right. You might borrow from other ideologies when you see something working. You might even have ideological trade secrets and conduct the religious version of corporate espionage. In the beginning of Mode 3 the landscape is pretty relaxed and it's easy to get a foothold since there aren't any competitors. As time goes on this landscape of competition will become increasingly vicious and cut throat, with ideology crafted lovingly to guarantee the survival of one's own tribe, and counter ideologies crafted viciously to drive opponents to extinction, with spys stealing meta ideological trade secrets, and entryists sent in to confuse and destroy opponents. It goes without saying that public school won't exactly work in this landscape since the ideologies taught to children is itself part of the battlescape. Since Mode 2 is really Mode 3 in disguise it already doesn't work and public school teachers are too often high mutational load subversives who hate children.

The formalized version of this system is some sort of meta-election where first voters choose left or right, then with all the voters (or only the subset that has the majority) chooses another category (libertarian or nationalist if right, socialist or social democracy if they chose left), into increasingly smaller and more fragmented niche ideologies.

Or maybe formalization of the process takes the form of start up cities who's governance continuously forms, fractures, and forms again according to a war of all against all. Even when a monopoly emerges it behooves one to run competing city state or neighborhood or ideological experiments least one fall into complacency and be upstaged by a new arrival. When one buys out and destroys the competition the smart thing might not even be to consolidate, but rather to fracture again on purpose by modifying the opponents ideology / city state / neighborhood into a more potent or healthy form and then strategically replacing some of the population with persons more fit to propagate. In this formalized version of Mode 3 the government landscape itself is reconfigured to facilitate the ideological war of all against all and prevent consolidation, since consolidation is fatal by consolidating selection effects into a single entity—an entity who could make a single mistake and ruin it for everyone.