Friday, September 22, 2017

There is a new Unabomber miniseries



Musing on the end of the world


I have a tendency to conflate "negative" with truthful. Maybe this is just because I don't want to be disappointed by anyone. I figure that if my standards are low enough then no one can disappoint me. But this has a cost. If standards are low you never see the good in people. If standards are low people will tend to live down to them. If standards are low people detect your low standards and become shittier as a result. And if standards are low you are negative which repulses a lot of positive people that could be of benefit in your life. Low standards have and rather extreme cost, and negativity isn't cheep.

It's one of those things that only affects the people who care deeply about the world. You think you have a moral obligation to society, to be realistic and truthful no matter where it leads. You believe that it is your job to fix the problem of your country. You think you are required to care. Or at least I think that I am required to care.

Is this a "white thing?" or does it affect a small percentage of every population? This, compulsion to care? It that even an acceptable question to ask? What I do know is that it is a "Scientology thing." You are hammered relentlessly with the idea that the entire fate of the world is on your shoulders. Quite literally, you are indoctrinated to believe that if you do not "clear the planet" (save the world) everything will implode and your spiritual destiny will be fucked. Scientologists literally believe that they will have to come back to the world in their next life. If things are not fixed now you will have to endure them again. If the world decays, you will have to personally endure the decay — as a baby in your next life. If you die today you will be a 5 year old child in 5 years. Literally.

What a hell of a way to motivate people!

This is a really hyper version of Christian missionary zeal. But instead of working for the next life you are working for this world, and your own future existence. Reincarnation also factors into the political calculations of other cultures. Westerners may find it odd to realize that East Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese think like this. In the East some people pray to their ancestors. The belief in a future in this world connects them to the future. The veneration of ancestors connects them to the past. Consequently, there is nothing like the extreme disregard for history that exists in atheist progressivism. Progs act like the world began in AD 1963. It's a really incredible hubris. Asian societies have a much better conception of deep time than the west. When you grow up you are supposed to realize that there was a world before you existed, that your parents have their own lives and are their own people, that ancient wisdom has its uses even if no one quite understands why, and that there is "nothing new under the sun." —Ecclesiastes 1:9

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."

Even the Bible supports the notion of nietzschean eternal recurrence. Or shall I say that Nietzsche supports the Bible, since it preceded him.

The alt-right/neoreaction shares this feature with my birth cult; the feature of caring what happens to the world; the feature of believing that YOU are responsible for it. This mentality is so familiar to me it comes across as obviously true. Since most of society seems narcissisticly self-absorbed in feelings ("that offends me!"), materialism (treat others like consumable products), and solipsism (choose your own gender, "lived experience," etc.), IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE THE WORLD is the alternative to the well of meaninglessness.

This idea of totality is shared by Islam. It is a symptom of our time that "totality" appears the only thing that stands against the breach, obstructing mental decay. Where did the "great chain of being" go? What happened to "clean living," the "protestant work ethic," "American optimism," "frontier spirit," and classical liberalism?

Perhaps totality only works because it places the individual at the center of things. After all, if its your job to save the world then you take the place of Jesus within the ideological pattern. That's narcissistic right? And so the one thing that resists decay is built on decay? Or am I missing something? It seems a true reversion to a non-decayed form would be a veneration of something outside of oneself. NOT sex, products, technology, the "singularity," flesh, self-expression, love, or any other idols. No, you have to go full God-worship to step outside your own solipsism. Maybe the trads are right.



Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Create a billion, kill a million


There are 7 billion people on the Earth. At least 6 billion are here because of the vaccines invented by White men. 6 million Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals were also killed in the concentration camps by White men.

Oops.

Well, you win some and you lose some. Create a billion, kill a million.

Not to trivialize their deaths. It was a tragic and horrible loss. But we need to trivialize their deaths, because we aren't the only race that has committed genocide. Blacks killed millions in Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and the Congo. Asians killed tens of millions in China and Cambodia. Communists killed 94 million. People rant against racism. I don't see anyone else ranting against the equality that caused communism. Genocide is completely unremarkable in planet Earth.

The white man is the Shiva man. Creator and destroyer. Shiva is not evil. He just is. Liberals manipulate reality to suit a narrative. Instead, change your narrative to suit reality.

And no, we don't "need" to demonize White men to prevent genocide. Remember what I JUST SAID 2 paragraphs ago? Every race commits genocide. Reality doesn't "need" to be manipulated. It just doesn't. There is never a legitimate reason why a fact should be ignored. There are no necessary lies for high agency men with the will-to-think. Lies are for sheeple. Are you a sheeple?



Speaking with no filter and channeling Darth Vader


*Read this whole post in an ultra Darth Vader voice*

You're not equal and you never will be. You want tolerance? You can tolerate my fist in your ass. You like equality? I'll make you equally dead. Fuck you.

Rights are just a spook. Free will is just a spook. You are just a meat robot.

Civilization can never give you want because you — like all humans — are an insane monkey.

So you believe that politics should be morally consistent? Huh? WRONG! Consistency produces death, whether you are talking about libertarians letting people die in the gutter, communists killing millions, or Nazis liquidating Jews, wherever there is moral consistency there is mass murder. The universe is a fascist bitch and does not care about your weak, bitch nigger morals. Fuck you.





































You want to live in the universe with principles? Wake up snowflake. Its a billion miles of radiation and hard vacuum in all direction. The sun is getting 1% hotter every 100 million years. Time is running out for your species. Your species is about to get air tight stuffed and penetrated by the hard radiation cock of the sun. Morality is for losers. The only rule in this fucking entropy hell is SURVIVAL. You either have the will to survive, or you don't. The universe is conspiring to kill you. Grow the fuck up.

Civilization is built on lies. Civilization is good. Therefore lies are good. Lies get weak lil' bitches to do the right thing. Lies get empires and nations to survive in spite of themselves. Most of you deserve to die from sheer fucking incompetence.

Even better: lies are the charity sociopaths with survival skills show the incompetent to keep them alive in spite of themselves. That's right, sociopaths keep your dumb ass alive.

Power is the opposite of equality. Democracy is a system of power. Democracy needs people to believe in equality to work. Therefore, democracy is a system of power, (inequality) that needs you to believe in equality in order to function, even though it cannot deliver equality. How's that for a mind job?

What else did you think it was? This is called "bait and switch," and it's awesome because human monkeys deserve nothing better.

All governments are systems of power. Power is unequal by nature. For power to exist there must be someone "above," and someone, "below." No system of government can eliminate power, and thus, no system of government can eliminate inequality. Anarchy doesn't give you equality because nothing can do that — you are not equal. Anarchy gives you rule by "Lord Humongous." All that happens is you get your weak lil' bitch ass head smashed in by a cannibal biker.

The more honest the government, the more people it has to murder to maintain order. Lies keep people alive. Lies are good for business. Lies are the basis of freedom.

The state can never give you what you want. Misery is genetic. If you were never miserable you would never eat, sleep, fuck, or have friends. Every miserable little impulse you have makes you reproduce, either directly or indirectly. That's why you have needs. And that is why you're miserable as all shit — because your needs are frustrated. You must always have needs, and they must always be frustrated. That is how evolution designed you, and why the species reproduces itself. It is your misery that drives you to do everything you do — dumb-ass!

The basic problem of civilization is to prevent people from destroying civilization by projecting their neurosis into it; using the government as the latrine of their desire — desires that can never be fulfilled because they are genetically insatiable. The state is not the appropriate shitpot for human monkey neurosis; that honor goes to religion.

A state religion is the most perfect vessel for capturing human shitpot neurosis. The government could never give you equality even if it tried, because you would simply move the goal post and become ever more petty and jealous. Your needs are genetic. They can never be fully satisfied by definition. The state is not here to pander to your fucking disease.

Civilization is a process of capturing human energy and turning it against itself to produce order. Faith, gladiatorial competitions, and spectacles are the most effective way to do that. Do not be disgusted by the spectacle; be disgusted by the fact that monkeys need the spectacle to prevent their madness from destroying society. The monkey is not mature or high agency enough to simply accept the reality of power, that it is never going away, that jackboots are eternal.

Elections
Educational brainwashing
Control of all news
Gladiatorial sports
State religion
Never ending war
Show trials and public executions
Nuremberg rallies
Hunger games

Pick your spectacle. Each is poisonous in its own way. You will need at least three to run a successful society. American Idol, famous boxing matches, and Super Bowls can also provide a service of spectacle to the state, but their infrequency means they cannot be relied upon.

The more spectacle and religion, the more safe civilization is against insurrection and collapse, and contrary to the mad rantings of anarchists there is nothing after the state — just another state.

The whole point of elections is not to represent the will of the people, but to test the effectiveness of propaganda. Why? It reduces costs lil' bitch. Elections need to matter so that the effectiveness of controlling public opinion can be accurately estimated, so that elites are forced to be competent at propaganda. The whole fucking point of the election is the elites, not the people.

Straight violence may be more honest, and some people may like honesty, but it reduces real rights. If the government has to do weekly riot control it has little incentive to behave benevolently. It is already spending too much on the security services, and one more murder is just a statistic.

As already stated, the whole point of controlling pubic perception is to pacify insane monkeys monkeys; who by definition, can never be satisfied.

Once they are pacified, the state can sit back and allow a certain amount of freedom. Freedom is the vacuum produced by order. That creates conformity? You don't like conformity? Well fuck you. It doesn't matter. The smart man is free to think whatever he wants. The dumb man never had a chance anyway. If you have agency you are already more free than others. If not? Then you never had a chance.

The one with the will-to-think thinks whatever he wants. The one without, thinks whatever he is told. Freedom makes itself real — or not at all.

Very few people have moral agency. Only men who know themselves have it, and self-knowledge is something almost everyone avoids. Order is produced through control of public opinion so that the few who have agency can have freedom, since they are the only ones who matter. Order is good because it gives freedom to the only people who deserve it.

Someone once said that you cannot fool all the people all the time. That is a fucking lie. We fool all the monkeys every day. That's the point of democracy. And anyone not fooled by democracy can rise to power within it. That's also the point, since their energy has to be captured by the state to prevent them from destroying society.

Democracy lets the wolf conceal his power among the sheep. This protects the wolf from danger and the sheep from reality, maximizing utility on both counts. Herd animal only need to THINK they are free; the predictors need to rule. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, you know the rest.

The great project of civilization is not to make the word honest, or accomplish some enlightened task, but quarterly profits on the human farm. Civilization is a project of deception whose purpose is to keep insane monkeys from destroying themselves. It is monkey farming business, and the only way the livestock are equal is as meat.

The most convincing Matrix is the most effective civilization. Freedom is an illusion caused by your intelligence being below the threshold for noticing your cage. There are many cages; the Cathedral, one's own genetics, or nature's very own laws. The more intelligent the man, the more enslaved he feels, and the more aware of all the cages he becomes. It is a matrix within a matrix. The low IQ need illusions while the high IQ need power.

Freedom is an illusion because free will is an illusion. Those who can see do, and are already free. Those who cannot see won't, and cannot be helped. Those who can see, and try to overthrow the system are deluding themselves; the sheeple do not want to be saved, cannot handle the truth, and will attack the liberator. You are wasting your time trying to free people. They like their illusions, and hate you for telling the truth. Be honest, the truth makes you miserable, and you only desire to spread it because of your hateful envy of the ignorant bliss of others. The sheeple are blessed.



Sunday, September 17, 2017

Scientology, training routines, and the post-rationalization of abuse


In Scientology there is this thing called Training Routines, or TRs for short. It is like meditation but not. In the first training routine, (TR Zero), a person is trained to sit still with their eyes closed. They are not allowed to fidget, sneeze, giggle, laugh, scratch themselves, shift their weight around a lot, fart, or fall asleep. They have to sit quietly for hours on end without any nervous behaviors or falling asleep. It they so much as giggle, the whole exercise starts over again. This goes on and on and on day after day. If you fidget in any way the coach yells "flunk!" and you have to start over again.

The point is NOT to suppress your emotions. The point is to learn to be there comfortably.

After you have mastered TR-0 you move on to TR-1. TR-1 is the same thing, but with your eyes open. You sit there in a chair with your feet on the floor and LOOK at another person for hours on end. You are not allowed to fidget, squirm, giggle, laugh, or anything. It you do any of these things the "coach" yells "flunk!" and you have to start over. If you flunk too many time you have to go back and repeat the previous level.

Next comes TR-3: bull-bait. This is where things get interesting. Now your coach makes jokes, perverted remarks, reads from Alice in Wonderland, whatever. They can even joke about your mother. If your fidget in anyway, laugh, or get pissed off you flunk and have to start over. If you flunk too many times you have to repeat the previous level.

I went through all of this at the age of nine when I took the Children's Communication Course. As a result I had a batter ability to sit still and shut up than most adults.

Here's the point. TR-3 is basically conditioning a person to accept abuse. The TRs vastly raise the threshold for your fight-or-flight response so that nothing bothers you. It basically eliminates your fight-or-flight response. You need your fight-or-flight response. It tells you when you are about to get your ass beaten. It tells you when everyone hates you. It tells you when you need to stand up for yourself.

And there is a second reason.

Human beings post-rationalize their bad behavior. If someone does something bad to you they will rationalize their behavior by dehumanizing you. They will find fault in YOU so they don't feel so bad about what they have done to you. As a result, if you tolerate abuse you are unwittingly training the abuser to abuse you even more. You must stand up for yourself or the abuse will just continue. If other people see that you are willing to take abuse they might try to take advantage. Standing up for yourself is a matter of survival.

Whether L. Ron Hubbard knew this is what he was doing when he came up with TRs is anyone's guess. But the inevitable result of TRs is a population of people who take abuse passively without resistance, and a managerial culture where people with power relentlessly dehumanize their subordinates. Whether intended or not, the consequence of TRs is to eliminate the fight-or-flight response, and create a cycle of post-rationalization of abuse and dehumanization. This is exactly what we see in Scientology. The ruled passively accept the abuse of the rulers.

Never accept abuse. It trains your abuser to abuse you more.

This is also why you should not passively accept the dehumanization of White people. You should stand up for your race. Otherwise you are allowing future generations to be trained to abuse you with a cycle of post-rationalization.



Saturday, September 16, 2017

Fire is cool


Humans are monkeys
Monkeys love fire
Liberals love fire
Death is always fashionable
Life is work
Survival is boring
Conservatism is boring
Liberals are fashionable
And conservatives are boring
Accelerationism is also fashionable



Political correctness as a substitute Veblen good


I keep saying that there is nothing outside capitalism, except maybe North Korea. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. It is a subset of capitalist behavior. Dictatorships and oligarchies are essentially giant corporations that own countries. Democracies are markets, and all other countries are firms. China is just one big firm.

Cathedral PR says that tolerance is the highest virtue. In reality it is a moral value of capitalism. Tolerance is really indifference. Our tolerance is supposed to be love. In reality, by indulging you in your gender neurosis we are assisting in your destruction. Caring is too expensive and brings no profit/social status to the one who does it. Even worse, "intolerance" costs the one who does it status points as the person who is inhibited from acting out punishes the person who is inhibiting them. All of this follows from a pure logic of status profit maximization. The one acting out earns status though self-destruction. (The self-destruction of others is enjoyed as entertainment by other human monkeys). The entertained pay status points to the self-destroyer, who destroyers herself for status. (It's usually a White female who is destroying herself). The process is not inhibited because it would cost the surrounding people status points. Gender neurosis is a gift economy for trading on the self-destruction of others.

There is a double aspect to this. The gender neurosis is also a "shit test" for the surrounding males. (The only one that sterilizes the female tester). It is also an updated version of classic female attention whoring.

Veblen goods are goods that become more desired as they get more expensive. A Rolex is a Veblen good. The purpose of Veblen is to give status to the owner. These type of goods are consumed for their status rather than their usefulness. Social justice is a poor woman's substitute for Veblen goods. This also explains why the SJWs hate ostentatious displays of wealth, (like Trump).

Lots of people crave higher status, especially university educated people. But the oversupply of education means that a degree is not what it used to be. Hard work does not lead to the wealth necessary for acquiring Veblen goods. Political correctness is the poor college graduates substitute. The more one virtue signals the more it superficially appears that virtue signaling has value. But the more other people virtue signal the cheaper one's own virtue signaling becomes relative to theirs. The only way to maintain high status is to out-perform the ritual relative to others with an even greater display of ritual perfection. Status is acquired through superior ritual recitation of the words of political correctness.

Social justice is religious capitalism. Universities are now in the business of selling political perfection or the ritual because they can no longer sell higher status though direct knowledge transfer. People go to college to be trained to recite the ritual better than others.



Wednesday, September 13, 2017

3D printed gun update


Just when you forgot about 3D printed guns they advanced by leaps and bounds. The Shuty MP-1 9mm is a semiautomatic that improves greatly over the other 3D printed weapons that came before it. Four years ago Cody Wilson gave us the Liberator. Now there exists this. It requires some metal parts, and thus is not a true 3D printed gun. But the technology has advanced this far in this short of a time, and we have to ask; what will happen in another four years? Or another forty?

Click on the link for the video. YouTube won't let me embed it.



Tuesday, September 12, 2017

[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] THE STATIST ORIGIN OF PROPERTY RIGHTS







[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS]
THE STATIST ORIGIN OF PROPERTY RIGHTS



Contents.



Whenever disscussion of property rights come up people interject with mumbo jumbo about "God," "natural rights," or the so-called "state of nature." Meaningless nonsense ensues. These platitude-based arguments only serve to obscure the real discussion about the origin of property rights. Even worse, the arguments made by natural rights libertarians and anarchists actually interfere with their ability to accurately see the big picture, to think strategically, and to design system that actually work. Their hysteria over the notion that government is the source of their property rights, instead of some figmentary higher principle of mythical moral nonsense, actually sabotages the hyperstitional realization of their anarchist dreams.

Essentially, there are two competing theses about property rights. One is the anarchist thesis, which states that property rights are magical and defend themselves. This position is best articulated by the blogger Alrenous‏ as follows;
"Property rights are self-enforcing. The state spends most of its time intervening, preventing them from being enforced. The state is officially defined as the locus of legitimized coercion. Coercion can only be coherently defined as anti-property. Property is the reasonable expectation of control. You control things despite the state trying to take them from you, not because of it.
"If the state weren't 'protecting' my rights, I would be able to see to their protection myself. And then they would actually be protected.As a matter of fact, the state completely fails to protect your property. I can remove trespassers myself — but I'm not allowed to. If my valuables are stolen, the state will neither retrieve nor replace them. If my property is vandalized, the state will not help clean. If my person is threatened — when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Any security I have is despite the state, not because of it. Not only are police only minutes away, but were I to end the threat myself, I'm apt to face criminal charges for doing so."
The other argument is the statist argument of property rights; which is simply this; the police are the ones that enforce your property rights when someone trespasses on your land, therefore your property rights come from the state as enforced through the police. End of discussion.

But which argument is correct? Superficially it may appear that the anarchist argument is correct and the state really is nothing but an infringement on rights. But this cannot be true, because anarchism does not work in reality. Does the state create property rights or the individual? Anarchist property rights are not hyperstitional; that is, they do not make themselves real. But why?

Two words: commitment limits.

Yes, you may be able to protect your property rights. Let us assume that your property is small enough to be viewed from every point by yourself. In that case it is most likely possible that you could deter a single intruder from seizing your property. But what about twenty intruders? Or a thousand? What about an army of fifty thousand? The essential difference between the state and the individual is that the state can ratchet up its commitment to almost infinite limits relative to the paltry power of individuals. And thus, your property rights come from the state, because the state says so, and because the state can bring to bear any measure of force against you in order to overwhelm your opposition. Might makes right. The state wins. You lose. Therefore your property rights come from it.

Notions that rights are "natural," that they "come from God," or are "self-enforcing" are simply a rebellion against reality. The group that can scale violence beyond its enemies oppositional commitment limit is the source of property rights, nothing more or less. Sovereignty lies with the winner in the fight. And this is important, because if a project like blockchain is ever to defeat statism in the game of defending property rights it must be able to overwhelm any competing force. The refusal of anarchists to simply accept reality inhibits their ability to succeed.

Until a superior anarchist force is developed that can scale its commitment to violence beyond anything a state can bring to bear, or is willing to invest, ideas about self-enforcing property rights are just that: ideas. In the real world the state only defines property rights so it can generate a taxable surplus which it can harvest. In this world, the action of property and expropriation are the same; rights are only defined so they can be infringed, with the level of infringement ratcheting up over time.



Sunday, September 10, 2017

[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] ONLY PATCHWORK CAN CREATE REPRESENTATIVE POLITICAL FREEDOM







[THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS]
ONLY PATCHWORK CAN CREATE
REPRESENTATIVE POLITICAL FREEDOM


Contents.


Central Assertions:
1. Common values are impossible in large societies. In large societies widespread value systems can only be manufactured by power.
2. A leftist definition freedom is impossible if it includes all four left-wing ideals of representation, voice, common values, and equal participation.
3. Three of 4 design criteria can be met with patchwork.


Instead of challenging the leftist definition of freedom, let us take it as a given and see where that line of reason leads us. Let us steelman the left-wing argument that voice is necessary for freedom, and look at the logical conclusions of that.

Let us define the word "freedom" as;
(a), having a state that represents the values of the people contained within its borders.
This is of course a very Whig definition because it makes no reference to God or commandments. Leftists value voice, and this is the definition they use. They also hold other premises: they believe that (b) the people should have a voice in politics, that (c), society MUST agree on a common set of values, that (d) every person must have an equal say in what those values are.

These premises make each other impossible — as we will see in a second.

Proof of impossibility.

The number of relationships in a group is defined by R = [(N (N-1))/2], where R is the number of relationships, and N is the number of people.

A group of 3 people has 3 relationships.
A group of 4 people has 6 relationships.
A group of 30 people has 435 relationships.
A group of 1,000 people has 499,500 relationships.
A group the size of the population of America, with 400 million people has 79.8 billion relationships.

It is exponential.

If it takes 5 minutes for ever person in a group of 400 million to negotiate with every other person in order to arrive at a "common set of values" then it will take 759,132 YEARS for them to arrive at that common set.

The amount of time required to argue over a common set of values would then exceed the lifespan of the nation. Obviously, a non-hierarchical system where common values are arrived at is mathematically impossible at any scale above the tribal level.

If you impose a one-to-many system where every member of the public must argue with a central authority over what the common set of values must be, then you can greatly cut down on the amount of time necessary to achieve this. Unfortunately anytime you have a one-to-many relationship you have power, because the one person sitting at the center has more control over others than they have over him. Power is the opposite of equality; it automatically implies that some are "above," and some are "below." To even have a one-to-many relationship is to have power, and to destroy equality. One-to-many relationships render (e) impossible (every person must have an equal say in what those values are), since the one at the center of the one-to-many relationship will have more power than those on the periphery.

Conclusions
  • If the lifespan of a nation is assumed to be 1,000 years, and if every political conversation takes 5 minutes, then the time required for a non-hierarchical communist society to negotiate on a common set of values will exceed the lifespan of any nation at a population of greater than 14,499, assuming they debate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with no breaks.
  • ∴ non-hierarchical systems cannot function at super-Dunbar levels.
  • Common values are impossible at large scales without the imposition of power.
  • Equality of power is impossible at large scales of political organization, since the one-to-many relationship define an inequality in power.
  • ∴ large nations cannot have freedom under the Whig definition.
Per the Whig definition of freedom, freedom is impossible.

Since it is functionally impossible to divide society up into units as small at 15 K or less, (a) either centralized tyranny must give way, or (b) only a political patchwork of microstates that creates a "menu" of political values can ever hope to express all political opinions, and therefore represent individual values per the Whig definition. Only patchwork can create freedom.

The point of this discussion is not to assert the validity of the Whig definition of freedom, but to point out two things; first, the complete definition renders itself realistically impossible; second, 4 out of 4 conditions can be met by dumping the requirement of equal voice, (d), and replacing it with a menu of political systems. In other words, a due concern to for right of representation concludes that only forms of patchwork are up to the task; forms like micorstates, private law, agorism, and others.

Edited 09/11/2017 at 3:36 pm






Friday, September 8, 2017

The capricious and arbitrary injustice of women, and the laughable sickness of humanity


Imagine that there was a planet with a society on it. A planet just like this one but where gender roles are exactly reversed. What kind of world would it be like?

Well, lets see. On the other planet women compete violently for the attentions of men. Men only have sex with women who are "winners," and who have high status. There are many status games; popularity, good looks, money, political power, etc. Women who cannot live up to the expectations of men are "losers," and don't get any attention. They are "betas" and "involuntary celibate."

Men set up the rules, and force women to fight over men — sometimes to the death. Yet somehow everyone believes that it is women who are in charge? Men blame women for all the violence — even though they incentivize it with sexual rewards for the winners. Perversely, this system where women must compete for status over men is called "female dominance," and "matriarchy."

In the alternate world the men who create "matriarchy" do so while blaming women for its existence.

They only fuck dominate females.
They wonder why female dominance exists.
They call it female dominance even though the whole society is the product of male sexual standards.

The men of this alternate society actually have the nerve to think that if you are unwilling to fight violently over them you are a loser and unworthy of "dicky" (pussy). These men literally think that you have to earn dick. Like penis was some sort of trophy that only heroic women deserved.

High school boys rate girls who are unworthy of fucking as "losers" who are "unworthy of dick." They have a massive sense of entitlement and think you have to EARN their sexual attention. Because fucking these entitled little shits is a PRIVILEGE.

Only women can be charged with rape. If a drunk man has sex with a drunk women, then she is guilty of rape — and only her. They say "one in three men is raped." And this statistic is true. 90 % of rapes are drunk men having sex, regretting it in the morning, and then charging women with rape. The police always take the side of the man because it is implicitly believed that "all women are sexual predators," and, "all men are victims of the cis-hetero matriarchy." It never occurs to anyone how laughably unfair this is.

Men are not considered to possess any moral agency at all. They take no responsibility for their actions. As a result they are paid less than women, promoted less often, and generally trusted less with power. These irresponsible men constantly harp about the, "wage gap," and "sexism." They make tee shirts that say "the future is male." They bitch about there "not being enough men in STEM fields," even though they refuse to study difficult subjects.

Why doesn't any of this ever occur to anyone? Well, people are cognitive misers. Thinking is not what this race of people is good at. It occurs to the men least of all. Every man in this society knows that he can just go become a househusband — a kind of overpaid whore who cooks and cleans. As a result, men don't bother to make much of an effort to contribute to society. Everything is built by women; the skyscrapers, bridges, roads, houses, etc. Men never take a moment to appreciate the trillions of dollars of infrastructure that is all around them. Almost every invention in the alternate society was created by women, but somehow it never occurs to these little entitled little shits that they should thank the female sex. Oh no, instead it is just takes as more proof that, "women oppress men."


  • Women build all the stuff in society.
  • And women get blamed for everything by men who contribute nothing but sex and childcare.
  • Because it is implicitly believed by everyone that men have no capacity for moral agency.
  • The most sincere believers in the lack of moral agency of men are "masculinists," who also sincerely believe that men are equal to women, and also see no contradiction in simultaneously believing both. They literally think these tow thoughts at the same time; that men implicitly have the same level of moral agency as children, and women and men are equal.


What is a "masculinist? "A masculinist is some who believes that men are equal." They say. "If you believe that women and men are equal then you are a masculinist too," they say. These "masculinists," have made an entire profession out of blaming women for everything that is wrong with the world. They never lean in, never take any responsibility, and cannot be trusted with power, but somehow these men all think that women are to blame. They think all this while doing nothing but raising babies, doing housework, complaining, and (sometimes when they feel like it), fucking their wives.

All men force women to compete violently for sex, and sexual attention. The vicious competition produces massive economic inequalities. Then those same men blame women for "inequality," and "matriarchy."

There is a standard called "sexual harassment." The definition is "unwanted sexual advances." Women must do all the sexual initiation because men refuse. Since no woman can read minds, she can never know in advance if the sexual advance is wanted. Men don't respect women who "don't have the balls to initiate." But then the legal standard is deliberately designed to arbitrarily criminalize any women who initiates sexual advances without those advances being wanted. In effect, the law requires her to read his mind. Somehow these men actually think this is fair; it never occurs to any of these assholes how laughably unjust the legal standard is. All men support the legal standard. The whole society is filled with nothing but men who agree with arbitrarily capricious legal standards — and these are your only choices of partners to marry.

Every man likes these kinds of injustices and thinks they are correct. There are no other husbands available for women than supporters of injustice against women. All the men in society are at least tacitly "masculinist."

Also, the effect of the laws is to criminalize ugly women. The only sexual advances that a women can be sure are wanted are those that come from HOT women. Thus, all ugly women who make sexual advances are routinely fired from their jobs. Somehow masculinists believe these women "deserve it."

There are masculine studies departments at universities in this alternate society despite the fact that men have contributed nothing to society but sex and childcare.

Get this. To make the injustice even more laughably sick all the men in society believe in "equality for men." They routinely rant about equality. While women are out cleaning the sewers, running the power lines, building houses, paving roads, these men are inside air conditioned office buildings doing the easy jobs. They even have the audacity to bitch that the AC is too high for their comfort.

They complain about "woman spreading," and "womansplaining"

Male homosexuality is glorified on TV and used to sell products to thirsty women.

Female homosexuality is considered disgusting and revolting. Lesbians are attacked by other (straight) women because they don't like men. You are supposed to like men if you are a women. Women pass laws to criminalize homosexuality. In practice though, it only gets enforced against lesbians.

Women are routinely raped by other women in prison and nobody cares.

If a single man in prison is raped by a women everyone loses their minds.

If an older man fucks a 14 year old girl people laugh it off and say "she was lucky." If an older women fucks a 14 year old boy they sentence her to 20 years in prison and everyone is hysterical.

Only women can be drafted.

Women are basically disposable in the alternate society.

Millions of women died in WWII while their husbands stayed at home and fucked the mailwoman.

The only reason is Hitler was elected was because of the male vote. (In our world it was the female vote that got Hitler elected).

Men vote for censorship against the free speech rights rights of women. There is a campus witch hunt against female rapists on campus. There is a man called "mattress man" carrying around a mattress as part of his dissertation. He clams that he was raped.

The men in this alternate society say things like "stop hate," and "misandry has no place in 2017." They wonder confusedly why misandry still exists in the current year. In the alternate society, misogyny is becoming more popular than ever, and is promoted by masculinists. Masculinist men even say things like "it's natural to hate your oppressor" (women). And "matriarchy oppresses men too."

The men in this alternate society — who call all the shots, inflict all the injustice, force women to fight for status and sex, manufacture inequality by fucking only high status women, cannot be drafted, cannot be prosecuted for rape, can fire any woman on a bogus sexual harassment charge, can fuck little girls with impunity, who get half your money in the divorce and custody of your children, think of themselves as "victims," and refer to themselves as "the other." And they refer to you as the "oppressor."

And it never occurs to women in our society that the reverse of all of this is true. And yet somehow women are consider the "empathetic sex."


Wednesday, September 6, 2017

[UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS A COMMODITY FETISH







[UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS]
THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN
CIVILIZATION IS A COMMODITY FETISH


Contents


Well they're not wrong.

Fast forward to 1 hour 12 minutes for the best part.


"Shop for children in third world countries." 1:16. Ha.

A lot of what the left does can be understood with the good old fashioned Marxist term, "commodity fetish." A commodity fetish is an item of capitalist production sold for its status rather than its utility. It gives high status to the owner. A Rolex, Porsche, Louis Vuitton handbag, or adopted African child can serve as the ultimate status signal. Virtue signaling is the same way; it allows for the display of supposed virtue without any real effort. Much of what right-wingers hate about the left is really the left being pozzed by capitalism, and capitalistic values. The commodification of negro children, the act of virtue signaling, the breakdown of the family, the worship of tyrannies, gays, Muslims, etc., are all desperate attempts at whoring for status. The modern left is the basic bitch left, the left that slovenly hungers for the cock of capitalism.

Buying African negro children as human fashion accessories.
Calling people racist as a religiously motivated fashionable power play.
Trannies as celebrity worship.
The commodity fetish of terrorist spectacle.
Virtue signaling as status symbol.
Supporting immigration for the popularity points.
Black male boyfriends as the human equivalent of Louis Vuitton purses.
Hating whites as ritual two minutes of hate virtue signaling.
Racial identity politics as consumerism.

It's all capitalism broheim.


Saturday, September 2, 2017

How you know that equality is false


A part of society believes "proposition A" is false.

The rest of society NEEDS to believe proposition A is true.

Need implies absence of the thing needed.

Thus, everyone who NEEDS proposition A to be true, secretly believes it is false and is lying to themselves.

Since 100% of society is composed of people who either (a), believe it is false, or (b), secretly believe it is true, 100% believe is is true, either explicitly or implicitly.

An assertion that is disbelieved by everyone is unlikely to be true.

Therefore equality is likely a lie.

EDIT:

I also believe that no one should have to endure being hated, that LEGAL equality is a good idea, that genocide is evil and never necessary, and that physical removal is unacceptable. I'm just to spergy to accept that people are literally the same or have equal worth.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Everything that works is a system


Americans use to starve and go blind from malnutrition. A hail storm would come, wipe out your crops, and your children would go blind. This is what happened to the real life character of Mary in Little House on the Prairie. Then a man named Dwight D. Eisenhower came along and created the aptly named Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

System.

Monarchies have constant civil wars. Oligarchies, (like the US now is) have endless political struggles between mad elites that threaten to produce open civil war. As a principle, the more concentrated power is in the hands of a few, the larger the payoff for controlling it, and the more insane and destructive politics becomes. Once upon a time, a group of men called The Founding Fathers created a system called The Constitution that laid out the design for a republic. It worked really well for a long time.

A system.

Now democracy has been destroyed by an oligarchy of elite financial power that buys the result of every election by funding some candidates and not others. Our politics has noticeably gotten a lot more insane as these elites have concentrated power into fewer and fewer hands. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a system for defeating this? Imagine that campaign contributions are taxed. The taxes are then used to pay for campaign contribution vouchers. These vouchers are given to the small business owners of America — to the bourgeois. The bourgeois like political stability because it is good for capitalism and profits. They also tend to have sensible attitudes of thrift, investment, and long-term thinking. Now we have a system for ensuring that the majority of money for all campaigns comes from the most stable and centrist group in society.

A system.

The markets that put bread on your supermarket shelves are a system. They run a transportation network on top of an interstate highway system, using a monetary system, a credit system to finance it, transportation logistics systems to plan the movement of goods, running on top of computer systems, constructed using manufacturing systems, using chips designed by artificially intelligent chip design systems.

Is this starting to get redundant?

What keeps Ebola at bay? The National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). What prevents architecture from falling down? The countless local building inspection systems, and international building codes. What ensures food quality? The ISO 22000 family of International Standards for food and medical safety and the USDA system.

It goes on and on.

There's a huge resistance to systems of government in neoreaction in favor of kings.

Everything that works is a system. Everything else is just monkey screeching madness. The solution to madness is not more human monkey screeching. On the left there is this profoundly childish and delusional idea that if we just change everyone's mind people will stop being evil a wacist.

*As a side note.*

Only a system of genetics could change human nature, and that extraordinarily dangerous. There is the possibility that what we might call Recursive Iteration Towards Extinction (RITE) might occur. Imagine that you change human nature to make people care more about equality. Then the next generation, because it cares more about equality, also changes human nature to make people more egalitarian. This process continues until you have humans that are so obsessed with equality that they cannot walk down the street because the fear of stepping on a bug, (discriminating against the underlumpenproletariat) is so dreaded that the human race becomes unable to function: so it goes extinct. Modifying human nature can get you into a trap where extinction sneaks up on you by exaggerating some human pathology, need, desire, whatever, over multiple generations. That is RITE: a recursive trap caused by modifying human nature. The solution is either to (a), never modify human nature, or (b), avoid standardization of human beings so that "naturals" still exist as a backup in case something goes wrong.

Systems must be constructed CAREFULLY. They must not burn themselves out over time. They must not produce the conditions of their own collapse. For example; democracy may destroy itself when its own immigration policies lower IQ sufficiently to render democracy impossible. The whole point here is that systems are not evil per se, but they must be constructed with foresight to their long-term secondary and tertiary consequences.

*End side note.*

Once a system is in place it almost never gets destroyed. It becomes too useful to everyone and thoughts of destroying it encounter extreme resistance. An old system is almost never dismantled unless a new, far better system already exists, has a proven track record of working, and can be dropped into place.

In summary;
  • Everything that works is a system
  • You have to be careful what systems you build
  • Once constructed, they are impossible to get rid of

All I want for Christmas

Is;

  • A cheep metal 3D printer for guns. The printer itself can be printed by other printers.
  • Totally secure, reliable, trustless, darknet markets for victimless crimes.
  • Household pharmaceutical 3D printers.
  • Household CRISPR printers so you can gene modify yourself at will.
  • Decentralized, censorship-proof, blockchain-based Spotify that allows artists to set their own prices and keep 95 % + of profits.
  • Campaign contribution vouchers given to all American small business owners which are funded by taxes on the financial contributions of our corrupt elite superrich.
  • Woolly Mammoths brought back from extinction.
  • America out of Afghanistan.
  • The mass incarceration of corrupt Wall Street bankers, gender studies professors, professional feminists, Hollywood liberals, corrupt journos, and SJWs.
  • 10,000 city states.
  • A colony on Mars put there by Elon Musk.
  • 3 hot kinky bisexual girlfriends.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

The solution to internet corruption is, ahem *cough*, digital democracy


How do you defeat the GOOGLEFACEBOOK tyrants of the world?

You use something like torrents or blockchains to decentralize internet services. Any single corporation will always be under enormous pressure from governments to censor information content. Corporations will be held legally liable for the content on their platforms. If the information causes "psychological distress," it can be grounds for attack. If the content is copyrighted, grounds for attack. If it offends a government, grounds for attack. If a pressure group doesn't like it, grounds for attack. The only way to escape this is to escape accountability. That means there can be no explicit owners, no corporate structure of public record, no centralized office that can be raided, no named executives, no data center waiting to get shut down. It must be;
  • distributed: all data must be stored in a blockchain or torrent system in the cloud by the users themselves.
  • open source: all the programmers must be either volunteers or paid in bitcoin to work from home
It also can't be a "dictatorship"; Wikileaks is an organization headed by one man. As such it can be attacked through him. Julian Assange lives under house arrest and is slowly going mad from solitary confinement. No man should have to endure this. So I will suggest an alternative system. I lied: this is not a "democracy," per say. It is something else. But it has checks and balances and a decentralized authority structure. It's better than democracy. Let's call it by the terrible sounding name "constocracy.," because it is constitutional, and consistent.

There is a Constitution of Rights and Principles. The constitution spells out absolute rules like "we never censor anyone for anything accept child porn, and plotting terrorism." There is a community of user/enforcers who act like moderators. They have the power to censor someone for violating the rules, and to restore censored content if a moderator removes it dishonestly. The difference between this and other systems is that the moderators are themselves rated for their honesty, and moderators who are dishonest are assigned zero votes while highly trusted mods have like one-hundred votes. The more faithfully you adhere to the principles of the constitution and the more honestly you perform you moderating function the more power you have. The mods are themselves rated by each other.

And no one knows how many votes they have. If dishonest moderators know they are being downgraded they may be tempted to create sock puppets to get around the rules. Therefore their IP addresses are recorded and function as their de facto accounts. Another possible way is that you need an invitation to become a moderator.

However it is constructed, the system if designed to marginalize entryists who refuse to honestly uphold the constitutional principles. It is a democracy of the honest and faithful where one's power is proportionate to one's reputation for reliably following the constitution. This is assessed mathematically by having every person in a community unit (about 20 people) rate the reliability of every other. The 5% of mods within each unit (the 1 highest rated person each unit) then passes on to the Second Level; which is another group of 20 people who all rate each other. There is a Third Level and a Fourth Level that repeats the process. The Fourth Level is therefore composed of the most reliable of the most reliable of the most reliable of the first level, or the "thrice rated." This group governs the system, sets its rules, and can suggest a rule change to the constitution. When a rule change is suggested it goes to the hidden founder. The hidden founder is just exactly what he sound like. He wrote the original constitution and is the only person who can change it. When the founder moves on to bigger and better things he either adopts a successor from the Fourth Level, or nominates his successor from the Fourth Level to be confirmed by them. He may also appoint a council to replace him if having one man in a position of power is too risky to that man, or he may simply delegate all his powers to the Fourth Level.

Alternately, one could simply randomly assign the new member 20 people to rate. Once he has done that he unlocks certain voting privileges. The people more he rates for reliability, the more accurately he rates them, the more votes he earn. Once he passes a critical threshold of time commitment and number of votes, he graduates into level 2, after more commitment and earning more vote through proven reliability then level 3, etc.

Regardless, the entire management is anonymous and governs through VPNs.

This system assumes there will be 160,000 users. If your system is smaller then either there should be fewer levels, or fewer people per level.

You can apply this system of digital organization to almost anything;
  • To a decentralized version of twitter than runs on the blockchain, and automatically deletes all tweets after 30 days to conserve memory.
  • To the political governance of group of contributors to Tor.
  • To a new version of Wikipedia like Infogalactic
  • To a decentralized replacement for Wikileaks "controlled by no one" so that Assange can finely live in peace.
  • To the management of a torrent-based system like BitChute that is designed to replace YouTube.
  • To the management of a group that can replace GitHub and be free of SJW influence.
  • To a hypothetical decentralized news corporation to replace CNN; a news company that is almost totally reliable, that does its due diligence, and that is virtually immune from attack because it is leaderless and anonymous.
  • To Hatreon, and other crowd funding systems. You can even write a political bias into the constitution.
  • To a leaderless and anonymous version of Wesearchr.
  • To the management of political betting markets.
  • To the management of an anonymous university teaching heterodox ideas.
  • To black market and agorist systems to replace sites like Silk Road.
The whole point of this is to define a logic of commitment other than money — which if we believe Nat Soc types, will always favor Jewish people in organizational arrangements. In contrast, our system is neutral, and favors commitment to principle instead. Unlike this idea, CounterFund is an example of a system built on a monetary commitment model instead.

This gives us "trustlessness" without a person needing to have financial means. It is meritocratic in a way that buying your way into an organization is not, and it defines principles as the guiding structure rather than a monetary selection effect like CounterFund. Do you really want the richest bastard running your organization is all circumstances?

Of course, what we have constructed here is an extremely rigid organization structure. Its virtue is its relative immunity to entryism, outside pressure, and its high commitment to a set of values. Its weakness is that it can be rigid; if the needs or the organization change it may not be able to quickly adapt. It promotes dogmatic people to the top, who may be inflexible to change. It also needs to have a really good sense of its own values, or a fatal flaw can be written into the organization constitution from the beginning. And the writers need to be very practical, and keep the principles to a minimum.

To correct this we may add to a collection of "agents" who are allowed to do things besides merely follow constitutional principles dogmatically. They do NOT have power to modify the organization constitution, but they can act in its defense. After a set amount of time their actions are reviewed. The question is asked, "did this person act in the best interest of the organization and the spirit of its principles?" (The spirit, not the letter of the rules). A vote is taken. If found lacking, the employment of the person is terminated. This gives the organization a "rigid/flexible" approach akin to the Star Fleet/Section 31 arrangement in Star Trek, (yes, I'm using Science Fiction as an example). The organization has a rigid set or moral principles, but also has agents who can do more extreme things in extreme circumstances. Though obviously getting in trouble with the authorities is not in the organizations best interests, and so it should always follow the law where its agents are concerned.


Wednesday, August 30, 2017

BitChute is awesome


BitChute has come around to replace YouTube. It is a mutha fucking torrent network that plays videos in the browser. Its stated mission is to get around censorship. It's also not dependent on corporate oligarchy ad revenue for its survival. Check it out! Also check out WebTorrent.


Monday, August 28, 2017

This is worth sharing


EDIT: everyone hates the Palestinians because they are totally unsympathetic. Blowing yourself up is never the way to gain sympathy. People can basically exterminate you if you are unsympathetic.

Here is our Jewish conservative neocon friend talking about how wonderful Israel is.


And here is an example of propaganda done correctly.


Optics are everything. A war for ethnic independence is fundamentally a war to win the hearts and minds of neutral people who could give you aid and support. Here is Nelson Mandela singing about killing whites below. Again, optics are everything. Mandela was a terrorist, but he is also sympathetic. Gandhi was said to have inspired both MLK and Mandela. "Soul Force" aka, non-violent resistance, is the most goddamn effective weapon in the world for liberation struggles.


And here is an example of what NOT to do. This is how you become "Palestinian" to the rest of the world. This is how you enable your own extermination by being unsympathetic, and hateful.


FREEDOM IS A PROPAGANDA WAR. Never forget that.

You are not Zionists. You are Hindus fighting for liberation. You are in danger of becoming Palestinians. You need to avoid the "Palestinian trap."


Sunday, August 27, 2017

Ahhhhhhhhhh......AHHHHHHHHHH!............WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


TURN THE SOUND ON FULL BLAST

OPEN YOUR EYES

LET YOUR EYES ROLL INTO THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD

AND SAY

AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!





Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Inverted world


Google knows me better than;
The NSA
who knows me better than
readers of this blog
Who know me better than;
twitter users
Who know me better than;
my family
Who know me better than;
people on Facebook
who know me better than;
"Friends" in real life.
who know me better than;
"Coworkers" in real life

Monday, August 21, 2017

A completely unfalsifiable sentient madness Fermi Paradox hypothesis


I have horrible opinions. Everything I think is awful, and here is yet another one;


__________

Sometime in the evolution of every species, the species develops the means for controlling reproduction. They develop birth control, abortion, or whatever.

Any species that doesn't develop reproductive technology endures civilizational collapse as a result of massive overpopulation.

So most species develop birth control.

Because life is basically suffering, sane rational people chose not to have kids, while the insane ones continue to grind out babies.

Slowly the species goes mad, as the nutcases out-reproduce the sane ones.

Eventually it becomes impossible to get anything done. Every time you build a bridge some Islamic nutcase or eco-terrorist blows it up. People begin running over other people with cars. Politicians become insane and pathologically altruistic, letting in millions of crazy Muslims because,  "muh ideology." Leaders refuse to to rational commonsense things because "reasons," and "SCIENCE." Speaking of science: science just becomes another word for religion. Bullshit concepts like "equality" and "social justice" command the public's attention instead of survival and common sense. Everyone becomes a gender weirdo practicing self-castration. Women refuse to make babies, and men refuse to be fathers. THE WHOLE WORLD GOES MAD. Every politician becomes a priest. Every teacher becomes a priest. Every corporate leader become a cult leader. People worship their iPhones and it becomes impossible for anyone to think about anything logically because the species is literally going insane.

Oh, right, this is the world we live in.


__________

Copy and pasted from Wikipedia;
The Fermi paradox or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates, e.g., those given by the Drake equation, for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:
  • There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, many of which are billions of years older than Earth.
  • With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some might develop intelligent life.
  • Some of these civilizations might develop interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.
  • According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?" There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox, primarily either suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.


__________

Outcome no. 1: CRISPR Planet
The species also develops the ability to control their own genetics. This opens up the possibility of keeping them sane by simply engineering babies that have no predisposition to madness or religious fanaticism. Of course, by the time the species begins to use the technology it may already be too late. The species may be so crazy that craziness determines how they implement their genetic policies, in which case they try to engineer humans who have a genetic predisposition to communism, religious fanaticism, "social justice," or "equality." They try to make humans that are genetically fair, morally superior, or whatever. But it ends in disaster because the resulting humans are even crazier than them. The species returns to an animal state because it is impossible for it to function technologically with so many people running around who are obsessed with social justice. Everything they do is undermined by a pathological obsession with equality.

Outcome no. 2: World Caliphate
The result of relentless breeding of the insane is the rise of a planetary religious theocracy that crushes all science and returns civilization to the Dark Ages. We don't hear radio waves from these civilizations because they are so religiously fanatical that radio waves are "demonic" and have been outlawed.

Outcome no. 3: Brave New World + 1 child limit
To prevent the madness from spreading, they institute a one-child policy and then grow supplementary people in gestation chambers. This prevents the spread of religious madness and maybe the species survives. On the other hand, maybe it just gradually loses the will to live because without a religious impulse civilization has no purpose. It dies off from atheist apathy.

Outcome no. 4: The return of Adolph
A singular man rises to power over the Earth. He attempts to solve the world's madness through totalitarian dictatorship. Eventually the regime destroys the world in nuclear fire. "We have always been at war with Eastasia," they say as they go to their doom.



Sunday, August 20, 2017

Humans believe what they are told


And nothing else.






































From Unqualified Reservations.

"So: who educates the public?
"Our answer is simple: the Jews. (Sorry, Jew-haters. Just kidding.) But seriously, we should note who else took exactly the same line of thinking:
'Just as a man's denominational orientation is the result of his upbringing, and only the religious needs as such slumbers in his soul, the political opinion of the masses represents nothing but the final result of an incredibly tenacious and thorough manipulation of their mind and soul.
'By far the greatest share in their political 'education,' which in this case is mostly designated by the word 'propaganda,' falls to the account of the press. It is foremost in performing this 'work of enlightenment' and thus represents a sort of school for grownups.'
"That would be - yes - Adolf Hitler. So, as you can see, we are on dangerous ground here. We must be careful where we put our feet; there is no other answer. For what it's worth, my feeling is that Herr Hitler is personally responsible for all the world's problems today. Perhaps we'll explore this delicate issue, Nazism, next week.
"One does not have to be a Nazi, however, to believe that popular opinion tends to match public education. In other words, people believe what they are told to believe - sometimes minus a little stubborn deviation, electorally negligible.
"So, to combine Lenin's question with Hitler's answer, we ask: if the People control the State, who controls the People? The teachers. And who controls the teachers? Hm. What an interesting question. We'll have to think about that one.
"But I do hope I haven't activated anyone's crimestop with these terrible, terrible thoughts. Note: we are no longer asking a philosophical question. We are asking an administrative question. The answer is not a matter of logic, but of fact.
"You see, there is another way to classify governments. We can define them in terms of the means that those in power use to prevent those not in power from taking said power away. Since pure democracy is impossible, there are always those on the inside and those on the outside. For example, USG has a permanent civil service which no power in Washington can purge, restructure, or otherwise attack. If that isn't the inside, what is the inside?
"The chief distinction in this category is between sovereigns that hold their positions by the tactics of physical warfare - that is, conventional military and law-enforcement methods, which allow the State to manage the physical actions of its subjects - and those which hold their positions by the tactic of psychological warfare - that is, information management, which allows the State to manage the thoughts of its subjects.
"Of course, all sovereigns require physical security. Therefore, the only question is whether they use psychological security as well. As we'll see, permanent psychological warfare is an essential aspect of the Modern Structure, which is a big part of why I have so much trouble with it.
"If we exclude the possibility of pure democracy, we see instantly that every democracy must be a psychological-warfare state. Most people get their opinions from others. If public opinion commands the power of the State, the power to inform is the power to command the State. Just as you will seldom find a stack of twenties on the sidewalk, this power will not just be waving around in the breeze. Someone will capture it, and hold it until it is torn from their hands.
"Even if you have not been reading UR long and remain a good democrat, it disturbs you to see the resemblance between political communication and commercial advertising. This is because you know the latter consists largely of psychological-warfare tropes (as per Bernays, Lippmann, and the like). Their goal is not to inform you, but to control your behavior. You know this. And yet...
"What is psychological warfare, exactly? What do we know about psychological warfare in modern American history?
 From A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (part 5)

EDIT:

One way to solve this problem is to democratize the universities and have the parents vote for all the teachers. This moves the point of sovereignty away from the Cathedral and places it more in the hands of the bourgeois, who, because they have children, automatically have an investment in the future, and therefore are less likely to behave in an insane manner. Also, because politics must now pander to them, it becomes a war of the middle against the high and low, rather than an alliance of the high and low against the middle.

Another way is to tax campaign contributions and use the money to fund campaign contribution vouchers given to the nations small business owners. This moves the point of sovereignty from the "Swamp" of Washington DC to "Main Street" USA.

Instead of a democracy controlled by mad elites and even madder college professors, you get a democracy controlled by parents and business owners. You get a "middle democracy," or a "volk" democracy.

The academics of this county have driven America insane with ideology and are no longer fit to rule.


Friday, August 18, 2017

Aphorism no. 46


The true political spectrum is never between liberalism and conservatism, nationalism versus communism, or Nazism versus freedom, but between atavism versus domestication.

Many traits are dead ringers for political atavism;

  • hatred of capitalism
  • "not the true communism" arguements
  • reactionary sentiments
  • emperor worship, hero worship, celebrity worship, praise of "our troops"
  • inability to grasp economics
  • racial hatred, not to be confused with acceptance of human biodiversity
  • retreat into feelings
  • belief that offensive/racist/dehumanizing facts cannot be true
  • belief that the universe is benevolent
  • utopian dreams
  • notions about the "good old days"
  • salvation myths, religions, "human destiny"
  • childish ideas like "equality"
  • high musculture
  • wide face
  • delusions
  • good social skills
  • mental instability
  • religious or magical thinking
  • logical fallacies
  • cognitive biases
  • good at sports
  • low IQ
  • low impulse control
  • violence, violent crime, crime in general
  • untrustworthy
  • conformity
  • deception
Traits of human domestication;

  • neotenic features
  • "delicate features"
  • intuitive grasp of economics
  • autism
  • poor social skills
  • high math ability
  • dislike of violence
  • passive "beta" personality
  • lack of capicity for violence
  • low muscuture
  • "weak" looking body
  • chronic illnesses
  • good with money
  • excessively logical
  • excessively literal
  • cuteness
  • large eyes relative to head
  • large head relative to body
  • lack of hand-eye coordination
  • bad at sports
  • high IQ
  • high impulse control
  • no violence
  • highly trustworthy, naive
  • political libertarianism
  • utilitarian thinking
  • sexual experimentation
  • drug use
  • asthma
  • chronic pain
  • allergies


Thursday, August 17, 2017

Aphorism no. 45


The feminist accuses you of rape as she rapes you.

The leftist charges you with intolerance as he censors you.


INTJ: or why no one listens to me when I have all the answers


I believe in the Myers Briggs test. Perhaps that makes me an idiot since there is no scientific evidence that it means anything. But humans evolved intuition for a reason, and that intuition works pretty well with other humans, and the categories of the Myers Briggs feel intuitively correct. Analytical tools like measurement are going to have less usefulness than intuition where other minds are concerned because "mirror neurons" can do a better job of simulating another mind than statistical evidence.

INTJs are "architects" and "system builders" who think in comprehensive terms. I am an INTJ, and I get the same result every time I take the test. Ignore the flattery in the description below;
"In a work situation, the INTJ is the radical innovator, coming up with interesting theoretical ideas and they are superb at ensuring the team covers all the bases. Although introverted, the INTJ can bring out very strong opinions, honed over much mulling around inside the head, and may surprise others by how much is 'in there.' They love to immerse themselves in deep, reflective, intellectual thought and use this in the team to come up with genuinely unique solutions.
"The INTJ loves the intellectual challenge and will come to the fore when there are difficult problems to solve, but those which require a complex understanding of many disparate issues. They love to deep dive, a solitary pursuit, then they come to life when the team is stuck and are superb at cutting through the extraneous issues and getting to the real meat of the problem. The INTJ is a genuinely free and radical thinker with an incredible ability to pull together all the disparate strands into one cogent whole.
"INTJs will overturn established practice be forward thinking and truly radical. They love the intellectual challenge, coming alive with difficult problems to solve then step back again when it becomes mundane. The INTJ will be at their best with the facility to work for long periods on their own. If they do lead they prefer like-minded people who also love the intellectual debate and complex challenges. They are so forward thinking and the downside is that once it becomes tedious the INTJ will revert back to their introvert nature and seek to go off, satiate their thirst for interesting tasks and analyse more complex data. The INTJ is capable of holding masses of complex and often contradictory data in their heads and then bring this to bear on ‘big,’ strategic problems coming up with solutions that are leading edge."
Source
The INTJ is the patient visionary with a clear view of how the future should look and will work with quiet and logical determination to make it happen. Although quite deep, and mistrustful until they have the measure of people, the INTJ loves an intellectual challenge and will be stimulated by the conceptual, the abstract and the complex. The INTJ loves the complex, the new, the untried and the untested. Facts and figures bore them, and they will be looking to see the 'bigger picture,' planning for the future that they create.
INTJs make decisions based on rational logic, rather than emotion and they will be quite measured in their approach to other people. They generally have strong opinions, are independent of thought and action and have no need to verbalize these, other than to declare the conclusions. This economy of information can be a handicap as it may leave members of the team feeling that they are 'on the outside.'
The INTJ’s dislike of the basic facts may, at times, work against them as they can make decisions based on their theories and concepts and at times they may overlook 'the obvious,' seeking instead the complex solution. However, they will generally trust their own judgments, especially as these have been considered, chewed-over and processed for a long time prior to being announced.
Original and complex, INTJs have active minds, directed internally and their intuitive trait, (the high ‘N’) enables them to see very clearly the interconnections between things and the longer term implications of trends, current actions and events. Innovative and analytical, INTJs have a unique talent for analyzing complex problems and issues and determining how they can be improved, whether it be a small innocuous product or the whole organisation. Their favorite subject for improvement, however, is themselves and they are on a constant quest to learn, develop and progress.
Different part of the same source
What is left out is that we can be quite negative when we are breaking things down. A lot of what I do is tearing apart issues into tiny little pieces before relating everything to a complex whole. It's a destructive process of breaking things down, and it can be really hard for people to switch their mentality to building something up afterward. I am always referencing a kind of giant mental map in my own mind. Since I am the only person who has access to this map everyone else is stuck looking at one little part of the map at a time. Example: I will talk about the kinds of relationships a society has under selection pressures that new technology has created, then switch to talking about effects of birth control, then switch to the pervasive effects of capitalism, then switch to talking about the selection pressures that act against capitalism, etc. The "hidden map" that is being referenced is that all this crap is just a series of algorithms, and it is all interconnected. It's really shitty to try to explain something in written language that is better explained as a diagram. When you speak or write words you go from one sentence to another in a linear fashion; it makes it seem like you are talking about a sequence of events in TIME, but I am not. I am talking about how everything relates to everything else. This whole blog could be written backwards chronologically, with the first posts presented last and the last posts presented first, and it would make no more or less sense than it does. Actually, it might be a little clearer because those early ideas were less complex.

There's no sequence.

It's all like this;

First blog post: "here is pattern # 4"

Second blog post: "Oh, now let's talk about pattern # 256. That's more interesting."

Third blog post: "remember patter 4? Let's see how that relates to pattern # 15."

I would give you an actual diagram for this whole thing but I haven't figured it all out myself.

When you read this blog, what you are basically experiencing is my brain in written form. Confusing? Well, yes. There is a small mountain of complexity built into every assertion.

Imagine you look up a word in the dictionary to find out what it means. The definition of the word uses 2 other words that you do not understand. Each of those definitions use 2 other words, and 2 other, and 2 others. You wind up reading the entire dictionary because the only way you can understand the concept is to understand how it relates to everything else. This might seem like a nightmare to you, but it is a dream to me.

That's my brain.

To make things worse this blog attracts a lot of INTPs, or "Logicians," and ENTPs, or "Debaters."

The INTP description;
"They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements could almost be described as a hobby, making it a bad idea to lie to an INTP. This makes it ironic that INTPs’ word should always be taken with a grain of salt – it’s not that they are dishonest, but people with the INTP personality type tend to share thoughts that are not fully developed, using others as a sounding board for ideas and theories in a debate against themselves rather than as actual conversation partners.
"This may make them appear unreliable, but in reality no one is more enthusiastic and capable of spotting a problem, drilling through the endless factors and details that encompass the issue and developing a unique and viable solution than INTPs – just don’t expect punctual progress reports. People who share the INTP personality type aren’t interested in practical, day-to-day activities and maintenance, but when they find an environment where their creative genius and potential can be expressed, there is no limit to the time and energy INTPs will expend in developing an insightful and unbiased solution."
And the ENTP;
"Taking a certain pleasure in being the underdog, ENTPs enjoy the mental exercise found in questioning the prevailing mode of thought, making them irreplaceable in reworking existing systems or shaking things up and pushing them in clever new directions. However, they’ll be miserable managing the day-to-day mechanics of actually implementing their suggestions. ENTP personalities love to brainstorm and think big, but they will avoid getting caught doing the "grunt work" at all costs. ENTPs only make up about three percent of the population, which is just right, as it lets them create original ideas, then step back to let more numerous and fastidious personalities handle the logistics of implementation and maintenance.
"ENTPs’ capacity for debate can be a vexing one – while often appreciated when it’s called for, it can fall painfully flat when they step on others’ toes by say, openly questioning their boss in a meeting, or picking apart everything their significant other says. This is further complicated by ENTPs’ unyielding honesty, as this type doesn’t mince words and cares little about being seen as sensitive or compassionate. Like minded types get along well enough with people with the ENTP personality type, but more sensitive types, and society in general, are often conflict-averse, preferring feelings, comfort, and even white lies over unpleasant truths and hard rationality.
"This frustrates ENTPs, and they find that their quarrelsome fun burns many bridges, oftentimes inadvertently, as they plow through others’ thresholds for having their beliefs questioned and their feelings brushed aside. Treating others as they’d be treated, ENTPs have little tolerance for being coddled, and dislike when people beat around the bush, especially when asking a favor. ENTP personalities find themselves respected for their vision, confidence, knowledge, and keen sense of humor, but often struggle to utilize these qualities as the basis for deeper friendships and romantic relationships."
Me: "let's talk about the big picture and all its complexity. Here is how every aspect of the universe relates to everything else. Here, read 80 pages of shit on the subject. It will explain everything."

ENTP reader: "You made the following logical errors. Can't you just distill the details? Too long: didn't read. And how does this relate to that other thing?"

INTP reader: "you misspelled 15 words and made 17 grammatical mistakes. I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't pay attention to the details of their own work. Additionally, this SMALL POINT HERE contradicts this OTHER SMALL POINT THERE. Therefore your entire argument in invalid."

Me: "here is why everything is going completely to shit and nothing can be done about it."

Also me: "here is a comprehensive plan that will solve everything I just said couldn't be fixed."

Reader: "there's no hope! Surrender all hope, ye who enter here! We're doomed!"

Me: "but didn't you read the part where I solved the problem that I said was unsolvable?"

Reader: "it won't work. You said it was unsolvable! There is no hope!"

Me: "you are teking me too literally."

INTP reader: "you made a spelling mistake."

ENTP reader: "the problem cannot be solved."

Me: "didn't you read that part where I solved it?"

ENTP reader: "it was too long, so no. Anyway, I dozed off. But now I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that nothing can be done about it."