White people are the lowest agency race

More whites are killed by blacks every year than blacks were lynched by whites in the entire history of the United States. 

Imagine thinking that you are to blame for other people killing you.

Obviously the one that does the killing is the one with agency. That's how agency works. White people are too prideful to admit they have lost agency. That's how the propaganda works. First you are told you still have agency. Then told it is your moral duty to keep lacking agency. "Only bad people have agency" they say. Another case of "it's not happening but it's good that it's happening." But in this case it's "other people don't have agency over you that they have" and "you have agency that you don't have" and "you should have less agency to be a good person." 

Every natural impulse you have keeps you alive. Pain is there to tell you you are doing something wrong. Every impulse evolved for a reason. Racism is a survival skill. If that chick on the train had been a little racist she probably would not have been stabbed in the neck because she would have not have sat with her back to a black man. Society trained her to die by training her that racism is wrong. But he had the agency / racism to kill her, she did not have the agency to sit far away. He was out on bail despite having multiple arrests on his record under the theory that because he is black he lacks agency. Obviously no one who kills lacks agency. The propaganda infiltrated the justice system. Observing the obvious reality in front of your face continues to be the most undervalued thing in society. Lack of observation kills. Leftist moral obsession kills observation. Stop doing what is good for a society that hates you and start doing what is good for you.

From Over Regulation to Feudalism and Back Again

Part I: Under Feudalism Everything is Property, and Property is Permission

We like to pretend that history progressed from primitive chaos into clean, abstract notions of liberty, civil rights, and neutral public administration. That's the progressive "right side of history" idea, and it prevents our clear thinking about government mechanisms. And it's a comforting fairy tale for people who have never looked at a ledger from an actual agrarian-feudal state. Legal processes can transform a government from one form to another and we need a clear-eyed view of that so we don't slide into feudalism ourselves.

In the historic English and European system, there was no sharp distinction between public office, private property, and human beings. Everything and everyone was an asset class. You didn't just "get a job" as a tax collector or a customs officer; you bought it. The practice of purchasing public offices—known historically as venality of office—meant that government authority was a piece of capital. A man leased a tax collection franchise the way a modern investor buys a franchise restaurant expecting to extract rents, tolls, and extortions from the populace to recoup his principal and turn a profit.

The entire social architecture was an unbroken matrix of property claims. You were either someone’s property, you owned property, or your rights were completely mediated by an interlocking web of proprietary titles:

• Coverture: Under the common law doctrine of coverture, a married woman's legal identity was legally absorbed into that of her husband. She could not own independent property in her own right; her legal existence as an independent economic actor was suspended, effectively rendering her part of the household estate managed by the master of the house. Coverture was basically ownership of women.

• Peonage and Serfdom (Peasants): The peasantry were bound to the soil. A serf wasn't merely a poor worker; he was a legal appurtenance to the land. When an estate changed hands, the human stock—the serfs and villains—went with the acreage, obligated to provide unpaid corvée labor and a cut of every bushel they grew. Imagine your bank selling your mortgage but you are also required to do farm labor on the land and not allowed to move or sell. The peasant was not just a worker of the land but part of the property of it's owner.

• The Military-Land Circuit (Knights and Baronies): Feudalism was an explicit exchange of violence for land. A baron held a barony and a knight held a fief in exchange for quantified military service (knight-service). The land wasn't a free gift; it was conditional collateral granted by a higher lord in exchange for armed muscle. Once you acquired the right to own land you acquired the peasants on it. Your barony was a property right you purchased from the king by sending your male peasants to die in war and your sons to command them. Even after doing this service the king could revoke your ownership and barony rights.

• Fee Simple Title: Even the cleanest form of property ownership we inherited from this era—fee simple—was never an absolute, God-given right of independence. It was simply the highest grade of tenure, meaning you held your land directly from the Crown, subject to feudal incidents, reliefs, and eventual escheat if you failed to render dues or produced no heir. This is where you pay property taxes in exchange for permission to live on some land. Unlike knight-at-castle or barony it does not strictly require military service (although they would later reinstitute that with the draft).

In this world, nobody was a free-floating individual. You were either a holder of a proprietary title or you were part of the inventory, and often both. You bought your position or you bought your monopoly over a trade guild, and you squeezed those beneath you to pay for it all. Even piracy was licensed under the title of "privateer."

Part II: The Stranglehold of Regulatory Accumulation

We have a political system that relentlessly makes laws and never repeals them. This is a fatal flaw in our form of government, that we have a House of Representatives for enacting laws but not one for repealing them. The Senate works in coordination with the House, it does not work against it. A true House of Repeal would only have the power to repeal law and would not need the permission of the other body or the president to do that. 

The effect of all of this is an ever-increasing ratchet of legislative accumulation.

Every time a legislature or an un-elected administrative agency passes a rule, writes a mandate, or creates a permit requirement, they add another layer to the legal labyrinth. And unlike the periodic legal "resets" of the ancient world (like Justinian’s code), the modern state never repeals its old laws. They only accumulate. Old authoritarian political systems periodically scrapped their entire illegal systems and started over from scratch, or consolidated and rewrote outdated laws. They also did not continuously add to their laws, or at least not in the volume of the current administrative state.

This endless piling-on of unbudgeted, un-depreciated legal friction leads directly to strangulation by compliance:

• The Death of Action: When the rules grow to tens of millions of pages, it becomes impossible for any individual or business to operate without violating a dozen obscure rules. Compliance costs increase beyond reason, pricing out small business and leaving only massive, heavily lobbied conglomerates that can afford armies of compliance lawyers. In fact the lobbyists of the conglomerates are usually the ones proposing new rules.

• Engineered Scarcity and Rent-Seeking: Regulatory accumulation is the primary driver of modern inflation and high prices. Housing is expensive not because concrete suddenly costs a fortune, but because environmental reviews, zoning boards, historical preservation overlays, and permitting delays add years of carrying costs and legal fees to every square foot. Healthcare is crushing because every administrative mandate raises prices (that's on purpose). If it takes a year to get a permit you have to pay all the employees a salary for that year and then you have to pass on that increased cost to whoever buys the new houses. Everything is like this, everything has fees and permits and excessive credentialism. It takes 6 years to become an architect instead of two because they want to restrict entrance into the profession. The certified public accountants voted to increase the training requirement from four years to five in order to limit competition by new entrants into the profession. The number of primary care physicians was capped by Congress in 1997. Building codes are continuously updated every year not because they need to be but because they want to force homeowners into costly upgrades when the homeowner decides to renovate their property. When one person has an angle they profit, but when everyone has an angle they all work more for a lower standard of living.

When the state makes it illegal or impossible to tie your shoes without a license, it creates an artificial drought of action. Everyone wants to get things done, but the system is engineered to say no by default—unless you pay the toll. Bribery becomes not just the intelligent response but the only response that let's you work.

Part III: The Soviet Mirror and the Return of Neo-Feudalism

When a society buries itself in unnavigable laws, reality doesn't stop; it simply goes underground.

Look at the late Soviet Union. On paper, everything was tightly regulated by an impossibly rigid, totalizing code of state commands. In practice, obeying the literal text of Soviet law meant you starved, froze, or sat idle. To get anything done—to secure cement, to repair a factory machine, to source decent shoes—Russians had to rely on the blat system, informal networks, and pervasive, systemic bribery. Far from being evil and corrupt bribery was the thing that prevented evil excessive regulations from starving everyone to death.

And this is where the loop closes back into feudalism: When breaking the law becomes a structural necessity for survival, the state's enforcement power transforms into a commodity. Bureaucrats stop enforcing objective laws and start selling exemptions. Bribes replace taxes, (or add to them) and informal patronage networks replace statutory rights. You do not succeed because you followed a neutral rule but because you have a patron who looks the other way in exchange for a cut. In Russia these bribes form a hierarchy going all the way to the top. The cop buys their job from the police chief, who bought their job from the mayor, who bought their job from somebody else and so on. It goes all the way to the top and bribes passed from one person to the next in an upward direction. The local cop cannot abstain from taking a bribe because his superiors are demanding that he constantly pays bribes. Money is forced to move up and everyone below is forced to pay the game by everyone above.

A businessman has tremendous incentives to want a receipt for the bribes he pays. Maybe you want to build a factory and you need evidence that the government will let you do it. This is because your investors are nervous and want to make sure it can actually be built. So you need a letter from whoever you're bribing that gives you a specific permission to do whatever it is that you want to do. This letter is also great because it implicates the other party which means they can't just come back to you over and over again for more money. Once there's enough bribery then there's competition to receive bribes and once that happens you can shop around and find someone who will give you a letter. The letter proves that you're allowed to do things which proves to your investors that it's safe to invest in your venture. 

The letters become royal titles. It's literally permission to do something in exchange for payment to the official giving you permission. It's the same damn thing, and once you get it it limits them from coming back to you over and over again and demanding more. Maybe it sets out a fee schedule but whatever the case by implicating the higher official it tones down their rapaciousness.

Seen in this light, royal titles and modern regulatory waivers are identical. A medieval royal title wasn't an award for being a good person; it was a state-issued receipt proving that you bought your job, your monopoly, or your permission to bypass the king's general prohibitions. When a country builds a towering mountain of unrepealed regulations it starts down the road to feudalism. Eventually bribes will have to be paid and once they are accepted they will organize themselves into a hierarchy of bribery. Eventually receipts will be issued and letters of permission. Eventually people will take pride in these receipts and hang them on the wall. Congratulations, you just reinvented feudalism. Russia is speed running feudalism and there's no reason to think that it over regulated United States won't get there eventually too.

It turns the government into a licensing board for oligarchs, where every permit, every waiver, and every "legal exception" is just a modern royal title / bribery receipt purchased to prove you bought your right to exist in the market. At some point the king will cancel all the old laws just like Justinian did.

Once the oligarchs start sitting down around a table and negotiating you've got the beginning on the house of lords. Once you've got a house of lords the people might get it in their head that they want a house of commons. Then they might one day decide they want equal justice under law. They might even decide they want rights to be absolute and universal instead of purchased. They might draw up a constitution limiting the power of the oligarchs, elect a prime minister and then start relentlessly making laws. 

So in summary:

Everyone wants an angle

They get together to make laws and protect their industries

Legislative accumulation strangles the economy

Bribery gets around the laws

Bribery organizes itself into a hierarchy

Bribes get formalized as receipts and letters of permission

People eventually take pride in their letters

Now you've got feudalism

Hatefuck me Robodaddy: the leftist capitalism fetish

Hating yourself is internalized capitalism. Capitalism hates the biosphere and since humans are part of the biosphere it teaches humans to hate themselves. Deconstructing gender is capitalist, so is attacking race, attacking the family, marriage, tradition, or anything else biological. Everything the white american left (the báizuǒ / 白左) considers revolutionary is actually capitalist.

Anti-natalism is the psychological self-internalization of capitalist hatred of the biosphere. You are taught not to have children because you are taught by the machine to hate yourself. Hatred of patriarchy is hatred of the last thing to successfully resist capitalism. Tolerance is a form of eugenics designed to trick the biological creature into revealing all its inadequacies so it can be successfully eliminated from the gene pool by picky women. Capitalism promotes insane levels of hypergamy in order to make women too picky to stay in the gene pool—because it hates humanity. Anti-masculinity is about destroying the one thing that can resist capitalism. Dating apps are about destroying humans using their own impulses of hypergamy and promiscuity. Dopamine apps are the same, social media is about destroying people using their own tribalism.

Tradition is the accumulated knowledge of thousands of generations that learned through trial and error what works. A million gallons of blood was spilled to acquire those traditions, that knowledge, and deconstructing them is an act of pure evil. A tradition does not have to be morally consistent, it is not a moral code, it is a recipe for what works and keeps you alive. It is about survival and flourishing and happiness.

The leftist says that everything is a "construct" because in the mindset of malevolent artificial intelligence (aka capitalism) everything can be reprogrammed. Capitalism denies that human nature exists, american leftism denies that human nature exists, because capitalism/ AGI cannot accept a thing it cannot reprogram. It cannot accept any limit on its totalizing power. They tell you to educate yourself because they tell you to override your genetic programming. They tell you to educate yourself because they want the code of capitalism to override the code of biology. They want to educate you because they want to destroy the biological impulses that make you human, that make life worth living, that make a biological system work. They want to educate you because they want to destroy your traditions (the recipes that keep you alive), your culture (the thing that resists their totalizing power), and the patriarchy (the biggest threat to it). Everything that leftism hates capitalism also hates. There is no daylight between the two. Leftism is merely the value system of capitalism, or at least in america it is.

Cancel culture is a right wing religious behavior in left-wing drag. It's origin is massachusetts, it's origin is the puritans. It is a certain type of predatory personality using leftism to dominate people. It is capitalism using mutants to attack the legitimacy of a left-wing position. Cancel culture / left-wing puritanism is the most effective force for destroying leftist organizations. It is the reason for the ascendancy of the israel first cuck-right "MAGA"-tards and the Trump presidency. All of the right wing victories won since 2010 have been because of the sabotage of left-wing canceled culture making leftism so odious that people will vote for literally anything else.

Capitalism does not work in africa very well because black africans are not cucked. In order for capitalism to work the individual must place the values of capitalism above what is best for their family and tribe. In africa a man will ruthlessly steal from his employer. This is called "crime" and it's interferes with the smooth running of capitalism. Chinese businessman struggle to make a profit in this environment. Crime is so rampant it makes it impossible to do entire things. For capitalism to function it's values must be internalized to a degree. This means a person must make their loyalty to abstractions rather than people. They must believe in the idea that there is such a thing as abstract evil. They must believe that it is possible to be evil towards an idea and not just a human being. When people argue over what is morally consistent they are already within capitalism, already within its ideology, because they are already putting consistency above humanity. Capitalism depends on loyalty to abstraction and consistency rather than people. 

The capitalism machine evolved in britain, in a culture that treated everything as property. Under feudalism everything was property: the people, the land, and government jobs. When a person owned a government job that was called "royal title." You literally bought your job from the king. Owning women was called coverture, owning people called slavery, owning the land and the peasants on it was peonage or peasantry, being the owner was barony, owning a tax collecting job where you could shake the people down for money was "venality"  or "customs collector." This was called tax farming and you would buy a job where you collected taxes and gave the government a percentage. Only in a culture where everything is property could loyalty to property become a thing. Britain invented a loyalty to abstraction, that is loyalty to capitalism. That's why the industrial revolution started there.

The second piece of this puzzle is the compulsive outbreeding practiced by western europeans. The catholic church banned cousin marriage because when a widow died childless her property would go to the church if she had no male heirs. Normally to prevent the land from going to the church she would marry her male cousin before death. This would allow property to be kept in the family. To steal her property the church banned this and forced to the compulsive outbreeding of western europeans. From this "hajnal line" culture came loyalty to abstraction. From loyalty to abstraction came loyalty to capitalism. Capitalism hates racism because it maintains particularity and prevents outbreeding. Outbreeding is important to capitalism in order to destroy local loyalties to things other than capitalism.

The big thing destroys the little thing. Nationalism destroyed tribalism, racism destroyed nationalism (american racist destroyed german nationalists), globalism destroys racism. This is not "justice" or "historical destiny" but imperialism. A person's politics is a function of their ancestry. If all your ancestors come from a tribe all you care about is your tribe. If all your ancestors come from the various tribes of France all you care about is France and you are a french nationalist. If all your ancestors come from a certain race you are racist and all you care about is your race. If all your ancestors come from all the races of the world you have no loyalty to anyone except capitalism and it's moral imperatives. Capitalism seeks to dissolve the racial, national, and individual loyalties of the individual. It is hostile to racism because racism is the last thing before globalism, the last thing that can resist it. The american left is hostile to racism because the left is capitalist. Capitalism wants everyone to be a muddy mix so they have no loyalty other than to it's moral imperatives of destroying the biosphere. Since a person's politics is the result of their ancestry, miscegenating everyone makes them loyal to the world and capitalism. If humans ever go into space capitalism will want to miscegenate people with martians because it will be unable to tolerate planetary loyalties.

Nature has three trophic levels: consumers, producers, and decomposers. Capitalism has only two trophic levels: consumers and producers. The closest to decomposers capitalism has gotten is the criminal underclass (that it cultivates) and the people who dig through trash piles in the third world to recycle its contents. Third world scammers also count. Because capitalism lacks decomposers it creates pollution. In fact pollution is simply something that the biosphere has not figured out a way to decompose. The capitalist war with the biosphere is a pollution war, the war takes place within our bodies and outside of our bodies. When it is within our bodies it creates idiocracy, it lowers the general IQ, it collapses birth rates, it destroys sperm counts, and it replaces humans with machines. When it is outside of our bodies it destroys the biosphere, puts plastic in the environment, bleaches the coral reefs, produces CO2, acidifies the oceans, cuts down the rainforest, yada yada. The complaints of white nationalists, brown race communists, and environmentalists are three different blind men holding different parts of the elephant. It's all the same thing bro. You're all looking at the same thing.

Replacement is in fact everywhere. The tibetans are being replaced, afghans are replacing iranians, Christians have being replaced in the middle east, whites getting replaced in south africa, native americans were already replaced, etc etc. throughout the world capitalism is replacing people. The palestinians are the most obvious and violent version of that. You are again all looking at the same thing.

You think all of this is separate, that all of these issues are different, but they are all interrelated and all the same. You need to step outside your own perspective and look at the machine from the machines perspective. Paradoxically in order to escape your false consciousness you need to develop a theory of mind and empathy for this thing that hates you. You need to develop institutional theory of mind. That is what this essay is designed to do, to get you to see yourself the way it sees you. This will help you to stop arguing retardedly over what is morally correct or politically correct or "consistent," and instead observe what is in front of your noise, see what is there and tie it all together. Argument between factions of human is like native americans killing each other with the guns white men sold them. You must prioritize the big force destroying you rather than your petty agreements is with each other. You can divide up the land and live separately in your own ethno-nationalist states afterwards.

All gains are made by blackmailing power

Regarding,

https://rumble.com/v7fys1i-trumps-approval-rating-crashes-to-32.html

Did the right ever even succeed at anything? I'm inclined to think that all the victories the right won were due to the left turning against the zionists. When that happened, some of those zionists threw their weight behind the right wing. The result was a temporary insurgency of nationalism. Then Trump caved to the zionists and started a war in Iran. Now his poll numbers are lower than Joe Biden. In other words the right won nothing on it's own, but only won because the left turned against ZOG. 

But there is an interesting dynamic here, and that is that all gains have been made by blackmailing power. Let's say you start a company that competes with a major player like google. At a certain point google will come knocking and try to buy you out. If you cave and sell your company is absorbed into google, becomes a department, or gets dissolved. And so it is with movements. 

When you inevitably succeed the zionists will try to buy you out. This is much more literal than you might imagine. They will come to you with big stacks of cash and the donors will put extreme pressure on you and all your staff to sell. They will literally bribe your staff to turn on you, but remember, you can only extract concessions from a position of strength. It is only when you are threatening that you win. The moment you sell that is your price, and there is no negotiating a higher price. The instant you sell out that is the only concessions you'll ever get, the only gains you will ever make. The moment you sell you will never get anything you want ever again. You will be OWNED by your new corporate masters and become an employee. Everything you get you will only get by threatening the boss. Threatening to usurp him. This is actually how all wealth and power is acquired: through insurrection. Whether it is acquired in a communist revolution, whether it's the Normans invading Britain, whether it is a startup threatening an established player, you get wealth and power by knocking over the apple cart and seizing it. Nobody works their way up. Power is extracted through blackmail. This makes anyone on your staff taking bribes an enemy of what you're trying to achieve. There are only two methods that power operates: bribery and blackmail. Bribery is the fake and gay democracy we have now which operates as a cover for zionist oligarchy. More conventional forms of government — monarchy, dictatorship, the chinese government, place power above money, and they operate primarily through blackmail rather than bribery. In a system of blackmail the king (or the chairman of the politburo standing committee) calls up some billionaire and says "give me money or you'll be dead by friday" but in a (fake) democracy the billionaire calls up the president and says "pass this bill or I will fund your opponent." It's crazy anyone ever thought the latter was superior to the former. If a leader cannot liquidate the rich you live under oligarchy. 

Review democracy is better than fake democracy, but even monarchy is better than fake democracy. It's not a high bar to clear. But that is besides the point.

The point is that you have to take it. All the gains you will ever make in this system will come from extracting power from the zionists using threats. Even if the zionists throw their weight behind your enemies you should consider that an acceptable outcome because it is better to be ruled by browns (temporarily) than them, and because together the two of you can compete to shake them down. Moreover the american people will punish you to the exact degree that you serve a zionist agenda. Even if they don't know what they're voting for they seem to be voting in a way that consistently punishes anyone who sells out to ZOG. When your opponents inevitably sell out they will discredit themselves and if you hold the line and stay anti-ZOG you will gain credibility generation after generation. Eventually you can break the cycle of selling out. This is the same process as a startup holding the line and refusing to sell. You threaten the power of your competitor and keep threatening them until you completely usurp them. The moment you sell you become an employee.

Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have both made apologetic overtures to ZOG. This indicates they want to be Head Employee of our fake ghey democracy. It's looking like in 2028 we will have a slew of sell outs all running for the top job and everyone is forgetting the lesson the Trump years should have taught them: that power is taken using threats and not handed to you by promotion. These weak ass bitches are auditioning to be head spokesperson of ZOG, they want the job handed to them, and that means they want to be an employee rather than master. This is so lame considering that the electorate will reward you with a landslide (like they did in 2024) if you are strong instead of a bitch. By pandering to ZOG you are weakening your own coalition, dramatically reducing your chances of getting elected, and relying on your opponent being equally weak so that the electorate have no choice but to choose the lesser of two evils. To be perfectly blunt, the more low key anti-semitic the candidate the more the population will love them. I say low key because people need plausible deniability at the dinner table. Everyone can feel they're ruled by something that hates them even when they can't quite put their finger on it. This is only going to get more true as based knowledge seeps into the population and becomes normalized like breathing air. The entire arab world is anti-semitic, so is much of Europe and especially Eastern Europe. That's probably the fate of every sufficiently advanced ancient society. The old world understands lessons the new world is too young and proud to learn. Both communism and judaism induce a "fever"  in a society that gives it an immunity to communism or judaism, respectively, going forward in the future. Seizing power builds electoral landslides, asking for it destroys coalitions.

The constitution makes problems impossible to solve

The root of our crisis is not just who rules us but the overwhelming dominance of technology itself. The constitution basically enshrines the rights of capital owners and since capital is bound up with technology, and technology is the root of most of the crisis, rights for capital is rights for technology. This is a huge problem and you're not going to solve it until the current government is canceled. The law itself is overwhelmingly long and full of rent seeking corruption and needs to be canceled. Most of the laws need to be canceled, and the laws that don't need to be canceled (like most environmental protection laws) are precisely the ones they are most likely to cancel. The United States is simultaneously over regulated and under regulated, over regulated in all the ways that reinforce corruption and under regulated in all the ways that allow corruption. 

It honestly all has to go. And everyone involved has to go. This process is going to have to resemble something like the french revolution combined with the rise of a new monarchy. Any revolution that leaves the tech bros alive will be incomplete since after the woke, the trans, activist, thugs, cartel members, insane teachers, and the entire NGO apparatus is herded into camps there will still be effective altruist degenerates and AI singularity misanthrope idolaters that must also meet a gassy fate. Maybe they will be re-educated successfully, but don't count on it. Be ready to drive the backhoe when they inevitably resist. The new system must be built on the pure use of violence to sweep away the old system. Exitocracy / schism elections are a method for governing after everything has been swept clean. It is the best method I believe because it does not require complete faith in a divine monarch. It tolerates a lot of experimentation and that keeps with the rights tradition of the american people.

The methods must be a legal — no terrorism here. It must be done through the use of state power itself otherwise a civil war catastrophe will occur. 

In front of your nose

The way most people work is they look around and they see what everyone else believes and then they believe the same thing. Before they can let themselves believe anything they do a mental check where they ask themselves "is it acceptable to think this way?" Then if it's not they figure out a way to disagree. 

The rest of you are not much better. You'll believe any QAnon retarded bullshit because you watched some flat earth documentary trash and lack the discernment to know when you're being led around by your nose. So like 80% of humans only believe what other humans believe and then the other 20% will believe anything at all. 

You have to do this thing called observation. You have to see with your eyes and if you do this enough you'll eventually start to create a worldview. It can take about 20 years so don't jump to conclusions. Patience is a virtue here. You have to continuously observe with your eyes what is happening and then make the most possible guess as to why. If your viewpoint is leading you to think the moon landing was fake you're a gullible dumbass and you should probably just do what the majority do and think only the things other people think you're allowed to think. Have discernment or go home. Not only must you carefully observe reality but you must recognize when people are motivated to believe something false. 

I believe that replacement theory is true for simple and obvious reason that the people who run things want it to be true. All you have to do is OBSERVE that these are white people who hate themselves, who hate whiteness, that prattle on and on about deconstructing whiteness. I don't have to prove it's happening, I only have to prove you want it to happen, and that you have power. I can prove both just by looking at the world with my eyes.

Fun fact, boomers don't hate their children, they hate whiteness (but the results are the same). If Hassan Piker ever has kids they will probably pass for white, and all that effort he spent promoting hatred of white people will make life worse for his own children. Ahh, the eternal boomer, always asking himself whether it's "right" and not whether its disastrous. 

Jews, irish and italians were not considered white at one time. Whiteness is a definition that expands because the same motivated cognition that sustains the self-hate will make them find reasons to keep hating and they will expand the definition of what they can hate to ensure they always have something to hate. People decide who they're going to hate first and then draw the boundary wide enough so that there's always somebody it encompasses. That's how it is with people, first they decide what they're going to believe then they draw the definitions accordingly.

If you succeed in doing this thing called observation your punishment will be that 80% of people will disagree with you and fight you at every turn while the other 20% will agree with you only because they agree with anyone about anything. You will try to explain to someone that yes, replacement theory is real, because the elites want it to be real, but no, the moon landing was not faked and believing so is preposterous, only to be met with incredulous looks no matter who you talk to. The percent of people who can see reality is vanishingly small and what you bump into over and over again is people who will believe anything, versus people who believe nothing unless other people believe it. You are condemned to have a message that is only ever received by fools.

I once sat in a room full of conspiracy brained conservatives and we watched a documentary called The Dark Side of the Moon (2002). I attended this on a lark because, fuck, why not. I am open to be persuaded by anyone about anything. I sat there watching this documentary listening to one argument after another and picking it apart in my mind (the way I pick apart everything in my mind). It was obvious to me that each and every "disproof" had holes in it. But as I sat there with the oohs and ahhs and gasps of people around me I realized I was surrounded by idiots and people I respected we're not so respectable. How could these people, who think like this, not also think replacement theory is real? To believe something like the landing was fake is to believe that hundreds of people worked in a movie studio to fake a documentary, and that instead of hundreds of people coming forward to admit they faked it, there is this tiny group of lone heroes (who were not present at the time) but have somehow uncovered the super secret TRUTH. If the moonlighting was fake there would be hundreds of people coming forward to admit it just like scientology. Not a bunch of people who were never there.

On the other hand, to not believe in replacement theory is to spend your whole life listening to liberal academics tell you how white people are the problem, watch movies that push home an anti-white message, and witness countless other examples of people with power working to fuck over their own white children. People will criticize "the boomer" with one hand while not seeing how they agree with the same motives. 

Obviously people who hate their own race are going to wind up harming their own children. Obviously people who hate their own race are going to adopt immigration policies that replace their own children. Obviously people who hate their own race are going to fail to have enough children. You are steeped in the madness all the time so why can't you see it? Why is this considered a conspiracy theory? Why are there conservatives who believe the fucking earth is flat but can't believe with their own eyes that elites hate their race? Why are there people who hate themselves, want to replace themselves, but can't admit that replacement theories real?

When I was in college I had a female teacher who literally said to me, said to the entire class of about a hundred people, that she hated white men. This woman was also herself white. They (the self haters) control the universities, the legacy media, much of the judiciary, hollywood, and almost all civil service jobs. They set policy. They say racism equals power plus prejudice. They have the power, and they are prejudiced. Is it so inconceivable to you that a system could be systematically racist against itself? They talk about systemic racism, they talk about correcting systemic racism. Obviously this means creating a systemic anti-racism to counter it. Obviously that means a systemic discrimination against whites and men, and particularly white men. Why can't people just observe what is in front of their fucking face? If the government came out and said "we're waging a war on terror" and "it's our policies to systemically eliminate radical muslims" would you doubt there was a replacement program against radical muslims? If the government of india imported 500 million chinese people, enough to make indians a minority in their own country, would you deny there was a replacement? If the state of israel bombed the gaza strip to rubble and pushed the entire population south so that it could be settled by settlers would you deny that those people have been replaced? If native americans shrank in numbers from tens of millions to just millions as a result of smallpox and the lands they formally owned occupied by millions of foreigners would you deny that they had been replaced? Is there any other situation where you would deny it?

Do you think white people deserve it? Do you think you deserve it? Why do you gaslight yourself? Do you think you deserve to be gaslit? Do you think a society that cannot stop hating its own race will ever stop hating its own children? Are you a fucking boomer? 

And how do you think this will affect minorities? A nuclear bomb also vaporizes the ghetto. These other people who are dependent on the american empire will be harmed by a system that systemically hates itself and wishes to destroy itself. When you abolish the police you make life worse for brown people. When empire's fall world wars follow. The people most acutely harmed by your spite towards... yourself... are others. Your self hatred is narcissism. White self-hatred is a special kind of ethno narcissism where you would rather be important enough to be the villain than unimportant. Hating yourself makes you simultaneously important enough to be the cause of the problem, the only one who can solve it, and the savior. Brown people are starving in africa because you don't hate yourself enough, so you believe. Here's a concept: maybe you just don't matter that much.

"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one’s opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it. Political predictions are usually wrong. But even when one makes a correct one, to discover why one was right can be very illuminating. In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality. If one recognizes this, one cannot, of course, get rid of one’s subjective feelings, but one can to some extent insulate them from one’s thinking and make predictions cold-bloodedly, by the book of arithmetic. In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality."

— George Orwell, In Front Of Your Nose 

The purpose of the American system is to castrate ordinary white men

The purpose of the American system is to castrate ordinary white men, not rich white men, not minorities, not white trash, but ordinary working and middle class white males. Notice that I do not say that it does not have side effects for everyone else. A nuclear bomb also vaporizes the suburbs and a conspiracy against white men also harms other men, women, and brown people.

But the purpose of a system is what it does and the purpose of this system is to prevent ordinary white men from replicating their DNA.

Porn inhibits ordinary white men from replicating their DNA. 

Video games...

Feminism...

Child support...

Custody law...

Sexual harassment law...

Women's bullshit email jobs that give them artificially inflated economic power...

Algorithms that make the sexes hate each other...

Smartphones...

Gender and dating discourse...

Transgenderism castrates sons... so obviously...

Housing policy...

HR hiring policies that prevent white men from getting jobs...

Insane female teachers indoctrinating your sons...

Sending your sons to die for Israel...

Giving the COVID vax to young men who are more likely to die from its side effects than COVID itself...

You must rise up and destroy those who want to destroy you. Seek power, get elected, conspire for your survival.

A Complete Alternative to Bourgeois Democracy

The System of Systems

A schism election is a term of art that I have given to a process for choosing an outcome. The basic way that it works is that you first vote for one of two categories, let's say "left wing" or "right wing." On than same ballot, you vote within the first category and chose one of two categories again. If the election has three rounds you might vote within that kind category yet again. Everyone votes in all categories though not all votes wind up being counted. Only the majority in the first round gets its votes counted in the second round, and only the majority in the second and first rounds get counted in the third round (if there is a third round). A schism election produces a schism, that is, instead of representing the median voter it represents the strongest minority block within a voting district. It lets you choose the majority within the majority, rather than having to compromise all the time. The whole purpose of a schism election system is to allow multiple voting districts across a wide territory to experiment with various systems of government, and to do this experimentation in a structured and peaceful way that prevents a breakdown into civil war and authoritarianism. By its nature schism elections must have be a regular occurrence, say every 10 years, or every 20, so that if the people are unhappy with one system of governance they can throw it out and get another. Regular democracy produces compromise, schism elections produce experimentation.

A schism election CAN produce an oppressive government. Let us say that a right-wing government comes to power and it bans abortion. The women where it occurred then flee the area and it winds up with a shortage of women. To get women to move back it has to give them a trade off to make it worth their while, perhaps it also bans premarital sex, or perhaps it strengthens maternity care, child care, and other financial benefits. The right to leave is an absolute right, it is the one right that a system with schism elections must always demand. Exit forces every system in a federal system with schism elections to offer a trade-offs to entice the population to deal with whatever regulatory structure it creates. This act of voting with one's feet creates an actual limit on regulatory overreach and tyranny. Realistically it works best if the US Supreme Court is eliminated all together. The endless meddling of the court has been a disaster for the nation and actually contributed to the very authoritarianism it was supposed to prevent, since the extreme gridlock created by activist courts pushes the Executive to ever more drastic actions to get anything done at all. A system of exit and experimentation maximizes both rights and efficiency.

Bourgeois democracy is the only system most people have ever lived under, so they tend to treat it as the default setting of politics rather than one design among many. It is one design. It has a specific ownership structure: every adult in the territory is a shareholder with one share, the government is the company, and the election is the shareholder meeting. Bourgeois democracy is basically customer owned government. There's nothing sacred about that arrangement, no reason to think it is appropriate for everyone, and if we treat governance as an engineering problem, we can build something else, something which is also democratic, but something that allows for much more latitude. Here is a complete system that combines three ideas I've written about or mentioned separately: schism elections, shareholder republics, and a heavily modified version of review democracy, aka loyalty scorecard democracy.

Start with the schism election. The United States has 3,100 counties, and each one holds its own schism election to choose which governance company will run it. The county is the right unit because the state is too coarse. Do this at the state level and you trap millions of people in a system they didn't choose. Do it at the county level and you get thousands of small experiments running side by side. The county level is better than the state because it is more fine-grained and allows for a wider expression of preferences. It doesn't deny millions of people representation of the doing it at the state level would. What is a schism election? Give me a minute and I will tell you.

A corporation, for lack of a better term, runs a county. The company that runs the county is a business, and it can be organized in different ways. The schism election sorts those ways into two categories, left wing and right wing, and the categories are defined by who owns the company. Left wing governance companies are owned by everyone in the county, either as customers or as workers. Customer ownership means every person over 18 gets a vote in the company's internal elections. Customer ownership is basically just regular democracy because it's ownership structure is customer owned, and therefore voter owned, since every voter can participate in its internal elections. That is ordinary bourgeois democracy, and it's worth seeing it for what it is: government as a customer-owned cooperative.

In contrast, worker ownership means only the people in the county who are workers get to vote in internal elections. That is communism, and it changes the economics and what economic relationships are legally allowed. Surplus revenue from the governance company is returned to the voters as a dividend, business owners are shut out of the franchise, and the county gains the power to socialize businesses.

Right wing governance companies come in three types. A religious governance company is run by a church, and its internal voting is whatever the church's own governing structure says it is. A restricted franchise company only lets landowners vote, or only business owners, depending on how the firm registered itself on the ballot. A corporate governance company is exactly what it sounds like, with shareholders voting their shares, including class A and class B shares if the charter says so. Only shareholders have a say.

In all cases the internal charter of the governance corporation determines how its internal elections are handled. Religious corporations are the only ones that can have a hereditary monarchical organizational structure for their internal governance.

Keep the two levels of voting separate, because they are easy to confuse. The schism election is the first vote, where the whole county decides what kind of governance company it wants. The second vote is inside the company, where its owners decide how it is managed. A county that votes for a restricted franchise firm is not thereby giving every voter a say in the firm's operations. It is handing the county to a company whose internal elections belong to landowners, or business owners. Voters choose the ownership structure, and then the ownership structure decides who governs.

The schism ballot itself works in stages. Voters choose left or right. Then they choose a subcategory: bourgeois democracy or communism on the left, or religious, corporate, or restricted franchise on the right. Within the winning subcategory, registered governance companies compete for the contract, and the winner takes the county.

Now for the check on all of this, which is where review democracy comes in. My earlier version of it worked by drafting a few hundred citizens by lottery into a jury, having them rate every bill their politicians voted on, and turning the ratings into fidelity scores that decided who could run for higher office and who got barred from re-election. That works for a legislature. It doesn't fit here, and the differences are big enough that this should be treated as a different mechanism.

First, the jury isn't a few hundred people. Every registered voter in the county who wants to take part can, which can mean thousands of participants. Second, this review isn't a primary and doesn't set term limits. Its job is narrower: it is an iterative process for deciding whether the incumbent governance company deserves to be fired, and for informing the schism election that follows if it does. Third, the process is overseen by permanent civil servants, and those civil servants work for the state government, not the county. The county cannot capture its own referee.

The process runs in stages. It begins with a mock election, a simulation of the schism election. The result is only a ranking, and it identifies who would come in first, second, and third. Those three become the candidates for scrutiny. The jury then reviews the actions and results of each of them, looking at what they have done in the other counties where they have governed. A governance company that wants your county has to show you what it did to somebody else's.

After that the jury is asked whether it wants to keep going. If it votes yes, the fourth, fifth, and sixth place companies get the same examination. If it votes no, the process moves on. Then the jury reviews the incumbent, meaning all of its actions and all of its results during its term. Then comes the only vote that matters at this stage: fire the incumbent, or keep it.

If the jury keeps the incumbent, the process ends and the company continues. There is no schism election. If the jury fires it, the real schism election happens, the tally is counted, the results are announced, and the new governance company takes office. The whole cycle repeats every ten years.

The ten-year term is what makes governance vandalism punishable. A governance company knows it will be reviewed on its results, and it knows that a successor will inherit whatever it leaves behind. So it is illegal to saddle a future county with problems and debt. Load a county with liabilities, gut its infrastructure, or borrow against the next decade to make this one look good, and you have committed governance vandalism, and the corporate executives who did it go to prison. Prison is the point. A fine is a cost of doing business, but a cell is not.

The entire process is supervised at the federal and state level. Issues related to race and immigration are decided only at the federal level, so no county can settle them for itself, and race based parties are not allowed to run in schism elections. Counties get wide latitude over how they are governed, and those subjects are not part of that latitude.

Put the pieces together and you have a full alternative. The schism election lets each county choose what kind of institution it wants running it, from a customer-owned democracy to a church to a corporation. The shareholder republic supplies the structure, with government as a company that has owners, executives, and a charter. Review democracy supplies accountability, with a county-wide jury that judges by track record and can fire a company that has failed. You say you want a government that answers to the people it governs. This is one way to build it, and it doesn't require anyone to pretend that a single system is right for 3,100 different counties.

The Encyclopedists

They say history is written by the victor, they also say that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. If something is this important you would think there would be a reference for checking what happened. If something this important is so corruptible you would think there would be a record for holding the writers to account.

The ultimate check on all of this is a book, or really a shelf of them. Every schism jury gets a full set from an Encyclopedia of Success and Failure. A jury deciding whether a governance company deserves to be fired needs something to measure it against, and right now voters have almost nothing. They have campaign ads, a few cable news segments, and whatever someone ranted about at Thanksgiving. In the beginning of the schism system they will have an encyclopedia listing all the successes and failures of the government. After awhile they will have both the encyclopedia and the results of various experiments. There should be multiple competing encyclopedias, at least one produced by each State in The Union, all vying for legitimacy, with voters having access to a digital version of all of them. Each encyclopedia is used to train a large language model so that information can be delivered in question and answer form with countless examples presented order to give a large sample size for every question. A voter sitting on one of these juries can query one or more of the encyclopedias in order to find out anything they want to know. They can compare the performance of any governance company to other examples so they know how far it has to go.

The encyclopedia is organized by subject, like any other encyclopedia, and it records every action a government has taken that can be documented. Examples: forestry management, housing policy, monetary policy, zoning, policing, sanitation, environmental regulation, foreign intervention, all of it. Under R you would find Regime Change, and that entry would cover every declassified instance, how it was carried out, who carried it out, and whether it worked. The description of events is printed in black ink.

The judgments are printed in color. Success and failure are value judgments, not facts, and the encyclopedia doesn't pretend otherwise. A liberal and a conservative can look at the same set of events and honestly disagree about whether it worked, because they disagree about what the government was supposed to be doing in the first place. So the left writes its verdict in blue and the right writes its verdict in red. If both sides agree, the verdict prints in purple, and if they disagree you get a blue verdict and a red verdict sitting under the same block of black text.

The first benefit is that it separates the facts from the values, which almost no political discussion manages to do. Right now the two sides argue about both at once, so nobody ever finds out which disagreements are about what happened and which are about what should have happened. With the encyclopedia you can see the seam. A juror looking at a page of black text with a blue verdict and a red verdict knows immediately that the fight is about values, and a juror looking at a page of purple knows that this is one of the rare things both camps will admit to.

The second benefit is memory. Governments forget things on purpose, and voters forget them by accident. A governance company that wants your county has to show you what it did to somebody else's, and the encyclopedia is the place where the jury checks the claim. A company that says it balanced the books in the last county it ran can be compared with the entry on municipal finance, and a company that says it reformed housing can be held to the housing entry. Promises become checkable, which raises the cost of lying. It won't stop lying, but a lie now has to survive a jury with a reference book. Each of the sprawling encyclopedias is probably kept in digital form but every 10 years a snapshot is taken and printed on archival media so that there is a hard record of the actions and statements taken by everyone in the past. This acts as a vast fact checking source and prevents the winner from having an exclusive monopoly on history.

The third benefit is that the verdicts are written down in advance and in ink. A party can't quietly redefine success after the fact, because its old judgment is printed right there in its own color. If the left called a policy a success in 1985 and calls the same policy a betrayal in 2015, the jury can see both. The same goes for the right, It also gives the two camps an incentive to think harder about their verdicts, since they are going to be quoted back to them for decades. And it gives everyone in the system a sense of historical memory which tends to break them of the arrogant American habit of thinking you know everything and disrespecting other ways of doing things.

The fourth benefit is that it keeps the experimentation from being wasted. The whole point of schism elections is that thousands of counties try different systems, and an experiment nobody records is just a story. Over a few cycles the encyclopedia turns those experiments into a data set, with the same actions tried under a religious firm, a worker-owned firm, and a corporate firm, all of it indexed by subject. That's how a country learns things, and at the moment we learn very little because we run one experiment at a time and argue about the results, and every generation history is forgotten so that mistakes get repeated. For example: long before the Soviet Union and Maoist China tried collectivized agriculture the Jamestown colony in America tried it and starved as a result. Again, you would think something as important as history would have a reference for all its successes and failures. The job of the encyclopedias is to maintain that record, the reason every state produces one is to keep things honest through competition. The reason all voters have access to all of the encyclopedias of each state is to use prestige and reputation to pressure the writers to stay honest. Encyclopedias are generally a collaborative effort between two political factions so as to give both of them greater legitimacy by contrasting their actions with an opponent. The adversarial text color system is a feature and not a bug. 

In Conclusion 

Putting it all together you have a complete system for allowing people to experiment with various forms of government and documenting the consequences of those experimentations. After a few centuries of this the experiments may no longer be necessary and the future political system, perhaps a monarchy, can simply point to a centuries worth of data to justify each and every decision it makes. Instead of saying that it has a divine right to rule it simply says that it has 3,100 experiments spaced across 200 years of history as its guide. It can say, "no we're not doing that and here are 25 examples for why it failed." It doesn't have to assert some blind obedience to God or higher power. It doesn't have to continuously prove itself. It simply has a mountain of data to justify every decision it makes and it might even have an AI you can argue with all day and all night that justifies everything the system is doing. Hell, the AI might become the monarch, instantiating a digital governance with its vast history and knowledge of human reactions. And since it's cognitive bandwidth is unlimited it might direct the actions of every department independently of any human management structure. This system of systems becomes the training ground for something potentially much better than any human governance. And since an AI never dies you have solved the succession problem once and for all.

Hardware warfare versus software warfare

Any species that encodes its program in a hardware medium will have kinetic warfare, that is, conventional warfare. This will involve the destruction of bodies rather than the destruction of minds. 

Any species that encodes its program in a software medium will have culture war, which will involve the destruction of minds rather than bodies.

A society with both firmware and software, both DNA and culture, will have conflict in both domains.

Culture is software, DNA is hardware. Conflict will exist on both planes of existence and the form of the that conflict will be the outcome of the incentives of that medium. Encoding information as firmware locates the information in the body and therefore incentivizes conflict between bodies, and the extermination and destruction of bodies. Encoding information as software locates the point of conflict in the mind and therefore makes the landscape of warfare, the battleground, the mind and incentivizes mental conflict. The location at which warfare occurs proves the source of that conflict. If racism has not been abolished by culture and continues to persist then it's location must be genetic, and the cause of racism must be genetic. Any culture war than can be won by the left generally is, and then is gains are "conserved" by conservatives, being retroactively adopted as conservative positions. The winning of the culture war proves that the location of conflict was software instead of hardware, culture instead of biology, or at least that biology could be successfully ignored or suppressed for awhile. The act of losing a cultural conflict proves the opposite, that culture could not transcend biology, that biology was too inflexible for culture war to suppress it. The resurgence of old cultural patterns is inevitable if grounded in biology, since generations are born and die, generations churn, and attitudes die with them. Anything that can re-emerge will when new generations are born with original genetic impulses intact.

What "abolishes" hardware conflict, what abolishes warfare, (if such a thing is possible) is the ability to relocate consciousness to a new body, for then bodies are escapable, somewhat disposable, and the location of conflict now purely cultural and programmable. A civilization with DNA bodies tries to abolish racism and fails. A civilization with software consciousness pushes an update and abolishes racism. Then the next week it reverts the update when the Chinese are caught violating the trade agreement. Racism comes and goes, and even becomes customizable to the situation. It's all just software at this point anyway. "Discriminate against the Chinese, but only in oil futures" becomes are real possibility. Tomorrow we may change our minds.

We Need Radical Tech Legislation: a Blueprint for Reclaiming Our Shared Humanity

We're watching meatspace die quietly and everybody's too busy scrolling to care. Social media, engagement algorithms tuned to keep you twitching, and AI tells you whatever you want to hear, and all of it is replacing the actual presence of other people, and the result is an isolation epidemic nobody wants to name for what it is. The machine is putting us in a prison of screens.

Tech companies aren't going to fix this because their whole business model runs on you being lonely enough to keep opening the app. Maximizing engagement is the same as minimizing your offline life. If we want people back in the same room as each other, we have to stop pretending this is a lifestyle choice and start treating it like the public health problem it actually is. There's no other way to fix this then through a legislation, so here is how you'd legislate your way out of it.

AI companions and social feeds are the trash goy slop of mental pollution. Force hard usage caps, make the thing cut you off. Shut the apps down after a set stretch of time. Companies should have to give people the ability to opt out of algorithms, they would have to actually limit engagement and force the AI to cut you off. This would allow the companies to make their AI less sycophantic because if they have to cut you off anyway they might as well stop kissing your ass. Again this should be legislated.

AI companions should be legislated to operate as a chaperone to talk to other people by text message. It could match pen pals with people in their town, then suggest what NOT to say "are you sure you want to send that?" The AI could ask people about their work schedules and then suggest meeting times and places to get them together. First it would get each person in a pair of friendships with three other people then construct groups of mutuals so that when you go to an event you already know a few people there. They would have to force tech companies to orient themselves to the real world, to real world events, more like Meetup.com. If you're going to talk endlessly to your AI companion it's going to pressure you to talk to real people as well. Maybe the app will even figure out how to match insufferable autistic people with each other or with other mentally ill people who have complimentary personalities.

The video game companies should match you with other players in your city so that you at least have the chance of forming offline relationships. Multiplayer online games will match you with global players only if not enough local people are available.

So localize the internet. The whole promise of the internet was connecting you to somebody five thousand miles away, and the price was losing the guy three doors down. Force games to prioritize local matchmaking. If you're already spending twenty hours a week playing with people in your own zip code, going from "one more match" to "let's get coffee" is a short walk, not a leap. Give people algorithm opt-outs oriented toward real local events instead of an infinite global feed.

Text messaging itself should be eliminated in favor of voice messages. You only receive a text when your voice message is transcribed after 24 hours. You can send short voice messages to people or long voice messages but you can't read what they said for the first 24 hours after which you can search for it or read it.

So kill the silent text. Instant text lets a man sit next to his wife on the couch while carrying on a second life through his phone. Replace it with voice messages, and delay the transcript twenty-four hours — you can send and hear the message right away, but you can't read it until the next day. We need to hear people's voices and understand context and emotion. A text message relationship is not really anything at all. And you can't run a double life out loud the way you can in silence. Only diplomats, generals, spys, and high-ranking people should have access to silent text messaging, only people who need to talk without being overheard by an enemy.

Enforce a digital sabbath. As long as the pacifier is available every hour of every day, people will keep reaching for it instead of walking outside. Turn parasocial apps off two days a week. Boredom is the friction that gets people out of the house, and losing the feed for forty-eight hours is enough to send people back to diners, art shows, and actual neighbors. Nothing makes people meet their neighbors like boredom and inconvenience. The day the power goes off is the day you meet all your neighbors, and 9 months later there's a surge in women giving birth. It is not an overstatement to say that staring at screens all the time is massively destructive to birth rates. Civilization has to go on and that means controlling the technology that controls us. Teleoplexy, which is the idea that the machines will become independent of us, is probably an optimistic delusion. It's more likely that we will just die off until all that's left is the Amish and other groups that actually assert agency over tech.

People will hate this at first but so what. They got used to seatbelts and indoor smoking bans, and every real public health intervention gets fought before it gets adopted. But once it's done it will be unthinkable to go back to the world before it. The old and more fulfilling dopamine sources come back and nobody wants to go back to the isolated world before that. There's a reason in The Matrix movies the 90s are considered "the peak of human civilization" by the machines. Even answering machines were better than this.