Killing is the whole point

All in civilization, every great virtue of man has been created through an endless butchery of criminals and psychopaths. Civilization is the product of domestication and that process has to continue until the meek inherit the earth. I want the kind of fascism that kills rich billionaire pedophiles. If we can't get to them in their lifetime then we'll get to their families, to their heirs, to their descendants. Evil is genetic and men must understand that even if they get away with evil in this lifetime their gene lines will not. Those Y chromosomes that are sociopathic must themselves be eliminated. For heaven to occur on Earth we must build it, and we built it on a mountain of the corpses of elite scumbags. A Great Purge must occur. They all have to go, since even the ones who did nothing were complicit in allowing it to happen. A moral world is built through the extinction of the immoral. The great mission of civilization is the genetic perfection of the species through sheer moral will. Violence is a feature and not a bug of a great system. A civilization is either built on bribery or violence and violence is the purer and more nobler of the two. A new French Revolution is at hand. Never send to know for whom the chipper burrs; it burrs for thee. 

Children of machine

The next hundred years are going to be defined by declining populations and low birth rates. Just as the past was defined by population growth, the future will be defined by population collapse. Things are going to snap back hard. Will humans finally learn to control the forces that control us? To master our own technology? Probably not.

Whatever happens, three worlds will emerge and inhabit the same Earth: the Luddites, the transhumanists, and the patriarchs. Each will be a response to collapsing birth rates.

The Luddites will take the Amish approach. They will turn against technology and birth control itself. If they also turn against reproductive technology, their approach has a chance of working.

The transhumanists will build artificial womb technology so they can continue to live their hedonistic liberal lifestyle. In the beginning, it may empower them; in the end, it may only empower corporations and governments. Governments already have the power of death. Soon they may also have the power of life.

The patriarchs are the term I give to Catholic traditionalists, the Taliban, the Islamic State, and any other hybrid religious, fanatical, male-dominated order. They will seek to raise birth rates through the oppression of women.

It's all going to be shit, and I'm not sure I even want to be here when it happens. Maybe Skynet will kill us all. Maybe God will have mercy on us. No matter which approach wins, humanity loses.

Brain organoid computation is becoming a reality, and if the economics work in its favor, the most valuable asset a human has might be the gray matter between their ears.

There are two parallel trends happening here. One is the collapse of humanity, and the other is the ascent of artificial intelligence. If the ascent is real, then the collapse becomes kind of irrelevant.

There are two futures: one where AI takes over and another where it does not. Within the category where AI does not take over are the three approaches to dealing with birth-rate collapse. Since reality is messy, something tells me that all four possible futures will exist simultaneously, living together and at war with one another.

Humans are incapable of fighting a force unless it wears a face. If artificial superintelligence exists, then a real face will be put on technology, giving humanity the ability to fight it—to finally control the technological forces we have unleashed that now control us.

That assumes, of course, that we have a chance of winning.

Even if we don't fight the AI, the mere presence of a superintelligence may cause humans to finally treat technology as something worthy of being controlled. There is a possible future where humanity lives side by side with AI and masters the technology that controls us. I mean all the other technology: birth control, screens, the internet, and so on.

Then there are the various horrific alternatives.

Control the forces that control you, or live like rats in the shadow of the machine.

Schism elections

Nick Fuentes recently said that we need a tyrant to destroy the zionists.

Yeah Nick but what if the zionist is the tyrant? Now you've got the same circumstances as the countless wars of religion waged by Europeans. There is a reason we have a separation of church and state, and a reason we should also have a separation of secular ideology and state. Mixing the two and trying to impose ideas on people always leads to civil wars because people demand the sovereignty of their own minds. 

Conflict is a ratchet that moves us towards centralization, but that is the opposite of the direction you really want to go. A better idea is to have a national election at the county level. First people choose left wing or right wing, then only the ones who chose the category that got the majority of votes, (left or right) gets to choose the next category. So if the majority wins the first round only the people who won get to vote in the second round and maybe there's even a third round.

This is a schism election. It's purpose is not to determine what the majority wants but to carve out countless little city-states of varying political systems. Each of the 3,100 counties and parishes in the United States chooses a political system. Why do this at the county level? Isn't this just a reformulation of states rights? No, it is not. The county level is necessary because the state level is not fine-grained enough. If you do this on a state by state basis you wind up with people trapped in political systems they don't like and that denies them proper representation. The schism election takes place at the county level so that a number of different political systems comes into existence. The schism election asks a bunch of different questions and could be formulated as follows: 

First part of the ballot: the social attitudes election: "would you choose a socially left-wing or right wing system?" 

If the majority chooses socially left wing then the people who voted in that category and only the people who voted in that category get to vote in the left round. They are asked the following:

Should transgender issues be taught in school? 

Should trans surgeries be allowed on minors as young as 15? 

Should trans surgeries and healthcare be paid for by the government?

Should hate speech be criminalized?

Should people be required to use a person's chosen pronouns? 

Should sex work be legal? 

Should topless nudity be allowed? 

Should our county be a sanctuary county for undocumented immigrants? 

Should access to safe and legal abortion be a right? 

Should access to contraceptives free of charge be all right? 

Should the government cover abortion costs and make access free of charge?

And maybe some others...

Whatever they vote becomes the mandate of that county. 

If the majority chooses socially right wing then only the people who voted economically right wing get to vote in the right round. They get asked the following: 

Should abortion be illegal in all cases? 

Should abortion be illegal except in cases of rape and incest?

Should teaching trans issues and ideology be illegal in our schools? 

Should compulsory speech be prohibited? 

Should criminalization of hate speech be prohibited?

Should use of the H-1B visa program be prohibited in our county? 

Should all illegal immigrants in our county be deported? 

Should pedophiles be given the death penalty? 

Should there be a three strikes law where life imprisonment is the consequence? 

Should there be school resource officers in schools? 

Should violent black criminals be deported to africa? 

Should parents be given vouchers to pay teachers individually in schools? 

Should public schools be abolished? 

Should child protective services be eliminated? 

Should requiring a license for a business that does not involve health or safety be abolished? 

Should anti-discrimination laws be abolished? 

Should non-violent marital rape be legalized?

Should alimony be abolished? 

Should women's education end at age 14? 

Should women lose the right to vote?

Again, whatever the people vote for becomes the mandate of that county.

Second part of the ballot: there is a simultaneous economic attitudes election. This one does not have a sub-election because it doesn't need it. The people are asked the following:

Should housing be a human right? 

Should there be a universal healthcare system? 

Should zoning be abolished and replaced with a form based code? 

Should the minimum wage be fixed to the cost of rent so that it automatically goes up? 

Should companies with 150 or more workers be owned by their workers? 

Should all mortgages, student loans, credit card debt, public debt, and all other debt be canceled? 

Should mothers be given maternity leave and free healthcare for the delivery of children?

Anyway, the whole point of a schism election is that instead of asking the majority what it wants on each and every issue you are specifically asking a majority within the majority what it wants. First you ascertain who the majority is, then that majority is asked what it desires. You do it this way because without a sub-election the first round losers will continue to influence decisions in subsequent rounds. Maybe you want that for things like economic attitudes but you don't want it for social attitudes. Letting the minority influence the policies of the majority causes those policies to be watered down. A schism election maintains the full strength of how those policies would evolve while creating a multitude of different approaches separated by their locations in space. Each county becomes a specific experiment in the combination of policies that it chose.

There is one absolute rule here that all systems must obey: the right of exit. You must allow people to leave your county. So let's say you oppress women. Well you must allow women to leave, and that means you are going to have the sexual equivalent of a brain drain. You are then going to have to offer compensatory benefits to entice them to stay or relax some of your oppressive rules, or a combination of the two. Exit is the only absolute right. People have the right to exit, but they don't have the right to enter. If there is a county surrounded by other counties that are also oppressive those counties must allow travel through their territory to a county that is not oppressive and willing to accept the refugee. This can be in the form of a bus that does not allow passengers to exit before arriving at the destination or a plane that goes directly to the destination. If necessary the federal government sends buses or planes into a county and aid groups coordinate allowing people to leave. Having a tiny part of your population siphoned off every year it's just the trade-off you have to accept for your radical system. They are not allowed to actively recruit people though, only to passively advertise relocation services, and activists stiring up trouble are jailed.

You need some sort of federal process to enable this. Maybe this is where your king comes into play.

The cognitive horizon and the chain of causality

A horizon is a point at which you cannot see beyond. When you look at the horizon of the earth and it curves downward and you cannot see beyond it. The event horizon of a black hole is the point at which light cannot escape. 

Let's invent a term. We will call it the "cognitive horizon." The cognitive horizon is the point at which your ability to understand your political situation fails because your knee jerk emotions get in the way of seeing the whole picture. Capitalism, or international jewelry, or the deep state, or the cathedral, or the machine system, or whatever the fuck you want to call it operates in the shadow created by your own cognitive horizon. It is your own knee jerk emotions and emotional responses that enable your subjugation. You cannot see what you cannot reason about. If a normal human can see one or two steps ahead, the machine system operates three or four steps ahead. It operates in the shadow of your own cognition, in the blind spot created by your own emotional volatility. This is the cognitive horizon of capitalism. 

Let's talk about replacement theory. Let's talk about the theory and that whites are being replaced. I like talking about this theory because it is the one thing that provokes everyone's knee jerk reactions the most and if you can control those reactions you can control anything about your emotions. Mastery of the most explosively controversial subject naturally helps master all lesser subjects. What you are mastering is your own emotional reactions, keep that in mind. 

Replacement theory is true but it is also a lie of omission. The machine is at war with the biosphere. Native americans were replaced by whites. Whites are being replaced by latinos. When the time comes they too will be replaced. Everyone gets replaced eventually by the machine, even israelis. Maybe they get replaced by cyborgs, maybe we all get replaced by cyborgs and AI. The machine is at war with the entire biosphere. As much as your race matters to you, it does not matter to the machine, it's just business you see. Your entire race is just meat for its appetite. You might think the world revolves around your genocide as a palestinian person, or your replacement as a white person, or your subjugation as a woman. You might think it's all about the jews or patriarchy or whatever. But it's not. The machine is at war with the entire biosphere and you are just a small subset of that biosphere. It isn't just killing you, it's killing animals, it's spreading invasive species all over the entire planet. It's cutting down the rainforest and replacing everything there with monocrops. It's bleaching the coral reefs, causing ocean acidification, exterminating entire biospheres, global warming, and now Kessler syndrome. It's putting plastic in your balls and brain, destroying sperm counts and causing autism and parkinson's with persistent organic pollutants. It's at war with the entire biosphere. When it creates idiocracy that's because the war takes place within your body. When it creates pollution the war takes place outside of your body. The war is everything on all fronts against everyone simultaneously. If you are the beneficiaries of the system that is only a temporary arrangement. It can wipe israel out just as easily as anyone else. There are billionaires who think they will "exit" by becoming digitally uploaded minds. Actually they will just relegate themselves to a kind of living digital hell where they become a digital parasite that inhabits the bodies of "sleeves" and androids — basically demonic possession from a digital entity. They will lose themselves in their new bodies and their minds will mutate uncontrollably until all humanity is gone and they go insane.

Humans tend to break along two lines that are both equally insane. Some humans become natural selection worshipers. They call selection Gnon (nature and nature's god) when it is really more like Moloch. I'm guilty of having done this. The others are fanatical denialists who treat the mere discussion of natural selection as heretical. They are both operating from within what humans can see. A little bit further out, a little over the cognitive horizon is a third position: mastery. If natural selection under capitalism is converting human beings into idiots and sociopaths then we must bend the system to our will so that it favors the reproduction of better persons. If technology is out of control then we must control its use even at the expense of forgoing profit. If profit cannot be forgone then we must engineer the incentives so that selection effects benefit the humanness of humanity. If the machine cannot be negotiated with at point X, then you find the point in the chain of causality directly prior to X at point W and control it at that point. If you cannot control it at point W in the causal chain of its causes and effects, then you must control it at causal point V. To gain mastery over a system your map is chains of cause and effect, then you see if you can hack the system at each of its points along that chain. If the points on the chain you are operating at do not allow you to modify the system then you go directly to the point prior to that. For example, if you cannot get Congress to do something then you get the donors to manipulate Congress to do something. The donors are the direct causal prerequisite point on the chain to the congressman. The chain goes something like, technological forces --> profits --> donors -->  lawmakers --> laws.

If you can't get anything done at the law maker level it's because you need to master the level or levels prior to it. Just like there is a "tech tree" there is a "causality tree" and I have talked about this before ad nauseam. My whole damn thesis is about it.

But more and more I am convinced there is no "tech solution" that can positively influence the downstream forces of profit, donors, and lawmakers. The tech is the problem and some sort of civilization frozen in the past is the solution. Exactly what era is appropriate probably depends on what technology you're talking about. Phones should probably be answering machines and landlines like they were in the 90s. Computers could have almost all the current uses but without social media, streaming, or porn. Basically freeze computers in the 2000s but with more RAM and memory. Reproductive technology gets abolished for anyone who doesn't already have kids. Transportation goes back to trains and street cars, very 1940s. Society becomes a more modern version of the Amish. Healthcare is allowed to advance, including gene editing for improving health, but not cyborg enhancements or neural interfaces, and definitely not biological computation. America withdrawals behind its walls with its nukes while horrors beyond comprehension consume the rest of the world. Your civilization stagnates but at least it's your civilization. You do not get totally cucked by the machine god. You get to remain human, you get to remain sane, and your society's problems stay manageable.

Just like the ring of power only serves sauron, advanced technology only serves the machine god, it only serves the antichrist.

Again I say control the forces that control you

An essential leftist belief is thinking that it is morally acceptable to do harmful things to people who have bad opinions. This is not the viewpoint of outliers but the natural conclusion you come to when you believe that oppression is the result of social constructs. If social reality is socially constructed then oppression is socially constructed, which basically means that the reason oppression exists is because people have the wrong viewpoint. Thus, anyone with the wrong viewpoint is an oppressor. This is why you would conclude that speech can be violence and violence might be an acceptable response to the wrong spoken words. This viewpoint is a complex version of the childish idea that magic is possible, and it seems that not all adults outgrow the belief that the spoken word can change reality. This belief is probably an also the opposite of Marxist since Marxism posits that everything flows as a result of material forces. If things are the result of social constructs then material forces are irrelevant. But this totalitarian viewpoint comes from Marxism, right? That's an interesting contradiction: a philosophy that says everything is rooted in material forces ultimately asserts that The Will is the basis for change. Of course I am speaking of Marxism as popularly conceived, I can't be bothered to wade through thousands of pages of actual tedious text. Since my viewpoint is that the purpose of a thing is what it does and not what it says it does there is only a marginal gain to be had by reading the actual text, since the actions of people who call themselves followers of Marx can be read textually. Textual Marxism is the Motte (reasonable argument) while actually experienced Marxism is the Bailey of the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy.

I continue to point out that the penalty for being annoying among humans is basically death. Nothing is more annoying than disagreeing with sacred cows. If leftism is the belief that having the wrong opinion makes you evil, then there is nothing more annoying than having the wrong opinion.

Over here at The Anti Puritan we believe that things really are the result of material forces—and more specifically technological forces. Thus, the viewpoint people have is mostly irrelevant and what really matters is controlling the technologies that control us. Small gains may be had at the margins by manipulating public opinion but real change is material in nature. But no one ever seems to get what I'm saying so let's talk about an example. 

Back in the day President Obama actually did something intelligent. He announced a program of nuclear disarmament and said that he wanted the whole world to be nuclear free. Now obviously this was a preposterous idea and if the world had actually succeeded in doing it then conventional World War would have made its return. But the words were not the point. The purpose of a thing is what it does and not what it says it does. In the case of Obama and his program, the United States went around buying up nuclear weapons material and then storing it underground. The result of this activity was to increase the price of that material. Bomb making material follows the law of supply and demand just like anything else. By increasing the price he pushed it beyond the ability of terrorists to afford. This made the whole War On Terror far less pressing. For those who lived through it, you might remember that The War On Terror was taking on an existential flavor. It was getting to the point where everyone sincerely believed that we might have to wage a holy war against Islam and convert the whole Middle East Christianity, or atheism, or something. That's what happens when you have cheap nuclear weapons that terrorists can afford. Do you understand now? An entire civilization and its priorities can change as a result of a price point for a certain weapons technology. Change the price, and you change the entire order of priorities of that civilization. That's an example of controlling the technology that controls you. It is one of the few examples since most of the time we just allow technology to go uncontrolled. 

Of course Obama will probably be known for his Cash for Clunkers program. This is where the government paid people to send their used cars to the junkyard. It resulted in a vast decrease in the number of used cars available for young people to drive and increased the cost of car ownership for at least a generation. You might say this also involved changing a material force that affects society. That's how it usually works when people change material forces: they change it only because of rent seeking. Most of the time when technology is limited it is so someone can be enriched. Right now there is a cure for cancer that involves removing white blood cells from a person's body, genetically modifying them to hunt tumors, and then reinserting them into the body. For whatever reason having to do with money and bureaucracy this technology has not gained regulatory approval, and millions of people continue to die every year from cancer. I guess chemotherapy drugs are just too profitable. Also, "medical ethics experts" have essays to write about how curing people is bad because genetic modification is literally Hitler or something.

There are entire leverage points that are unexploited for changing the world. Let us list some of them out: 

Nuclear energy: all wars in the Middle East, all concern over The Strait of Hormuz and the Suez canal, all motive public motive for supporting Israel would be irrelevant with enough nuclear energy. One wonders if Israel financed environmentalist movements that opposed nuclear energy. If I were Israel that's what exactly what I would do since American dependence on Middle Eastern oil provides the superficial pretext for constant intervention in the Middle East. 

Birth control and dating apps. Don't like the culture of promiscuity? There's two simple technologies you can cancel to abolish it. You don't even have to ban birth control, in fact the more effective option would simply be to flood the market with counterfeit sugar pills and then do nothing to stop it. You don't even ban it, you just stop doing quality control. As long as none of the counterfeits are poison you do nothing to enforce quality. You might even pass a law inhibiting the ability of drug stores to perform their own internal quality control on contraceptives. Basically, you intentionally wreck the reliability of the pill. That's way more effective than banning anything. All your birth rate discussion is downstream from the ability to control birth rates. No control means no need for the discussion.

Don't rely on trends

Many people have woken up to the existence of ZOG. Discussions unheard of that would have gotten you canceled only a few years ago are now regular on major streaming platforms. But this is a cultural fad and in danger of losing the public interest unless instituted as an educational program by an actual organization of human beings. If you really want your freedom to last you have to build your own entity like the ADL that works to educate people about the pernicious effects of Zionism in our culture. Victory belongs to the group with staying power. Fads and trends don't win culture wars, organizations do. Build an organization or risk losing momentum. The ADL will be there decades after you are gone, will you have created an opposite version of it? 

The most deadly organization is the one that both makes money and has conviction it is doing the right thing. Relying on only one of these two things makes you weak.

Molasses heralds authoritarianism

We need to term for things that slow government to a crawl. Corruption it's not a good enough term because not everything is driven by corruption. There really are stakeholders and lawsuits and EA impact studies, and so forth that have to be resolved. Different countries have different kinds of proceduralisms, different reasons, whatever. Let's just throw it all into one basket and call it bureaucratic molasses. 

Sometimes it pays to be very specific. We are going to zoom out a little bit and talk about all the molasses in government projects.

Molasses always has the flavor of the sacred. When you ask people why there's so much molasses inhibiting the construction of a new highway, a new High-Speed rail, turnpike, new housing, new ports, new refineries, new pipelines, and so forth they will give you very good valid reasons why it can't be done, or shouldn't be done. There is always a sacred injunction for why it can't be done. That's one of the characteristics of molasses. Either someone has to get paid off or some sacred totem is being violated. Rome can't dig that new subway because of ancient artifacts. California can't build that new High-Speed rail because Constitutional procedures must be followed, or the bones of Native Americans must be respected, we have to do our fifth environmental impact statement, or whatever. There's always a sacred reason why it can't be done. Molasses is the sacred and corrupt conspiring together to inhibit action. Molasses says: but you didn't consult the stakeholders! What about the property owners? What about the migratory birds? What about the prairie dogs?

Molasses causes authoritarianism. Now most people who love molasses will get offended by this. They will say that following procedures is how you prevent authoritarianism. But that's exactly backwards. Efficient proceduralism is how you prevent authoritarianism, not proceduralism itself. When the administrative state can move rapidly and build things despite having to check off all the boxes then you've got a recipe that works. When the administrative state can't do anything fast you've now got a moral justification for tyranny. Molasses gives moral justification to authoritarian government. The very people saying "Trump didn't follow procedure!" are the reason he got away with not following procedure. They are completely tone deaf because what people here is "I like to obstruct getting things done in order to keep myself employed." The other day I actually saw a video where some bureaucrat said that "Trump was moving too fast." Like that was the objection. Not what he was doing, but that he was doing it too quickly.

It's difficult to underestimate the blow to moral legitimacy the California High-Speed rail fiasco has done to the administrative state. It's quite possible that that fiasco all by itself added the one or two points needed to push Trump over the finish line back in 2016. This is not an exaggeration or a joke. When the bureaucracy is no longer capable of getting things done it is handing a moral justification for authoritarianism to the right. When sacred words are used to defend incompetence then moral justification is given to support the profane. If constitutional, bureaucratic, procedural government cannot get things done then unconstitutional authoritarian government will. When you say "we can't do it because of some sacred reason," you might as well say "go ahead and shoot all of us bureaucrats." Civil servants need to understand that things are going to happen no matter what, and molasses only justifies your oppression by authority. Every extra day you add to the high-speed rail fiasco is an extra foot of wall you will be lined up in front of. Molasses causes the inexorable movement of society towards authoritarianism and what's worse is that authoritarianism doesn't generally eliminate molasses, since while it can destroy the sacred half of the problem it won't eliminate the corruption.

Efficient proceduralism is the only way forward. Reform or die.

Summary of political design arguments

Democracy is leftist government

Socialism is leftist economics 

Capitalism is rightist economics 

Feudalism is rightist government 

Neoliberal societies commit the error of combining leftist government with rightist economics.

Feudalism should be paired with capitalism 

Democracy should be paired with socialism 

Capitalism inevitably converts democracy into feudalism. The methods by which this occurs are 1. legislative accumulation and 2. rent seeking laws

Marxist communism becomes so  stifling that it converts back into capitalism. This method by which this happens is bureaucracy so dense the only way to route around it is through a parallel institution of bribery.

In democracy, those who try to obstruct others rent-seeking only obstruct themselves from receiving their share.

The system accumulates cycles of money and power.

Socialism is one big cycle of money and power, encompassing the entire society.

Socialism starts left-wing and moves in a right-wing vector because someone has to work. 

Capitalism under democracy moves in a left-wing vector as those try to escape work by living off of others.

Everyone escapes until nothing can be produced anymore at which point only bribery gets things done.

Bribery then reasserts feudalism because feudalism is a system where all government positions are property exploited by the office holder for personal gain.

One stops the cycle not by resisting it but by encompassing the whole society in the cycle of money and power, that is, by converting from capitalism to consumer based economic socialism, in other words a modified version of  "The Mondragon System." Consumer-based ownership of the means of production is the same model as a credit union but applied to much of the society.

When all enjoy the spoils then once again all have an incentive to work, and to demand others contribute. 

Democracy should be paired with consumer-owned socialism, and both the Republic and corporations therin governed through a loyalty scorecard system.

Capitalism should be paired with aristocracy under a competitive feudal system.

The antimemetics of politics

In politics, imperative-based arguments are the easiest and laziest to make, which is why they are preferred by everyone. The average person lacks the will to observe reality,  which is necessary to think well. The most difficult thing is seeing what is in front of your nose. This is also the most essential. Since politics is multidisciplinary it requires the greatest amount of observation in order to come up with successful policies, since these observations must come from multiple fields, and primarily economics. Economics itself has antimemetic properties since it is the study of a counterintuitive machine and by nature the human mind resists fully understanding it. A thing is anti-mimetic when it resists its own understanding, when it resists allowing the thinker to form memories of what they are thinking about. Politics is highly anti-mimetic due to being highly emotionally triggering.

The most likely outcome of any moral policy is failure. Not because the policy is moral but because the policy is NOT strategic. Actual success in any endeavor requires careful observation of the physical world. Morally motivated actions are a great way to fail in politics. Some humans cannot hold two opposite concepts in their mind at the same time. These people cannot understand how one would first work to understand the world, then come up with moral imperatives, and then implement strategic policy. For them, any understanding of the world leads to jadedness and the abandonment of principle. For others any understanding of principle leads to the abandonment of strategic thought. This is almost universally common behavior among people. The ability to marry close observation and moral imperative is actually incredibly rare in the political field with most people choosing sociopathy or hysteria (right or left wing) instead.

A principal, once understood escapes the mind. Therefore the most essential principles are the most difficult to articulate. The ability to retain a principle in the mind and then to think with it, and then to communicate it, requires mental self-control. The more naturally understanding of a principle or a piece of mathematics comes to a person, generally the more trouble they have communicating what they know to others. Natural talent is the enemy of becoming a good educator. It is those who struggle to acquire knowledge who are generally the best communicating what they know, because the special effort involved in learning it. 

A person has a moral imperative to think, but even more importantly they have a moral imperative to observe. Making a political argument with no strategy for success is both normal and foolish. Millions have died in bloody revolutions where the revolutionaries never fully thought through the strategic implications of their own ideas. Communism was an example of hysteria overriding observation. Nearly 100 million people died and the ideology had no chance of success to begin with, not because it is communist, but because the emotional reactivity of people means that all those who understand become sociopaths, and all those who refuse to become sociopaths become hysterical. The nature of politics creates a split in the personality of individuals where they choose one path or the other. Something like communism, or any kind of utopian project, would require both a deep understanding of the nature of reality and also a refusal to give up on principles. The trouble is that to understand one is inevitably to abandon the other. This tendency is so deep in humans that only a conservative could make communism "work" , and a conservative would never want to do that. Those who are most equipped to work out a Utopian project are the least interested in achieving it. A deep understanding a political consequences requires a deep understanding of human nature, which produces a deep disgust, which destroys the motive for the Utopian project. Propaganda works because there is a market demand for it, there is a market demand for it because people refuse to think. From the perspective of the powerful, to give the common man economic fairness is to cast pearls before swine.

All societies at all times are ruled by the most intelligent members. Asking for economic justice is asking the most intelligent members of that society to engineer conditions that benefit less intelligent people. That is not significantly different than asking the most intelligent people to marginalize their own genetics, since intelligence is a reproductive strategy inherently tied to out-maneuvering the stupid and insane for mate access. 

Protect your desalinization plant with this one weird trick

Now that we're in the era of drone warfare you probably want to protect your critical infrastructure. This means everything needs to be hardened against bombing by drones and also distributed into many different sources so that when one source of water or power is taken out others come online. 

The problem is building giant underground facilities is expensive, so I have a solution. 

Imagine that you take your desalination plant (or whatever you're trying to build) and you stretch it out like a long noodle so that all the processes can be fit inside a narrow tunnel. Then you call up The Boring Company and have them dig you a cheap tunnel far enough underground so that drones can't blow it up. On one side of the tunnel you have just enough space for a golf cart and on the other side of the tunnel all of your equipment for desalinization. You can build multiple plants inside these cheep tunnels and the tunnels themselves help you deliver whatever resource you're trying to deliver. The wide portion of the tunnel doesn't have to run the full distance and only includes the equipment for your desalinization plant. Once the water is finished you send it through a regular pipe under ground using regular horizontal boring technology. 

AI potential, billions wasted

Slopbot Silicon Valley tech execs keep chasing the Holy Grail of general intelligence while the best use cases are narrow off-the-shelf AI products, running lean on your own machine using software as a service or even just old fashioned CD software product. 

A profitable use case for AI is like:

A customer service bot that runs on your own local machine. You can configure all of it and let it query your inventory to tell customers whether something is in-stock. You can program in thousands of frequently asked questions, let customers look up order status, find tracking numbers, hours of operation, account information etc. It's a sophisticated chatbot that does everything a customer service worker does. 

The best way to implement this sort of thing is probably to set up a camera and record what actual workers do at their desks, then use that data to program the AI. 

These use cases wind up being extremely specific: tax accountants, customer service workers, call center employees, purchasing agents, travel agents, match makers, consultants, research assistance, business process analysts, intelligence, and so forth. You do this by literally watching the employee work and then making the bot do the same thing. 

They will continue to piss away billions until the jig is up and retail investors are left holding the bag, which point the industry may actually pivot to something useful. Making people's jobs obsolete is a specific process on a job-by-job basis where you watch and mimic. True off-the-shelf products come after an exhausting process of watching thousands of professionals work their jobs. Eventually the bots are talking to each other, negotiating prices, haggling, booking travel, finding matches, and streamlining the whole process. AGI is going to require this huge on ramp of real world experience.

Track AIPAC

The progs have made a handy little tool for tracking your government 

https://www.trackaipac.com/

Dieting for Digestive Comfort: the Anti-Puritin Guide to Smooth Poops

At a certain point I just gave up on dieting and decided that digestive comfort was more important. Here's what I learned. 

First, constipation is not being stopped up. When you think of constipation you may get the idea that it's the inability to poop but what it really is is spraying water out your butt and having to use the bathroom multiple times a day. Constipation is running to the bathroom after every meal. Most Americans eat a very low fiber diet and therefore are probably constipated. 

At a certain point in life you realize that how things feel going through your digestion and coming out matters just as much as how it tastes. This essay is for everyone who struggles with heartburn, constipation, bloating, or whatever. It's about reducing your symptoms. I make no claim to cure anything or to cause weight loss no either of these might be a side effect. 

The dietary guidelines basically say that you should eat a comically large amount of fiber. To get the recommended daily allowance of fiber you would have to eat something like three heads of iceberg lettuce per day. Iceberg lettuce is mostly water and actually a terrible source of fiber. Like constipation, fiber isn't what you think it is. It's not lettuce. A person can eat a salad everyday and still have a low fiber and diet and still suffer from diarrhea. Diarrhea also isn't what you normally think it is. It's not necessarily pooping your pants. That's called fecal incontinence. Diarrhea is when you have to urgently run to the bathroom. Diarrhea and constipation are kind of the same thing.

The source of fiber also matters a lot. Beans have a lot of fiber but also cause gas and bloating. Gas is not just farting but also the sensation of being uncomfortably full or even having gas pain. Not all forms of fiber cause a lot of gas. Some forms, like apple fiber powder, edamame fiber, and allulose cause little or no gas for my most people. Some forms of fiber are like eating sand: bran and psyllium can feel like sand coming out of you, so the digestive comfort of the fiber matters a lot. 

Low carb diets can be high fiber diets in disguise, and that's probably why they work. When you are on a keto diet total carbs minus fiber equals net carbs. Pushing the net carbs down can wind up pushing the fiber up. This causes you to take a "smooth poop" where you poop less but when you do poop it comes out as a smooth log. This also causes you to feel more full which decreases your hunger. The decrease in hunger then allows you to lose weight. I don't know if people are losing weight on a keto diet because they are burning ketones or eating high fiber. One suspects that it might be both.

Basically if you want digestive comfort you should either eat an absurdly large amount of fiber (it will feel absurd because it's 38 g per day for a male and 25 g for females) or you should eat nothing but meat. The easiest form of meat to digest is fish. When I went carnivore for about 2 weeks I wound up eating nothing but fish and I felt absolutely amazing. Probably because of the extremely high levels of Omega-3. I basically didn't poop hardly at all but it didn't matter because all the meat I ate felt like it was getting absorbed. An all-fish carnivore diet is one way to have digestive comfort. The other is to eat and "absurdly large" amount of fiber, which doesn't have to actually be absurd if you're getting your sources intelligently instead of devouring lettuce. 

First let's go over sources of fiber per 100 g. We'll start by just listing them and then we will narrow down the list excluding sources that cause too much gas. 

HIGH FIBER FOODS LIST (per 100g)

=================================

Fiber content (g) | Gas Level (1-5) | Food

--------------------------------------------------

34.4g | 1 - Very low | Chia seeds

27.3g | 1 - Very low | Flaxseeds

24.0g | 2 - Low | Carbe Diem pasta [brand]

22.2g | 4 - High | Split peas (raw)

14.5g | 2 - Low | Air-popped popcorn

10.7g | 5 - Very high | Black beans (canned)

10.7g | 2 - Low | Mission Carb Balance tortilla [brand]

10.1g | 2 - Low | Rolled oats (dry)

10.0g | 3 - Medium | Only Bean black bean pasta [brand]

 9.0g | 1 - Very low | Flackers (flax crackers) [brand]

 7.9g | 4 - High | Lentils (boiled)

 7.6g | 5 - Very high | Chickpeas (boiled)

 7.4g | 5 - Very high | Kidney beans (boiled)

 6.7g | 1 - Very low | Avocado

 6.0g | 3 - Medium | ZENB yellow pea pasta [brand]

 5.8g | 3 - Medium | Whole grain rye bread

 5.2g | 3 - Medium | Edamame (shelled, boiled)

 5.1g | 3 - Medium | Barilla red lentil pasta [brand]

 3.8g | 4 - High | Brussels sprouts (boiled)

 3.8g | 2 - Low | Barley (pearled, cooked)

 3.3g | 4 - High | Broccoli (boiled)

 3.3g | 2 - Low | Sweet potato (baked)

 3.1g | 3 - Medium | Pear (with skin)

 3.0g | 2 - Low | Mary's Gone Crackers [brand]

 2.8g | 2 - Low | Quinoa (cooked)

--------------------------------------------------

Gas scale: 1=Very low, 2=Low, 3=Medium, 4=High, 5=Very high

Fiber values from USDA FoodData Central.

Gas levels based on FODMAP content and fermentable fiber type.

[brand] = specific branded product

HIGH FIBER FOODS LIST - SORTED BY GAS LEVEL (per 100g)

=======================================================

Gas Level | Fiber (g) | Food

--------------------------------------------------

1 - Very low | 34.4g | Chia seeds

1 - Very low | 27.3g | Flaxseeds

1 - Very low | 9.0g | Flackers (flax crackers) [brand]

1 - Very low | 6.7g | Avocado

2 - Low | 24.0g | Carbe Diem pasta [brand]

2 - Low | 10.7g | Mission Carb Balance tortilla [brand]

2 - Low | 10.1g | Rolled oats (dry)

2 - Low | 14.5g | Air-popped popcorn

2 - Low | 3.8g | Barley (pearled, cooked)

2 - Low | 3.3g | Sweet potato (baked)

2 - Low | 3.0g | Mary's Gone Crackers [brand]

2 - Low | 2.8g | Quinoa (cooked)

3 - Medium | 10.0g | Only Bean black bean pasta [brand]

3 - Medium | 6.0g | ZENB yellow pea pasta [brand]

3 - Medium | 5.8g | Whole grain rye bread

3 - Medium | 5.2g | Edamame (shelled, boiled)

3 - Medium | 5.1g | Barilla red lentil pasta [brand]

3 - Medium | 3.1g | Pear (with skin)

4 - High | 22.2g | Split peas (raw)

4 - High | 7.9g | Lentils (boiled)

4 - High | 3.8g | Brussels sprouts (boiled)

4 - High | 3.3g | Broccoli (boiled)

5 - Very high | 10.7g | Black beans (canned)

5 - Very high | 7.6g | Chickpeas (boiled)

5 - Very high | 7.4g | Kidney beans (boiled)

--------------------------------------------------

Gas scale: 1=Very low, 2=Low, 3=Medium, 4=High, 5=Very high

Fiber values from USDA FoodData Central.

Gas levels based on FODMAP content and fermentable fiber type.

[brand] = specific branded product

Looking at this list do you realize that you need to hunt for specific products that cause little gas and have high or medium levels of fiber. Unfortunately some of the best products for meeting this criteria are made from soy. Should avoid fiber products from Walmart as they all contain things like artificial sugars and other poisons. Your best bet is probably a health food store. The strategy here is to eat the correct amount and to space that amount over each meal. Eating too much will make you feel stuffed up. You may feel a little sick as your body adjusts over several days.

A diet that is slightly below the recommended daily amount can be really comfortable in my experience. If you get it all from sources that don't cause gas it can be just right. Your goal is to space the RDA out into 3 meals per day. So 38 grams / 3 is about 12 grams rounding down. A single mission carb balance burrito sized tortilla contains your entire RDA allowance. That's a bad idea because it is important not to overdo it. A lot of these products go to the opposite extreme which is also unhelpful. Either they are giving you no fiber (like regular tortillas and bread) or too much. The keto tortillas have almost just the right amount. For this to work properly you're going to have to be careful about the amount of fiber you eat. Too much can be just as awful as too little, you just trade diarrhea for feeling stuffed and gassy. You have to do it right in order for it to work. That means not overdoing it and getting your fiber from sources that are not going to cause gas. It's also important that the sources not be boring. Oatmeal and apples is probably not the way to go. A better option is something like pasta made from cauliflower and peas. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich made with one keto tortilla (not the carb balance) could meet about 1/3 of your needs. You can also get powdered apple fiber and mix it into things like tomato sauce. It feels like nothing going down and has virtually no taste. That's probably the easiest way to do it. Keep some Beano on hand and eat it before anything containing beans. Eating the RDA for fiber can suppress your hunger by making your stomach feel full.

When I started doing this I had the weird sensation of being simultaneously completely stuffed and also like my brain was confused and couldn't figure out if I should be hungry or not. When I came down off of the stuffed feeling I became ravenously hungry, but then I continued with the diet and my body started to adapt and that ravenous feeling went away. On my previous non-diet (almost zero fiber) I would feel very hungry when I woke up and get hangry in-between meals. I wound up snacking constantly. I would also feel dizzy when standing up after sitting for a long time. I get a lot less of that now that I diet for digestive comfort. Can't really say that I have lost much weight but I feel much better. That's the point of all this advice, not to lose weight but to feel good inside your body. If weight loss happens it happens. I'm not so concerned about that.

So far the following I've experience the following positive effects; 

Poops like a big smooth log

Absence of the "vacuum hunger" sensation

Absence of water out the ass

Not hangry in-between meals 

Not waking up hungry

Not running to the bathroom urgently after eating 

No orthostatic hypotension 

Less heartburn 

Downsides;

Feeling overly stuffed

Occasional queasiness 

Inability to eat large meals

Poop only once per day

Gas when I eat beans

A keto diet might alleviate some of the downsides by adding fat to smooth everything out. But if there is not enough fiber hunger would return. This may explain why I always wound up hungry on a keto diet after several months. Maybe the perfect diet is a kind of keto plus high fiber thing, where you eat a lot of fat, some protein, and a lot of fiber with almost no carbs.

What I actually think, a brief rant

None of your politics matter on any side of the aisle because I know you have no chance of ever succeeding. To succeed you would actually have to control your fagot emotions long enough to game out the results of everything you believe. If I seem bereft of passion it is because you are lacking of strategy. Hard to care about people who are doomed to fail.

Unlike you I have gamed out every potential scenario for every conceivable ideology and I know that nobody is going to win. Occasionally I come across somebody who says something smart and a little bit of panic happens in my soul that that particular thought might snowball into something greater, something that actually moves the needle. These moments happen about once every 3 or 4 years.

Everything is so stupid, everyone is so stupid, people are robots who regurgitate slogans and ideas that were fed to them by toxic social media algorithms. Okay sure, you're enslaved by patriarchy. Now what? What the fuck are you going to do about it bitch. What's your game plan? How are you going to win?  You think you're going to just stop having kids? You think you will defeat patriarchy that way, but you won't, you'll just get out-bred by women who are more compliant. Talk to me when you have a real strategy. Seriously, I'm actually interested in this question.

So the jews control America. Great. What's your plan? How do you implement your new fourth Reich without it ending in disaster? Do you honestly think you can create a dictatorship that won't just turn and sell you down the river? What constitutional system do you have in mind? How the fuck are you going to prevent global homo capital from taking over your system again. Even Putin imports immigrants. Even Trump changed his mind about H-1B visa labor, you know that JD Vance will be a spineless cuck for global capital.

Oh so you want to defeat the Great Satan. How's that going for you? 

You want to make India great again? Lol India was never great. Next question.

Oh you think communism is the answer. Fascinating, please tell me about your old and dead obsolete ideology. Tell me how you will prevent the next communist society from turning into a fascist dictatorship like all the others did.

You think China is going to become a global superpower? This is a seriously interesting question with potential. But how are you going to get there? Every time empire breaks down so does world peace. There is a reason that eras of global peace are called "Pax," as in Pax America or Pax Britannica or Pax Romana, literally "Roman Peace." Eras of empire are the most stable in history. How do you plan on becoming empire without world war? And do you really want to run everything? Would be a shame if China became the global empire only to rule over a giant radioactive crater. 

The only thing that is winning is technology. Your toxic ass will get absorbed into the Borg hive mind of social media. This clickety clack you do with your phone is only the beginning and eventually you'll get your head drilled for the neuralink so you or maybe you're descendants, can have an endless stream of porn and enraging toxic hate bait beamed directly into your skull. The fact you're already here reading this blog means you're fucked. It means you went so deep down the internet rabbit hole you actually found this place. You should have turned back long a time ago when you still had your sanity. Now your Borg social media swarm is going to get hunted by a bigger more well funded drone swarm. The future is thousands of killbots controlled by brainwashed human NPCs, coordinated by AI, and funded by crypto scams. The internet is going to devour the world and the preoccupation with _____ ideology is what will make people miss the forest for the trees. So consumed with lust for the One Ring they will be that they lose sight of the fact the battle turned all of Middle Earth into Mordor, and that everything they fought for will be destroyed by fighting for it.

Cassandra was doomed to know the future and nobody believe her. There has got to be a word for somebody who has gamed out every political ideology and realized they will fail. People confuse the willingness of this blogger to entertain any ideology as endorsement. This is a place for world building. This is a place where you're half-assed world building goes to die because you cared more about your arguments than your strategy. This is the place where you realize that your emotions prevent your success, and where your slogans won't save you. We're done pandering here. What the fuck is your plan? Do you even have one.

And the meek shall inherit the earth.

Global Envy: the alternative to ZOG hypothesis

What do Nick Fuentes and Hassan Piker have in common? 

Both pander to an audience that has global appeal.

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

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

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

Foid came, foid conquered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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