THE ARCHITECTURE OF LEVERAGE: UNDERSTANDING BLACKMAIL AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM

THE ARCHITECTURE OF LEVERAGE:

UNDERSTANDING BLACKMAIL AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Introduction: The Invisible Economy

In traditional business analysis, assets are tangible or measurable: real estate, intellectual property, cash reserves, market share. But there exists a shadow economy that operates on a fundamentally different principle—the conversion of human vulnerability into extractable value. This is not merely extortion. This is a sophisticated system where compromised individuals become portfolio assets, each generating different types of returns based on their position, power, and exploitability.

Understanding this system requires thinking beyond individual transactions. A single instance of blackmail is amateur-level criminality—risky, unsustainable, and likely to provoke retaliation. But when structured as a business model, with standardized asset classes, risk management strategies, and succession planning, blackmail transforms into something far more durable: a self-reinforcing network of leverage that can outlive its founder and resist conventional law enforcement.

This article examines the theoretical architecture of such a system. Through three detailed case studies—fictional but structurally plausible—we will explore how compromised individuals become different types of assets, how these assets interact to create systemic resilience, and why such systems are extraordinarily difficult to dismantle once established. The goal is not to provide a blueprint, but to develop a framework for understanding how power operates when it escapes traditional accountability structures.

I. The Asset Classification Framework

The first principle of any business system is categorization. Raw materials must be sorted by their properties and potential uses. In a blackmail economy, the raw material is compromising evidence, but the asset is the compromised person. Different people provide different forms of value based on their position in economic, legal, or political hierarchies.

Cash Leveraging Assets

These are individuals who can be directly extracted for monetary payments. The classic extortion model. The value of a cash leveraging asset correlates directly with their wealth and their vulnerability to exposure. A wealthy business executive caught in a compromising situation represents a renewable income stream. The sophistication lies in calibrating the extraction rate: demand too much and they might choose exposure over payment; demand too little and you leave value on the table.

The key variables are the target's liquid wealth, the severity of their compromise, and the ongoing cost of exposure. A person with a hundred million dollars in assets but only five million in liquid funds cannot be extracted at the same rate as someone with similar wealth but higher liquidity. Similarly, the nature of the compromising material matters: evidence of financial fraud might destroy a career but not a marriage, while evidence of certain personal behaviors might destroy both.

Asset Leveraging Positions

More sophisticated than simple cash extraction is forcing a target to surrender control over productive assets. This could mean signing over ownership of a company, transferring real estate, or providing access to financial instruments. The advantage of asset leveraging over cash leveraging is that you acquire productive capacity, not just money. A business that generates revenue becomes a permanent addition to your economic base. Real estate appreciates. Investment portfolios compound.

Asset leveraging requires more careful execution than cash extraction. Ownership transfers leave paper trails. Large asset movements trigger regulatory scrutiny. The target must be sufficiently desperate and the operator must have sufficient legal infrastructure to obscure the coercive nature of the transaction. Shell companies, complex corporate structures, and complicit legal counsel become necessary. This is where the system begins to require other compromised professionals—lawyers, accountants, notaries—who themselves become assets through their participation.

Favor Leveraging: The Power Multiplier

The most valuable assets are not those with money or property, but those with institutional power. A compromised judge, prosecutor, regulatory official, or law enforcement officer represents a force multiplier. They cannot be directly monetized like cash assets, but they provide something more valuable: protection, selective enforcement, and the ability to weaponize state power against enemies.

Favor leveraging subdivides into three primary categories. First: prosecution of enemies. A compromised prosecutor can initiate investigations, empanel grand juries, or pursue charges against your competitors or threats. The state's investigative and punitive apparatus becomes your private enforcement arm. Second: relief from prosecution. When you or your organization faces legal jeopardy, compromised legal officials can dismiss cases, suppress evidence, or engineer favorable plea agreements. Third: roof protection—a Russian organized crime term for using a superior's authority to shield subordinates. If a detective is investigating you, compromising their captain neutralizes the investigation.

The strategic value of favor leveraging assets increases geometrically when you control multiple layers of a hierarchy. A compromised trial judge provides some protection, but if their decisions can be appealed, your protection is incomplete. Compromise the appellate judges as well, and you create nearly impenetrable legal immunity. Similarly, controlling both line prosecutors and their supervisors ensures that even if one becomes uncooperative, you can apply pressure through the chain of command.

Fall Guy Assets

Every complex criminal operation requires insulation. The person at the top cannot issue orders directly, cannot handle logistics personally, cannot interface with targets without creating exposure. This requires intermediaries—and intermediaries who know too much become liabilities. The solution is to ensure that your intermediaries are themselves compromised before they begin working for you.

A fall guy asset is someone who handles operational details while being inherently disposable. They make contact with blackmail targets, they deliver threats, they arrange meetings, they manage logistics. They are given just enough authority to execute tasks but never enough knowledge to understand the full scope of the operation. Most critically, they are documented committing crimes on camera or through recorded communications. If law enforcement closes in, these individuals can be sacrificed. The operator claims ignorance—these were rogue employees, unauthorized actions, regrettable but not my responsibility.

The psychology of fall guy management is crucial. They must be kept loyal through a combination of payment and their own complicity. Once they have participated in enough criminal activity, they understand that cooperation with law enforcement means their own imprisonment. Their continued loyalty is purchased not just with money, but with mutual assured destruction. However, this only works if they believe you won't sacrifice them preemptively. This requires occasional demonstrations of loyalty—protecting them from minor legal troubles, providing resources to their families. The art is in making them feel secure enough to remain loyal, but vulnerable enough to never challenge you.

II. Vertical Integration and Network Effects

The true sophistication of a blackmail economy emerges not from individual assets, but from their systemic integration. A single compromised judge provides value. A compromised judge plus a compromised prosecutor plus compromised appellate judges plus compromised regulatory officials creates something qualitatively different: a captured section of the legal system that operates as a private resource.

Vertical integration means controlling every level of a decision-making hierarchy. In a court system, this means the trial court, the appellate court, and the supreme court of a jurisdiction. In a regulatory environment, this means the line inspector, their supervisor, the agency director, and potentially the legislative oversight committee. Each level provides redundancy and eliminates appeals to higher authority.

The network effect emerges when different asset types reinforce each other. Cash leveraging assets fund the operation. Asset leveraging positions provide legitimate business infrastructure for money laundering and operational cover. Favor leveraging assets protect the operation from law enforcement. Fall guy assets insulate leadership from direct criminal liability. Each component strengthens the others, creating a system that is more resilient than the sum of its parts.

Jurisdiction becomes a critical factor in vertical integration. Legal systems are divided into territories with different courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies having authority over different geographic areas or types of cases. A change of venue—moving a trial to a different jurisdiction—can neutralize your entire captured legal infrastructure if you only control one county's system. Sophisticated operators therefore need to map jurisdictional boundaries carefully and ensure they have leverage in multiple overlapping jurisdictions.

The federal-state-local division in American law creates particular complexities. A crime might be prosecutable at the federal level, state level, or local level depending on its nature. Controlling local prosecutors provides no protection against federal charges. Controlling federal prosecutors in one district provides no protection if the case can be moved to another district. The most sophisticated operations therefore need to develop leverage across multiple levels of the system, which requires extensive resources and a large portfolio of compromised officials.

III. Case Study One: The Horizon Group

The following case study is entirely fictional but structurally plausible. It illustrates how the asset classification framework operates in practice and how vertical integration provides systemic protection.

Establishment Phase

Marcus Holloway established the Horizon Group in 2008 as a legitimate real estate investment firm in a mid-sized American city. The firm acquired distressed commercial properties during the financial crisis, renovated them, and leased them to businesses. By 2012, Horizon owned seventeen properties across three counties, generating approximately eight million dollars in annual revenue. This legitimate business provided the foundation for what would become something far more complex.

In 2013, Holloway purchased a small boutique hotel in the city's business district. The hotel, the Meridian, had forty rooms and catered to mid-level business travelers. Holloway undertook an extensive renovation that included installing a comprehensive security system with cameras in every public area and, controversially, in the rooms themselves. The ostensible justification was theft prevention and liability protection.

The Meridian's business model shifted subtly. Rather than marketing to general business travelers, it began catering to a specific clientele: local business executives and professionals who needed discreet venues for extramarital affairs. The hotel never advertised this function explicitly, but through word of mouth it became known as a place where one could rent a room for a few hours without awkward questions. The day rate was expensive but the discretion was reliable. Within eighteen months, the Meridian was operating at ninety-two percent occupancy despite never appearing on major booking websites.

The First Assets

In late 2014, a prominent local attorney named Richard Chen checked into the Meridian with a woman who was not his wife. Chen was a partner at one of the city's largest firms and had a reputation for aggressive litigation. Unknown to Chen, his activities were recorded by the hotel's security system.

Three months later, Chen's firm was representing a company in litigation against one of Holloway's business partners. The case was strong; Holloway's partner faced potential liability of approximately four million dollars. Chen received an anonymous package containing still images from his hotel visit and a simple message: the litigation should be settled for nuisance value or more images would be sent to his wife and the state bar association.

Chen settled the case for seventy-five thousand dollars. Holloway had just created his first favor leveraging asset. Chen had demonstrated he would compromise his professional obligations under pressure, and Holloway retained evidence that could destroy Chen's career and marriage at any time. Over the next eighteen months, Chen was called upon three more times to provide favorable legal opinions, to settle cases disadvantageously to his clients, and eventually to refer certain clients to other attorneys when their interests conflicted with Holloway's network.

The pattern repeated. The Meridian operated for three years, accumulating video evidence of professional men—attorneys, accountants, a city council member, two judges, and numerous business executives—engaging in behavior they desperately wanted concealed. Each became a potential asset. Not all were activated immediately. Some were held in reserve, their compromising material filed away for potential future use.

Building the Vertical

By 2017, Holloway had compromising material on Judge Patricia Morrison, who sat on the county circuit court. Morrison had been caught on camera in a particularly compromising situation that would have ended both her career and her marriage. Holloway did not immediately activate Morrison as an asset. Instead, he waited for the right case.

In early 2018, a business partner of Holloway's was charged with commercial fraud. The case was strong and the prosecutor was aggressive. The case was randomly assigned to Judge Morrison. Holloway made contact through an intermediary—a fall guy asset named Thomas Vega who had his own compromising history and who handled operational details without knowing the full extent of Holloway's network.

Morrison was given a choice: suppress certain evidence, make favorable evidentiary rulings, and generally obstruct the prosecution, or face the destruction of everything she had built. Morrison complied. The prosecution's case fell apart due to evidentiary problems, and the charges were eventually dismissed. Holloway had just converted a favor leveraging asset from passive to active status.

But Holloway understood vertical integration. Morrison's rulings could be appealed. He needed the appellate court as well. Through careful research, he discovered that one of the three appellate judges for the region had a gambling problem and significant debts. Using cash leveraging techniques, Holloway had his network arrange for the judge to be extended substantial credit at certain establishments, then purchased the debt. The judge was never told directly that Holloway owned his debt, but when appeals that mattered to Holloway's interests came before the court, certain suggestions were made through intermediaries.

The system was now vertically integrated in the judicial branch. Trial court decisions favorable to Holloway's network would be upheld on appeal. Decisions unfavorable to the network would be reversed. The probability of adverse legal outcomes dropped substantially. Holloway's partners understood that he could provide a valuable service: legal immunity within a specific jurisdiction.

Monetization and Expansion

With vertical integration achieved in the legal system, Holloway could offer a product: protection. Local business owners engaged in gray-market or illegal activities—unlicensed contractors, businesses with labor violations, operators with tax irregularities—were approached by Vega and other intermediaries. For a monthly fee, they could operate with substantially reduced risk of legal consequences. If they were investigated, charges would be dismissed or reduced. If they were sued, judges would rule favorably.

This protection racket generated approximately forty thousand dollars monthly by 2019. But it also created a new problem: witnesses. Some of the protected businesses had employees who might testify about irregularities. Some had competitors who might file complaints. Holloway needed law enforcement assets as well.

A sergeant in the city police department, David Reese, had visited the Meridian in 2015. Reese was in charge of the commercial crimes unit. In 2019, when a complaint was filed against one of Holloway's protected businesses, Reese was contacted through intermediaries and reminded of his vulnerability. The investigation was perfunctory, the evidence was mishandled, and the case never advanced to prosecution.

By 2020, Holloway controlled or had leverage over: six attorneys, two judges, one appellate judge, three police officers, a city council member, two accountants, and dozens of business owners who paid for protection. The Horizon Group's legitimate real estate business generated eight million annually. The protection operation generated approximately five hundred thousand annually. But the real value was not in the cash flow—it was in the immunity. Holloway could operate any business, legal or illegal, within his territory with negligible legal risk.

Structural Resilience

What made the Horizon Group resilient was its layered structure. Holloway never made contact with assets directly. Vega and two other intermediaries handled all communications. These intermediaries were themselves compromised—Vega through financial crimes he had committed while working for Holloway, the others through various forms of documented misconduct.

The compromising material was stored redundantly in multiple secure locations, with dead man's switches that would release material if Holloway was arrested or killed. Holloway had explicitly made certain assets aware of this arrangement. Judge Morrison knew that her cooperation purchased not just Holloway's silence but his active interest in protecting her. If Holloway was arrested, the material would be released anyway, so Morrison had an incentive to use her position to prevent his arrest.

By 2021, the system had become self-sustaining. Assets protected other assets. When Sergeant Reese came under internal investigation for unrelated misconduct, Judge Morrison arranged for the investigation to be transferred to a jurisdiction where charges were quietly dropped. When one of Holloway's attorneys faced bar discipline, the investigating committee included a member who was himself compromised through financial dealings with Holloway's network.

The network had achieved something remarkable: it had become larger than any individual member, including its founder. Holloway could potentially be removed, but the network itself had enough interconnected leverage to continue functioning. Multiple members had access to compromising material on multiple other members. Mutual assured destruction had created a form of stability.

IV. Case Study Two: The Atlantic Fund

This second case study examines how a blackmail economy can operate at a higher financial level, involving asset leveraging and complex corporate structures. Again, this is entirely fictional.

Origins in Legitimate Finance

The Atlantic Fund began in 2005 as a small private equity firm founded by Elena Rostova, a former investment banker with expertise in distressed asset acquisition. The fund's initial capital was approximately twenty million dollars from a handful of high-net-worth individuals. The fund's strategy was conventional: identify undervalued companies, acquire controlling stakes, restructure operations, and exit at a profit.

Between 2005 and 2010, the Atlantic Fund made seven investments with mixed results. Three were modest successes, three were failures, and one—the acquisition of a regional logistics company—was highly profitable. By 2010, the fund had grown to approximately forty million in assets under management. The returns were adequate but not exceptional. Rostova began looking for ways to gain competitive advantage.

The Compromise Mechanism

In 2011, Rostova was approached by a consultant named Michael Torres who specialized in opposition research and competitive intelligence. Torres had a particular specialty: identifying personal vulnerabilities in executives and board members of target companies. His methods included private investigators, digital surveillance, and human intelligence. He was, in essence, an information broker who dealt in compromising material.

Torres proposed a partnership. The Atlantic Fund would identify acquisition targets. Torres would research the personal lives of key executives and board members. If compromising material was found, it would be used not for blackmail in the traditional sense, but as leverage in negotiations. The target company would not be told explicitly that their executives were compromised, but those executives would be contacted privately and given a choice: support the acquisition at a favorable price, or face exposure.

The first test case was a manufacturing company in financial distress. The CEO was having an affair with a subordinate, creating potential liability for the company and personal liability for the CEO. Torres documented the relationship. When Atlantic Fund made an acquisition offer, the CEO privately received evidence of the documentation and a suggestion that supporting the acquisition would ensure the material never surfaced. The CEO did not inform the board of this pressure. He supported the acquisition. Atlantic Fund paid twenty percent below the company's fair value, a discount of approximately four million dollars.

Systematic Asset Leveraging

Over the next five years, the Atlantic Fund used this method in twelve acquisitions. Not every target had compromisable executives, but approximately sixty percent did. The cost of Torres's research services was approximately five hundred thousand per transaction. The average savings in acquisition price was three to seven million dollars. The return on investment was extraordinary.

But Rostova realized something more valuable than cost savings: she now owned compromising material on executives at twelve different companies. Even after the acquisitions were complete, these executives remained in place—either as employees of Atlantic Fund's portfolio companies or at other firms where they had found new positions. Each one was a potential asset.

In 2016, Rostova needed to place a large debt offering for one of her portfolio companies. The terms were unfavorable given the company's credit rating. However, the executive who made the credit decision at a major regional bank was someone who had been compromised during an earlier acquisition. The executive had left the target company and taken a position at the bank. He was contacted through intermediaries and reminded of his vulnerability. The debt offering was approved at unusually favorable terms, saving Atlantic Fund approximately two million in interest costs over the term of the loan.

The model had evolved. Compromised executives were no longer one-time assets used to facilitate individual transactions. They were permanent assets who could be activated whenever they achieved positions relevant to Atlantic Fund's interests. Torres maintained a database tracking the career movements of compromised individuals. When one reached a position of influence at a bank, regulatory agency, or potential acquisition target, they were flagged for potential activation.

The Regulatory Capture

In 2018, one of Atlantic Fund's portfolio companies faced investigation by state regulators for environmental violations. The violations were real and potentially expensive to remediate. However, the deputy director of the relevant regulatory agency was a former executive who had been compromised five years earlier during an acquisition. He had moved from the private sector to public service, likely hoping to escape his former life.

Rostova had Torres make contact. The deputy director was reminded of his past. He was not asked to dismiss the investigation—that would be too obvious and too risky. Instead, he was asked to slow the process, to accept the company's remediation proposals without extensive additional scrutiny, and to avoid escalating the matter to formal enforcement action. The deputy director complied. The company's remediation costs were approximately six million dollars—substantial, but far less than the twenty to thirty million that aggressive enforcement might have demanded, and certainly less than the cost if operations had been suspended pending compliance.

This event revealed a new dimension of the asset portfolio. Compromised individuals who moved into regulatory positions became favor leveraging assets. They provided protection from enforcement, favorable interpretations of regulations, and advance warning of investigations. Between 2018 and 2022, Atlantic Fund benefited from at least seven instances where compromised regulators provided protection or favorable treatment to portfolio companies.

The Succession Problem

By 2022, the Atlantic Fund managed approximately three hundred million in assets and had compromising material on forty-seven individuals in positions of influence across finance, industry, and government. Rostova was fifty-eight years old and beginning to consider succession. But succession created a profound problem: whoever inherited control of the compromising material would inherit the entire leverage network.

Rostova had a daughter, Natasha, who worked in the fund but had not been informed of the leverage operations. She believed her mother ran a successful but conventional private equity firm. Torres, however, knew everything. He maintained the database, he managed the communications with compromised assets, he handled the operational details. He was a fall guy asset in theory—Rostova had ensured he was sufficiently compromised through his own methods that he could be sacrificed if necessary—but he was also the only person who understood the full system.

In 2023, Rostova was diagnosed with a serious illness. She had perhaps five years remaining. The succession question became urgent. She could pass control to Natasha, but Natasha's ethical objections might lead her to dismantle the leverage system, destroying the fund's competitive advantage. She could pass control to Torres, but Torres had no capital and no legitimate business expertise. The fund would likely collapse without her operational knowledge.

Rostova chose a third option. She created a trust structure that gave Natasha control of the fund's operations but gave Torres permanent control of the information assets—the compromising material and the database of compromised individuals. Torres would provide services to the fund under long-term contract. Natasha would have plausible deniability about the sources of the fund's competitive advantages. Torres would have financial security and the ability to market his services to other clients if necessary.

The structure was brilliant in its cynicism. It ensured the leverage system would survive Rostova's death while protecting Natasha from direct legal liability. The compromising material became a form of property that could be transferred across generations. The business model had achieved true sustainability—it was no longer dependent on its founder's life or liberty.

V. Case Study Three: The Infrastructure Play

The final case study examines the most sophisticated form of leverage economy: one that operates at the level of critical infrastructure and achieves state-like functions. This scenario is fictional but illustrates the logical endpoint of leverage-based systems.

Digital Infrastructure as Leverage Platform

In 2015, a technology company called Sentinel Systems launched a cloud storage and communication platform called SafeVault. The product's marketing emphasized security and privacy. All data was encrypted. The company retained no access to user content. The platform was particularly attractive to professionals who handled sensitive information: attorneys, healthcare providers, financial advisors, and executives.

SafeVault's adoption grew rapidly. By 2018, the platform had approximately two million users, including forty thousand attorneys and twenty thousand physicians. The company's revenue model was subscription-based. The company was profitable but not extraordinarily so. However, the founders—three computer scientists named Anderson, Liu, and Okafor—had embedded backdoor access into the encryption system.

The backdoor was sophisticated. It did not simply bypass encryption. Instead, it exploited a flaw in the key generation algorithm that allowed the founders to derive encryption keys from publicly observable metadata. To any external security audit, the system appeared secure. The encryption was strong and the keys were properly generated. But the founders could access any user's data at will.

Building the Asset Database

Beginning in 2018, the founders began systematically accessing user data. Not all of it—that would have required impossible storage capacity and would have created unnecessarily large attack surfaces. Instead, they used automated systems to scan for particular types of content. Communications containing certain keywords. Documents with particular formatting that suggested legal memos or medical records. Financial documents. Personal photographs.

The system flagged approximately sixty thousand users as potentially valuable targets based on their content. These users were then subjected to more detailed analysis. Did their communications reveal affairs? Financial crimes? Professional misconduct? Medical malpractice? Tax evasion? Immigration violations? The automated systems could not make sophisticated judgments, but they could identify potential compromising material for human review.

By 2020, Sentinel Systems had identified approximately eight thousand users with clearly compromising material in their SafeVault accounts. These included twelve hundred attorneys, nine hundred physicians, four hundred executives at major corporations, three hundred government officials, and thousands of other professionals. The database was extraordinary: it contained not just evidence of misconduct, but the actual private communications and documents of influential people across the entire country.

Monetization Strategy

The founders understood that mass blackmail was impractical and risky. Contacting eight thousand people would create exposure and probable law enforcement action. Instead, they pursued a selective activation strategy. They would only activate assets when specific high-value opportunities emerged.

In 2020, Sentinel Systems needed to raise capital for expansion. They pitched to venture capital firms but found the terms unfavorable. However, one of the partners at a major venture firm was among their compromised users. The partner had used SafeVault to store communications about insider trading. Anderson made contact through an anonymous channel. The message was simple: invest on favorable terms or face criminal exposure.

The partner invested five million dollars personally and persuaded his firm to invest an additional twenty million. The terms were extremely favorable to Sentinel Systems. The company's valuation increased to two hundred million despite modest revenue. The partner had effectively been forced to pay millions to prevent his own prosecution.

Over the next three years, Sentinel Systems activated assets approximately thirty times. A compromised FDA official expedited approval for a partner company's medical device. A compromised SEC attorney provided advance warning of an investigation into insider trading at a firm that paid Sentinel for consulting services. A compromised judge ruled favorably in a patent dispute where Sentinel had financial interests. Each activation generated value—sometimes direct payments, sometimes favorable regulatory treatment, sometimes business opportunities.

Scale and Systematic Power

By 2023, Sentinel Systems had evolved beyond a technology company. It was effectively a private intelligence service with leverage over thousands of individuals in positions of power. The company began offering services to other entities. For a substantial fee, they would activate assets on behalf of clients. Need a regulatory approval? They could arrange it through a compromised official. Need to win a lawsuit? They could arrange favorable rulings. Need to damage a competitor? They could leak compromising material about the competitor's executives.

The service was expensive—typically between five and twenty million per activation—but for corporations or wealthy individuals facing existential threats, it was cost-effective. A pharmaceutical company paid fifteen million to secure FDA approval for a drug that might generate billions in revenue. A defense contractor paid twenty million to influence a procurement decision worth two hundred million.

Sentinel Systems had discovered the ultimate leverage business model: infrastructure control. By controlling a platform that people trusted with their most sensitive information, they had created a self-replenishing asset base. As more people used SafeVault, more people became compromised. The network effect worked in reverse: each new user increased the probability that someone in their professional network was also compromised, making coordination and leverage easier.

The Immunity Problem

The fundamental problem with Sentinel Systems' operation was that it required continuous immunity from investigation. If law enforcement ever seriously investigated the company, the backdoor would eventually be discovered. The founders needed to ensure that such investigations never occurred or were terminated before they could succeed.

The solution was to compromise law enforcement itself. Among Sentinel's compromised assets were approximately fifty federal agents across various agencies: FBI, DEA, SEC, and others. These agents had used SafeVault for personal purposes and had generated compromising material. In 2024, when the FBI's cybercrime unit began an investigation into unusual patterns in SafeVault's network traffic, one of the compromised agents was part of the investigation team. He provided advance warning to Sentinel Systems.

Sentinel activated multiple assets simultaneously. A compromised DOJ attorney arranged for the investigation to be transferred to a different unit where resources were scarce. A compromised Congressional staffer asked questions during an oversight hearing that implied the FBI was wasting resources investigating secure communication platforms. A compromised federal judge issued a ruling in an unrelated case that created legal precedent making certain types of evidence collection more difficult.

The investigation was abandoned within six months. Sentinel Systems had demonstrated that it could defend itself by activating its network. The company had achieved something extraordinary: it had captured enough of the law enforcement and regulatory apparatus that it could prevent investigation of itself. It had effectively achieved immunity.

Systemic Implications

By 2025, Sentinel Systems represented a form of power that existed outside normal institutional structures. It could influence regulatory decisions, judicial outcomes, legislative processes, and law enforcement actions. It operated as a shadow government—not controlling everything, but able to intervene decisively in matters affecting its interests.

The founders understood that their operation was sustainable indefinitely as long as they maintained operational security and continued to compromise new assets to replace those who retired or became uncooperative. The system was self-reinforcing: each successful intervention increased their resources, which allowed them to compromise more assets, which increased their power to intervene. The feedback loop was positive and accelerating.

Most disturbingly, the system was inheritable and transferable. The founders created a trust structure similar to the Atlantic Fund's model. Control of the backdoor access and the asset database could be transferred to successors. The leverage infrastructure had become a form of property—illegal and ethically abhorrent, but extraordinarily valuable and surprisingly stable.

VI. Theoretical Analysis: Why These Systems Persist

The three case studies illustrate different scales and methods, but they share common structural features that explain their resilience. Understanding these features is essential to understanding why such systems, once established, are extraordinarily difficult to dismantle.

Mutual Assured Destruction

The nuclear deterrence concept applies directly to leverage networks. Once a system reaches a certain size, multiple participants have access to compromising material on multiple other participants. Judge Morrison in the Horizon Group case had an incentive to protect Marcus Holloway because if Holloway was arrested, his dead man's switch would destroy Morrison as well. The compromised venture capitalist in the Sentinel case had an incentive to protect the company because its exposure would lead to his own exposure.

This creates a bizarre form of stability. No individual participant can defect without risking their own destruction. Cooperation is enforced not by loyalty or ethics but by rational self-interest. The system becomes an equilibrium: everyone is trapped, but everyone understands that escape is more dangerous than continued participation.

This dynamic makes prosecution extraordinarily difficult. Traditional law enforcement relies on flipping witnesses—offering immunity or reduced sentences in exchange for testimony. But in a mature leverage network, witnesses cannot safely cooperate because their cooperation triggers retaliation not just from the primary targets but from all other compromised participants who fear exposure.

Network Effects and Increasing Returns

Traditional criminal enterprises face diminishing returns to scale. Each additional member increases operational risks and coordination costs. Leverage networks are different: they exhibit increasing returns to scale. Each additional compromised asset makes the network more valuable because it increases the probability that any given situation can be influenced.

In the Horizon Group case, having one judge was valuable. Having one judge plus an appellate judge was more than twice as valuable because it controlled an entire adjudication chain. Having judges plus prosecutors plus police was more than three times as valuable because it controlled the entire criminal justice process from investigation through sentencing.

In the Sentinel Systems case, the network effect was even more pronounced. Having eight thousand compromised assets meant that almost any significant transaction or regulatory action could be influenced by activating someone in the decision chain. The system approached total operational freedom within its domain.

Jurisdictional Arbitrage

Legal systems are divided into jurisdictions with boundaries. Sophisticated leverage operations understand these boundaries and operate across them. The Horizon Group controlled one county's legal system but would be vulnerable if cases moved to federal court or adjacent counties. The solution was to expand into those jurisdictions or to ensure that cases never moved there.

Sentinel Systems operated nationally, which meant it needed to compromise assets in multiple federal jurisdictions. But because it controlled infrastructure rather than physical territory, it could operate anywhere its users were located. A compromised federal judge in the Southern District of New York could be activated for cases there. A compromised SEC attorney in Washington could be activated for regulatory matters. The geographic distribution of assets matched the geographic distribution of power.

This creates a whack-a-mole problem for law enforcement. Shutting down operations in one jurisdiction simply causes them to shift to another. Comprehensive action requires coordination across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, which is organizationally difficult and creates more opportunities for leaks and warnings.

The Inheritance Problem

Perhaps most disturbing is the transferability of leverage systems. Traditional organized crime faces succession crises. When a mob boss is killed or imprisoned, rival factions fight for control, creating instability that law enforcement can exploit. Leverage networks are different because the assets themselves are information, and information can be transferred without diminishing the original holder's power.

Both the Atlantic Fund and Sentinel Systems created formal succession structures. The compromising material and asset databases were treated as property that could be transferred through trusts or contracts. This means the leverage infrastructure survives the death or imprisonment of its founders. The Atlantic Fund's leverage system will continue to benefit Natasha Rostova even though she may never fully understand its mechanisms. Sentinel Systems' backdoor access can be transferred to new operators.

This transforms leverage from a temporary criminal activity into a permanent institutional structure. The compromising material becomes an asset class that can be inherited, sold, or used as collateral. The moral implications are staggering: future generations inherit not just wealth but power structures built on coercion.

VII. Conclusion: The Shadow Economy's Logic

The three case studies illustrate a disturbing reality: blackmail, when structured as a business rather than practiced as opportunistic crime, can create systems that are more resilient than the institutions designed to prevent them. The Horizon Group controlled local legal outcomes. The Atlantic Fund distorted market competition and regulatory enforcement. Sentinel Systems achieved near-immunity from investigation.

These systems succeed because they exploit structural features of how power operates. They create mutual dependency through mutual assured destruction. They generate increasing returns to scale through network effects. They arbitrage jurisdictional boundaries that constrain law enforcement but not criminal operations. They establish succession mechanisms that allow leverage infrastructure to outlive individual operators.

The theoretical insight is that leverage is not merely criminal activity—it is an alternative form of property rights. In legitimate economies, property rights are enforced by legal systems: contracts, titles, patents. In leverage economies, property rights are enforced by threat: the capacity to destroy someone's reputation, freedom, or life. But the structural logic is similar. Both systems create exclusivity, transferability, and extractable value.

Understanding these systems is not an endorsement of them. It is a recognition that power operates through mechanisms that often evade legal and ethical constraints. The challenge for legitimate institutions is to develop resilience against capture. This requires acknowledging that traditional accountability mechanisms—prosecution, regulation, democratic oversight—can be systematically subverted when enough key participants are compromised.

The disturbing conclusion is that once a leverage network achieves critical scale, it may be effectively impossible to dismantle using normal institutional mechanisms. The institutions themselves become part of the network. The alternative—extraordinary measures, mass prosecutions, institutional purges—carries its own dangers to legitimate governance. This creates a tragic equilibrium: leverage systems that should not exist but cannot easily be eliminated once established.

The question is not whether such systems exist—they almost certainly do at various scales—but whether we can develop institutional antibodies that prevent them from reaching critical mass in the first place. That requires vigilance, structural safeguards, and an understanding of the economic logic that makes them attractive to operators and resilient once established.

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.