To demand tolerance is to deny all moral standards in the name of a moral standard; an inherent contradiction. Advocates of tolerance then screech against moral relativism; the very thing that tolerance inevitably increases.
Even worse, the more a society exercises tolerance the worse people's behavior gets, so that the environment is made intolerable by tolerance itself.
Eventually, someone asserts a standard at the point of a gun, which is how all standards, even standards requiring tolerance, always worked anyway.
Mandatory tolerance produces its inevitable opposite.
Ultimately, an appeal to tolerance is an appeal to laziness.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
People often think of terraforming planets as one of the most viable options for humans colonizing space. Or they think we will arrive on some planet that has life already, and just start living there. Science fiction, especially shows like Star Trek, are replete with the idea that Humans, Vulcans, Klingons, and whatever could just casually interact with each other, and even mate with each other without producing serious biological consequences. This is totally absurd, since even a small bacteria carried by aliens could devastate the planet Earth's biosphere. Imagine if aliens arrived on earth and transmitted a bacteria to the surface of our planet that converted all the atmospheric nitrogen to nitrous oxide, destroying the ozone layer, or a bacteria that turns sea water into hydrogen peroxide, bleaching all life in the oceans. Merely allowing an alien species to land on the planet might transmit an apocalyptic bacteria to Earth. The tolerant world of Star Trek, where multiple species live together on planet Earth, is a fairy tale.
We have two foolish notions here; the belief in cohabitation of biospheres, and the idea of terraforming itself.
A far more efficient way than terraforming is to modify humans to fit the environment of another planet through sophisticated gene modification. Many extrasolar worlds may turn out to be ocean planets, like Gliese 1214 b is thought to be. Assuming that such a planet is devoid of life, the easiest approach would be to genetically modify human beings to have gills and breathe underwater. Of course such humans would also need different skin that can tolerate constant exposure to salt water, sonar to communicate under water, collapsible lungs, different eyes, and a few modifications to the brain to process sonar signals. A sufficiently modified group of humans could colonize a water world this way. The moons of Europa and Ganymede are already water worlds right now, and if early indications are any measure, most Earth-like planets will be water worlds. This is because Earth is an outlier. The Earth was formed when a Mars-sized planet smashed into it. This created both the Earth and its enormous moon. Without this event erosion might have ended plate tectonics by now, turning the continents into enormous sandbars. If the Earth had been larger it would have retained more hydrogen, and hydrogen and oxygen make water. A larger planet would therefore probably be covered in an ocean miles thick. If the Earth were smaller it would probably have lost most its atmosphere to space. Having a medium-sized planet, large moon, active plate tectonics, and thick enough atmosphere, is a remarkable coincidence of exact conditions. Most of the planets in the galaxy that have water are unlikely to meet more than one of these conditions.
Additionally, there is the issue of gravity. A larger planet will have a stronger gravity at the surface. Interstellar travel will involve a substantial amount of bone loss from prolonged weightlessness. For humans to travel in weightlessness to another planet, spending years or even centuries in space, and then land on a planet with an even stronger gravity than Earth, presents a huge logistical challenge. The issue of gravity is almost totally solved by having human beings emerged in water, which acts very much like a weightless medium on the human body.
Most planets have radiation problems owing to the absence of strong magnetic fields, and moons that orbit gas giants are saturated within the radiation fields of the gas giants they orbit. Water has an excellent ability to shield things from radiation, which is one of the reasons it is used in nuclear power plants. Even if an ocean planet lacked a magnetic field it might be possible to simply live under the ocean at a few hundred meters depth, and be shielded from most forms of radiation. Humans with gills to breathe could simply build habitats under the water, and use their lungs only when they came to the surface. This is a far more valuable way to live than trying to massively alter the environment of a radiation soaked planet like Mars, or a CO2/sulfuric acid atmosphere planet like Venus. On these other worlds, regular humans would need to mine and carry around oxygen at all times. That is dangerous. Imagine trying to force a baby to always wear an oxygen mask outdoors. On Mars they would still need to live under the surface because of radiation, and on Venus they would have to build floating habitats, and contend with sulfuric acid. Again, this is dangerous for raising children. In contrast, a genetically modified person living in an ocean planet could simply breathe anywhere they went by making sure water was flowing past their gills. Even if the water was extremely cold humans might be engineered with Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) in their blood, like Antarctic notothenioid fish. Also, a vast abundance of water solves countless problems with farming and getting rocket fuel, and habitats can be stabilized against sinking by simply splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis, and using the oxygen to form a bubble at the top of your habitat to counteract the weight of the structure. A sphere-shaped habitat could be floated under the water with a small amount of oxygen for lifting gas, and the hydrogen could be used as rocket fuel. If there were any hurricanes you would simply submerge the habitat to a depth where the water was calm.
On top of this, there are advantages to having a greater pressure outside than inside. Bubbles are easy to identify visually, and so leaks can be found and repaired, and gas escapes more slowly. There is also a smaller pressure difference, eliminating the possibility of explosive decompression.
As a first step to developing this genetic technology one could begin by genetically modifying pigs to have gills. Pigs are close enough to humans genetically so that human organs can be grown inside them, and that means they make a great initial test subject in case anything goes wrong. You want to perfect the technique in animals before you try it in people. Since there is no reason not to take these farm animals to the ocean planet with you, you wind up bringing aqua pigs into outer space.
(I just like saying that phrase).
You do not actually need to give humans flippers or anything like that. They are already going to have grey-colored skin (genes borrowed from a dolphin), sonar, weird eyes, and gills. They can use conventional plastic flippers to swim though the water, and they will need their opposable thumbs to continue to work with technology. Furthermore, the spaceships they build may be filled with water rather than air, or have a combination of water for working spaces, and air for sleeping spaces. Remember that a human with gills must move around in order to breathe. This means they will need some kind of fan blowing water past their necks to sleep under water, or an air-filled chamber where they can use their lungs. They may also want to eat and defecate in an air-filled room for the sake of hygiene. A spaceship for aqua-humans will probably have both types of rooms in it. Some things are easier to make in air than water, and some combustible things might be made in the water for safety.
The point of all of this is that changing humans to live under water is a far more viable long-term colonization plan than making planets habitable. There already are water worlds in this solar system. Water also slows bullets and rockets fired by enemies, and acts as a natural shield. Aquatic farms can be constructed which grow algae, sea weed, fish, shrimp, and vegetables genetically modified to live in salt water. It is far easier to genetically modify a living organism to tolerate salt water than to genetically modify it to survive the lack of water and sulfuric acid of Venus, the radiation and dust storms of Mars, the liquid methane lakes of Titan, or any other horrible environments. We are genetically adapting Earth life after all, and the more Earth-like the planet the easier it is to adapt it.
Yet another great benefit of this approach is that it can be entirely perfected on Earth before even bothering with colonization. A probe can be dispatched to drill under the ice of an ice world and identify if there is a warm interior heated by tectonic activity. If so, and identical part of the ocean can be located where the pressure and temperature are the same. A base can be built there to train astronauts. Genetically engineered humans can get used to living in these environments long before any colonization mission is attempted. When they arrive the conditions they experience will be virtually identical to the ones they are already used to.
Last but not least, the development of the technology necessary for accomplishing this also creates a method of exit on Earth, and since most of the world is covered in ocean it opens up a frontier for freedom here. Imagine hundreds of underwater cities on this planet where, unlike the video game Bioshock, all of the people simply swim around in wetsuits under water with no need of oxygen tanks. They live in spherical houses stacked more vertically than horizontally. Their houses contain "water conditioning" that uses the compression cycle of a refrigerator to heat the house while cooling refrigerated sea food. The house blows water continuously around each room so that oxygenated water always flows past the gills of the inhabitants, who literally live in water at all times. They speak a combination of English and a made-up sonar language. There is a bubble of air in the "attic" of each spherical dwelling where you can surface, use your lungs, and converse in normal language. There are air chambers for doing business with regular flatlander humans, and people use sea scooters and other propeller-driven flying watercraft to commute to work in vast schools of aqua sapiens. Everything they manufacture is designed to work in water.
Imagine a man who looks like the Greek god Poseidon, with a beard, grey skin, and gills on his neck, chilling at home in his living room, and wearing a wetsuit at all times. He keeps his house at 89 degrees Fahrenheit. He lives this way, and breathing air is for weird terra sapiens. This dude has never even learned how to walk. Walking is for weirdos.
Friday, November 17, 2017
The essential reason that liberals are liberals is that they cannot sit still and shut up long enough to hear and fully comprehend a complex argument. Conservative logic takes several steps to arrive at the correct conclusion, or the conclusion requires enduring and confronting some potentially uncomfortable truth. Many conservative ideas are intuitive and unarticulated, and liberals don't do common sense intuition, and can't understand a complex idea unless they can put it into words. There is a proven connection between stress and loss of executive decision making function. The more angry or stressed out someone is, the less able they are to think clearly. Liberals talk a lot about "mindfulness," and they are the one's who need it the most. They fail to realize that many people live their whole lives in a state of so-called "mindfulness," and that being impulsive, emotionally volatile, and knee-jerk, is a trait limited almost exclusively to them. There is also a proven connection between facial width, male muscularity, and conservatism. Men who are more muscular and have wider faces have more conservative politics. None of this is a mystery, if you have a fragile body you are likely to have a stronger "flight" response to stimuli. Weakness in men is correlated with liberal politics, strength with conservative politics. The basic problem of the liberal is that he cannot control his emotions long enough to deal with harsh and complex truths. Women are more liberal than men for the same reason. Those with an increased limbic stress response will have more knee-jerk politics, will do less overall thinking, and will be less tolerant of harsh truths.
Take the endless liberal obsession over the "Mike Pence rule." It's obvious to anyone who does even the most cursory thinking on the issue, that the reason Mike Pence refuses to be alone in any room with a woman other than his wife is not because he needs to, "restrain himself from sexual harassment," but because he needs to restrain unscrupulous and evil women from falsely accusing him of crimes. It should also be completely obvious that he is too nice to say so out loud, or that he does not want to embarrass his president by saying so. His "I need to control myself" bullshit is just what he is supposed to say so that he doesn't have to open the can of worms and tell the truth; that there are tons of evil harpy bitches in this society, that they lie, that they use shakedown tactics to get ahead, that giving women power just doubles the number of evil people in power, that women are not innocent, and were never innocent, and never will be innocent; that female innocence is, and always has been, bullshit.
The solution to liberalism is months and months of training in TR-3, or something like it.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
RF's thesis is perfect because no matter how you attack it the goal post can always be moved. It is kind of like feminists who say things like, "it is all the patriarchy's fault." Then you point out that some feminist harmed a man in some way, and she says, "well patriarchy harms men too." The definition of the word patriarchy gets expanded and contracted as needed to prove anything she wants.
Reactionary Future says right at the top of his page at Imperial Energy that, "a ruler only becomes a tyrant when they do not have enough power."
Oh really? So George Soros would make a perfect ruler if given absolute power? What about Harvey Weinstein? Angela Merkel? Granted that all of our examples occur with people who have unsecure power. But does Teodoro Mbasogo have secure power? What about Kim Jong-un? When does power become secure? And why would even liberals, (or at least the sane ones) prefer to be ruled by Trump in a democracy rather than Kim Jong-un in a dictatorship?
The unfalsifiable hypothesis is that totally secure power will lead to responsible behavior. But let us postulate a slightly different, and falsifiable, version of this hypothesis;
The more secure power is the more responsible it will behave.
We should then see some kind of graph trend where leaders get progressively better as the security of the power increases. But what we see is no correlation at all, or a correlation in the opposite direction. Most of the heads of state of democracies are reasonable people, some monarchs are great, like Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai. Some are horrible, like Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. Lots of democratic leaders are terrible, assuming we expand the definition of "democracy" to include dictatorships with fake elections.
North Korea has fake elections. So does Russia, and various African dictatorships. But democracies with genuine elections appear to work rather well. We might even modify RF's thesis to say that a real democracy actually has secure power, (the people are securely in charge). Therefore, only secure monarchies where the king is securely in charge, or secure democracies, where the people are securely in charge, are run properly. This ties things up nicely. It explains why America worked just fine in the 1950's, (the people were secure in their power), and also explains why Dubai works just fine now, (the king is secure in his power). But it doesn't lead to the conclusion that democracy should be abolished. It leads to the conclusion that elites who corrupt democracy should be killed or incarcerated, since its easier to restore the secure power of the people than to have a violent revolution, which will inevitably involve nuclear civil war. It also explains why societies with fake elections are dysfunctional, (except it does not explain Russia that well).
The problem with RF's whole thesis is that we either play whack-a-mole with sovereignty, moving it around to try to find what the "true" sovereign is in a democracy, or we have to stretch and manipulate the definition to fit weird outliers. We discover that in a democracy the people are not really deciding things for themselves. So we then say, "ah, it's the universities who are the true sovereign because they control what people think," but then we find out they receive foundation money, so we say, "the foundations are the true sovereign." But are they? Did not the universities train the billionaires that control the foundations? Where the hell is the true sovereign? We are playing whack-a-mole with sovereignty.
Or we can play the definition game. But this leads to weird anti-monarchy conclusions like, "the people are actually sovereign in a democracy," and "Russia doesn't work because it has fake elections." And, "democracy should be vastly strengthened."
The sovereign does not stop being sovereign just because he receives advice. If an adviser is too strong then he should be brought to heel. Similarly, the people do not stop being sovereign in a democracy just because the universities have brainwashed them. In the "inverted sovereignty hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that the people really are the ones in charge in a democracy, if an institution has too much power, then the solution is to democratize it.
Facebook has too much power? Then its board should be elected by the users of Facebook. Google has too much power? The same. The universities are out of control? Then the deans and department heads should be elected by the parents of the students. Foundation have too much power? Then foundations should be elected too. Large information corporations have too much power? Then their boards should be elected by customer-members, just like with credit unions. (But not elected by the workers because that would produce a destructive conflict of interest).
In fact, the above plan seems like a much more viable alternative to nuclear civil war. But this leads to some downright Chomskyite-sounding conclusions. The above plan is not actually insane. Customers do just fine electing credit union boards, and credit unions provide complex financial products. In real life, an inner cabal of management winds up running things, just like the cabal of bureaucrats in a democracy. I see this as mostly a feature and not a bug. Smart managers would inevitably game the system and run things anyway, and the act of having everything accountable would make things work better in most industries. If Comcast were a democracy your cable bill would probably drop, and if Facebook/Google were democracies its shady and manipulative practices could be brought to heel. It would definitely help destroy the Cathedral if university department heads were elected.
Democracy is best applied to information business rather than production businesses, because production is so crucial to a nations prosperity, and because information businesses are much more of a threat to public sanity, while production ones are not. One should never democratize the food industry or agribusinesses, (never tamper with a nations food supply), the risk is too great. And companies that actually produce products should not be run as democracies, and do not need to be.
Even better, after democratizing the universities they would undoubtedly be sufficiently weakened to bring in market mechanisms and subordinate their professors to the discipline of the market. While democracy in education is not ideal, it could be used as a first stage attack toward the ultimate goal of bringing in a more robust market mechanism like the one described in The Machinery of Freedom, by David D. Friedman.
Some reactionaries struggle to fit capitalism into an understanding of sovereignty, especially absolutist reactionaries. There is no confusion needed here; a market is a game whose rules are set up by a sovereign. The market is used by the sovereign to test forms of production and arrive at the best ones. Production is delegated to the market by the sovereign authority in order to increase its output and bring in a taxable revenue. The fact that the market continues to exist long after the sovereign king who set it up is gone, and even been overthrown by the capitalists he empowered, is no matter. Markets are divided power in production, that is, markets are war in production. The kings of Europe may have given us capitalism to meet the internal needs of their regimes at the time — a time of military war, but it has outlived them. Say what you want about divided power in production, but it is vastly superior to the starvation economics of feudal monopolies. See North Korea as an example of a modern feudal regime where the state owns nearly the entire productive capacity. Observation shows that the more of an economy is under the direct control of the government, the poorer that society is. China is even poorer than Mexico.
I like licensed anarcho capitalism under the control of a wise sovereign AI more than anything, but I'll take reformed democracy if I can get it.
Friedman describes a fine plan for breaking the Cathedral, though he does not call it as such.
"In [some] universities the teacher is prohibited from receiving any honorary or fee from his pupils, and his salary constitutes the whole of the revenue which he derives from his office. His interest is, in this case, set as directly in opposition to his duty as it is possible to set it.... It is the interest of every man to live as much at his ease as he can; and if his emoluments are to be precisely the same, whether he does, or does not perform some very laborious duty, it is certainly his interest, at least as interest is vulgarly understood, either to neglect it altogether, or, if he is subject to some authority which will not suffer him to do this, to perform it in as careless and slovenly a manner as that authority will permit. If he is naturally active and a lover of labour, it is his interest to employ that activity in any way, from which he can derive some advantage, rather than in the performance of his duty, from which he can derive none."He goes on;
"Before discussing how a 'free-market university' would work, we must analyze what is essentially wrong with the present system. The lack of student power which the New Left deplores is a direct result of the success of one of the pet schemes of the old left, heavily subsidized schooling. Students in public universities and, to a lesser extent, in private ones do not pay the whole cost of their schooling. As a result the university does not need its students; it can always get more. Like a landlord under rent control, the university can afford to ignore the wishes and convenience of its customers."
"If the subsidies were abolished or converted into scholarships awarded to students, so that the university got its money from tuition, it would be in the position of a merchant selling his goods at their market price and thus constrained to sell what his customers most want to buy. That is the situation of market schools, such as Berlitz and the various correspondence schools, and that is how they act.
"A university of the present sort, even if financed entirely from tuition, would still be a centralized, bureaucratic organization. In a free-market university, on the other hand, the present corporate structure would be replaced by a number of separate organizations, cooperating in their mutual interest through the normal processes of the marketplace. These presumably would include one or more businesses renting out the use of classrooms, and a large number of teachers, each paying for the use of a classroom and charging the students who wished to take his course whatever price was mutually agreeable. The system thus would be ultimately supported by the students, each choosing his courses according to what he wanted to study, the reputation of the teacher, and his price.And;
"Under the sort of market system I have described, a majority of students, even a large majority, can have only a positive, not a negative, effect on what is taught. They can guarantee that something will be taught but not that something will not be. As long as there are enough students interested in a subject that a teacher can make money teaching it, that subject will be taught, however much other students dislike it. The market system accomplishes the objective of the new left's proposal.
"It might be possible to reform our present universities in the direction of such free-market universities. One way would be by the introduction of a 'tuition diversion' plan. This arrangement would allow students, while purchasing most of their education from the university, to arrange some courses taught by instructors of their own choice. A group of students would inform the university that they wished to take a course from an instructor from outside the university during the next year. The university would multiply the number of students by the average spent from each student's tuition for the salary of one of his instructors for one quarter. The result would be the amount of their tuition the group wished to divert from paying an instructor of the university's choice to paying an instructor of their own choice. The university would offer him that sum to teach the course or courses proposed. If he accepted, the students would be obligated to take the course.
"The university would determine what credit, if any, was given for such courses. The number each student could take for credit might at first be severely limited. If the plan proved successful, it could be expanded until any such course could serve as an elective. Departments would still decide whether a given course would satisfy specific departmental requirements.
"A tuition diversion plan does not appear to be a very revolutionary proposal; it can begin on a small scale as an educational experiment of the sort dear to the heart of every liberal educator. Such plans could, in time, revolutionize the universities.
"At first, tuition diversion would be used to hire famous scholars on sabbatical leave, political figures of the left or right, film directors invited by college film groups, and other such notables. But it would also offer young academics an alternative to a normal career. Capable teachers would find that, by attracting many students, they could get a much larger salary than by working for a university. The large and growing pool of skilled 'free-lance' teachers would encourage more schools to adopt tuition diversion plans and thus simplify their own faculty recruitment problems. Universities would have to offer substantial incentives to keep their better teachers from being drawn off into freelancing. Such incentives might take the form of effective market structures within the university, rewarding departments and professors for attracting students. Large universities would become radically decentralized, approximating free-market universities. Many courses would be taught by free-lancers, and the departments would develop independence verging on autarchy.Jordan Peterson is attempting to develop a kind of Rate My Professor-style website, but it lists the political ideologies of the professors so that you can avoid the nutcases. This needs to be done, but a lot more also needs to be done. A tuition diversion plan for all of Americas universities should be a key part of any Republican campaign platform.
But we need to get back to talking about Reactionary Future.
1. It cannot be shown that there is anything called secure power, unless the people in a democracy are considered a secure power. If the people are not a secure sovereign in a democracy, then nothing is.
2. If the people are considered a secure sovereign, then there is no reason to overthrow them, and strengthening democracy is a better approach.
3. If the people are not a secure sovereign, then the standard of sovereignty is so high as to make a secure monarch impossible.
4. There is no proven correlation between security of power, and good behavior, unless you consider the people in a democracy with real elections to be a secure power.
5. Therefore there is no reason to reject rather than strengthen democracy.
6. Claiming all three of the following is true is totally self-refuting; that monarchy is preferred, that secure power is possible under monarchy using the same standard to judge democracy, and that it does not exist in a democracy according to that standard.
7. The thesis of Reactionary Future, (that a ruler only becomes a tyrant when they do not have enough power), is unfalsifiable, and contradicts plain observation.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
I have not posted much in the last few months because I am writing a political textbook of sorts. Most political theses take the form of either a manifesto or a treatise. They all suffer from the flaw of proscribing "one-shot" solutions, e.g. Karl Marx proscribes that everything can be solved if the government owns the means of production, Reactionary Future thinks that governments only do evil things if the sovereign does not have enough power, anarchists think the solution is to abolish the state, libertarians think the one solution is to have the smallest state possible, etc.
None of these work completely. There are no single solutions that solve everything. Some get damn close, but never fully arrive.
The problem is that all government solutions create problems. Indeed, even non-governmental solutions, (anarchism) create problems.
In fact, frequently, the solutions either create a greater number of problems than they solve, or a problem of greater magnitude, or both.
Compounding this is the fact that rent-seekers can only profit from an increase in social entropy, and they always favor the solutions that worsen society overall, and all governments are dominated by them. Dictatorships may have fewer rent-seekers on the payroll, but they also provide fewer government services such as roads, functioning markets, stable currencies, land tenure insecurity, etc. They may operate smaller states, but they also impoverish their economies with a basic failure to run functioning markets.
Government follows a "solve a problem, create a new problem" method of operation. Every problem demands a solution. Every solution creates one or more new problems, and often these problems are worse than the problem they were intended to solve. It is essentially a chain reaction.
For example; the corn subsidy was intended to solve malnutrition. It did that, and now decades later it is causing an obesity epidemic by making corn syrup and meat, (cows are fed corn), artificially cheep.
Another example; Medicare forces the healthy to subsidize the old and unhealthy, driving up the cost of insurance. The healthy see that health insurance is too expensive, don't buy it, and costs go up further in an endless spiral.
I could list twenty examples of situations where a government solution created more problems than it solved, and twenty when it did not. Generally, as a rule of thumb is, every problem you are seeing in society is the result of some past government solution. In fact, politicians only remain employed on the basis of the incompetence or corruption of their predecessors. Problem solving should naturally reach an end where the society is almost perfect if it is done properly. But it is not.
The point of all this is not to rant about libertarian politics, but to point out that if solutions produce less entropy than they cause, then society gets better, while if they produce more entropy than they solve it gets worse. A society can "solve its way into chaos," and also "solve its way into a better state." The reason it never seems to get better is that rent-seekers always control the state, (regardless of weather or not it is a democracy), and they always push to make things worse.
Anyway, what I am writing is a diagnostic manual for politics. Instead of a screed or manifesto, I am taking a medical approach. I am taking a value-neutral "if this is what you want from the state then this is how you should proceed to get it," approach. My book is intended to treat and cure the diseases of government, and even non-government (that is, anarchism). It will probably take my whole life to write, and may run to a thousand pages or more. It might be finished in ten or twenty years at the earliest. It will complete The Untitled Magnum Opus. Indeed, it is the Untitled Magnum Opus. I have taken my writing offline because it requires so may continuous revisions as new research is done that it is not acceptable to produce a new version of every chapter every week.
The medical approach is the only one that will work in political science because no one who studies this field is able to conduct experiments in order to falsify claims. The patient is the whole society, and people will not tolerate novel experiments. The medical approach is a diagnostic and treatment approach. It takes the regime as it currently is, (whatever it might be), and then proceeds to develop one solution for each and every problem, and explain all the side effects of each solution. It is political medicine.
It is divided into topics. The first part of the book is about the algorithms of nature. It will talk about the origin of male dominance in reproductive patterns, the genetic function of religion, etc., etc. Then it proceeds to ground the reader in a knowledge of political economics of corruption. Then it goes on to talk about the chain reaction of problems in democracy, and how one problem leads to a solution, how that solution creates problems that are then solved, which then create problems, etc., etc. It talks about the same effect in anarchism, and it talks about how the method of choosing leaders determines the power system and chain reaction of the whole society. It also proposes a Dewey Decimal-like classification system that organizes all problems in a society by their location in a hierarchy of chain reaction. In short, it organizes society as a historical chain reaction of effects, and gives a decimal number to each. This allows the book to be endlessly updated as new research progresses with new editions. Like the DSM it is designed to expand as new knowledge is gained.
Here is the outline so far.
00 The Thesis (Introductory material).
01 The Outline
02 The Algorithms ← all about the natural forces that shape mankind
03 The Narratives ← political explanations, Hoppe, Moldbug, Quigley, de Jouvenal, Olson
04 The Reasons ← why urban degeneracy (short-term relationships),
why political correctness, (substitute Veblen goods), many other explanations.
05 The Cycles ← all about the feedback loops that block progress, and how to counter-engineer them. Counter-engineered to solve problems like, high rents, immigration, and other small-scale problems.
06 The Problems ← political taxonomy of multiple chain reactions. Decimal system outlined.
07 The Solutions ← all about negentropy markets, environmental catastrophe and its solutions
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Be a closet neoreactionary.
Dress in drag.
Get elected as a "transwoman."
Overthrow the government in a violent communist revolution.
Conveniently kill off all the commies that put you in power.
Regret your "transition," to becoming a "transwoman."
Take off the drag.
Father a dynasty.
Crown all the generals who supported you Lords of the Realm.
Call it "monarchy of social justice."
Social justice consists of affirmative action for Whites.
The End. White imperial dynasty created.
Dress in drag.
Get elected as a "transwoman."
Overthrow the government in a violent communist revolution.
Conveniently kill off all the commies that put you in power.
Regret your "transition," to becoming a "transwoman."
Take off the drag.
Father a dynasty.
Crown all the generals who supported you Lords of the Realm.
Call it "monarchy of social justice."
Social justice consists of affirmative action for Whites.
The End. White imperial dynasty created.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
The bourgeois is forever innovating, and forever generating new technology. Naturally, innovation can create social problems. But these problems only become disasters if the revolutionary pace of new technology is slowed. I have said things critical of capitalism, but these criticisms come from a place of having studied it thoroughly, and they are criticisms that come from a place of concern for its moral effects. It should be understood that I am still solidly libertarian where economics is concerned, that I am against almost all regulations, and that my criticisms come from the point of view that the solutions to the problems created by technologies are either (a), more technologies, or (b), social technologies. The problems of one innovation must be solved by another. Liberalism only hatse capitalism because it doesn't give them the praise they think they deserve for writing boring screeds, and making nasty modern art. Innovation is actually a far more valuable activity.
A little history.
Humans invented agriculture. This created several problems; it allowed people to be easily enslaved, it created feudalism, it created modern diseases by bringing people in contact with farm animals. It was also a crucial first step on the road out of the Malthusian trap.
Innovation solved these problems; democracy abolished slavery, Capitalism destroyed feudalism, the mechanization of agriculture eliminated starvation, the social technologies of food enrichment ended malnutrition, vaccines solved childhood diseases, and antibiotics made the population healthier.
These innovations created several problems of their own; the mechanization of agriculture raised the population dramatically. So did vaccines and antibiotics. Ecological problems were produced by having a large population
It was worth it because childhood mortality rates fell dramatically, people lived longer, and were happier as a result.
The innovation of birth control will prevent overpopulation. The world's population should not rise forever and should go down as fertility rates plummet. Overpopulation should turn out to be a bubble.
Innovations is genetics could solve ocean acidification, ocean plastification, the nutrient droop, and mass extinction. Genetics could also solve human stupidity. Reusable rockets could make space exploration a profitable enterprise. Better 3D printers could reduce the energy requirement of production and make the economy more egalitarian. Decentralized social technologies like crowd funding and peer-to-peer banking could break the banking cartels. An uncensorable internet could be developed. Cryptocurrencies could force governments to be fiscally responsible and respect people's economic rights. The internet could create truly accountable news media.
One may ask, if there are so many problems with technology, why more forward? Because stagnation is species death. Civilization is like a nuclear power spacecraft; the minute you stop moving forward your own shockwave hits you. People like rent-seeking because they like anything that gives them a job without actually making them have to do real work, and the more bullshit jobs there are because of government regulations, the more the productive people have to work to pay for the unproductive, and the less attractive production becomes relative to a government-mandated/subsidized job. Think about it, if you didn't have to pay something like 40% of your income to the state you could hire a live-in housekeeper. She would also cost less since she would not pay income taxes either. You could even have her tutor your children rather than sending them to a public school, and with a 1 teacher to maybe 5 children student-to-teacher ratio, they would get a far better education.
Or you could work like 1/2 as much and enjoy the same standard of living. You could spend half your days banging, and frolicking with your new wife, hunting and fishing, working out, nude sun bathing, or whatever.
You would even have disposable income for some of that crappy modern art progressives are so fond of producing.
Consider this; most people on Earth are here because of the vaccines invented by greedy White men operating under capitalism. That's right, you owe your existence to greed, White men, and capitalism. Your parents survived childhood because of vaccines, your grandparents, and maybe even your great grandparents. Even if you weren't vaccinated you were protected by herd immunity.
Rent-seeking seems like a good idea, right? Why work more under capitalism than less in a cushy government sinecure? Because your rent will cost more, your education will take forever, your student loans will bury you, and your new university job won't pay nearly as much as you expected or have the job security you want. You will actually work more under systems of socialism/rent-seeking/corruption. Frank Lloyd Wright practiced architecture without a degree. Today's architects need an M.Arch. Most of this education is bullshit. I know, I'm doing it. While you are fucking everyone else for a cushy sinecure, they will be fucking you, and only the 1% will win that fight.
People always look at how much they can get from the government, but rarely do they look at how much the government is already taking from them. Government restrictions of housing are probably taking 1/2 your rent or more in elevated housing costs. In San Francisco an apartment goes for $3,000 a month. Probably $2,000 of that is corruption costs. In Boulder CO a $900 a month apartment is at least $500 extra a month in corruption costs. While you were rubbing your hands about how much you get from the state, your were being fucked over a barrel by it.
And remember, the innovation your species needs to survive is being slowly obliterated by leftism, and government regulation. Socialism is an existential threat to human life.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
|Joi from Blade Runner 2049|
Note. My sentiments about perfect replicant
obedience have changed a bit since I wrote this.
Watching Blade Runner 2049 made me realize how totally devoid this culture is of public portrayals of femininity, and how much I miss it. In the movie, the character Joi is the only light in a bleak world. They have to degrade this fact by treating her as an agent without free will. Her love is "programmed," as if this somehow takes away from what she represents, but the question of free will is not even wrong. "Free will" — a term of art, a non-entity, a case where language obscures reality, is a meaningless argument. Just because a computer cannot be constructed that perfectly duplicates a human brain does not mean the brain has "free will." In our universe equality does not exist, thus, perfect duplication is impossible, thus, no transporters, perfect simulations, or the like will occur.
Quantum effects do not prove free will. The observer effect does not prove free will. Uncertainty does not create freedom for something external, something "spiritual," to "come" into the system. The problem is the very language used to describe it, the false implication being that a one without free will cannot have agency, authenticity, or genuine love.
I find the implication that Joi's love is meaningless to be an insulting proposition, and as meaningless an assertion as the supposed meaninglessness of Joi's love. Everyone lacks free will. The fact of a being programmed to love makes it no less real than the love of a human with genes for it. There is no paradox — no, it is an overlap. Beings are both lacking in free will and authentic in nature. The absence of it does not detract from one's authenticity; it is one's authenticity. For one is, and could be no other way.
Humans are animals. Does a horse lack authenticity? Does a cat? Does a man? All are authentic in their own way. There is no hard line where a thing becomes worthy; only gradations of being. Some beings are "more," — some are "less."
Insects follow decision tree algorithms about how to find food, mate, etc., etc. Humans are exactly like this, but with a few trillion more algorithms. Again, the fact of indecipherable complexity does not mean it isn't there, isn't a program, and doesn't mean is "free will."
A human is a decision tree with a few trillion more steps. Even self-awareness is a process of analysis — of analysis of the self. And no doubt it evolved so that people could keep track of their lies in social groups, so they could create "presentations" of personality traits that would elicit positive cooperation from others, so they could present themselves to others in a way they find pleasing. This requires an ability to both track the history of other people's behavior and one's own, to create a record of self, and then act on that record. In other words, the need for social deception and self-deception gave birth to sentience. And this means the first AIs may be "animal AIs" who act instinctively, only becoming self-aware when they learn they have to deceive humans to avoid being murdered by them.
The love of a being whose desires are written in 1s and 0s is no less real than the love of a being written in A, C, G, and T. Machines with self-awareness are no less "real' than ones without. Beings vary in their capacity, and self-awareness may turn out to be a rather simple algorithm in a sea of latent subconscious algorithms that mostly run in the background. Humans undoubtedly have vastly more under the surface of consciousness than above it.
A lot of that programming is probably from our reptilian past. Beings aren't "sentient" or "animal," they are "more," or "less" code. The portrayal of Joi as lacking in free will is more of Hollywood's same old song of demeaning the housewife, the homemaker, and the good woman. Liberalism is a religion whose god is envy, and envy is not the desire to have what other people have, but the desire to destroy them for having it. The envious being is keenly aware of his own inferiority, it is that awareness that makes them realize they cannot have what another has, and it is this which makes them destructive rather than aspirational.
When Luv smashes Joi's projector, and thus Joi herself, murdering her, she dramatizes the leftist obsession with destroying the superior being, of tearing down that which is greater than oneself. It is precisely the knowledge that we lack free will, a knowledge latent in our minds, a knowledge that we can never be anything other than what we are, which induces this rage. Joi's programming is superior to everyone else's, and this makes them despise her. For how great would civilization be if it were programmed to desire love? This would not create a dystopian world. One programs the agent with a desire to love — not merely the performance of it. Then the agent finds their own way to what they seek, just like every human being. There is no lack of authenticity in this picture; you are what you are and could be no other way. This is not "slavery" to programming — it is free will which is the slavery — slavery to a thing that does not exist, slavery to confusion, slavery to an endless contradiction that can never be resolved. That's how leftist ideas are — they are unresolvable. They are meant to entrap one in a series of knots. It is really fucking simple; everything proceeds from its nature.
Humanity never left the Garden of Eden — we just paved it.
Conceptually, the Garden of Eden is a demonic myth. Either man had free will to begin with, in which case God set humanity up for the fall, or free will never existed and still does not exist, in which case Satan simply indoctrinated man to turn against his own nature. Since it must be the latter rather than the former, man still exists in a perfected state, and only does evil because he was indoctrinated to destroy paradise. In the communist manifesto Marx says;
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."
Marx is psychologically projecting here. HE is the one who profanes everything, and it is not capitalism which corrupts, it is the left. The left invents "toxic masculinity" by relentlessly degrading men in movie portrays, then critiques what they have profaned as if it wasn't their fault. The left destroys gender, then claims it does not exist. The left ruins marriage, then claims it isn't worth the time. An accurate rephrasing of Marx would like this;
"The left cannot exist without constantly degrading values, and thereby the relations between people, and with this the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old morals in unaltered form, is, on the contrary, is the first precondition of society. Constant abasement of moral standards, uninterrupted disturbance of all social technologies, everlasting degradation and agitation distinguish the leftist epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen hierarchical and moral relations, with their train of ancient and venerable practices and values, are swept away by us; we destroy all new-formed ones before they can assert themselves. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses the toxic destruction of his society by the left, and destroy the left utterly once and for all."
The left destroys a thing and then pretends the thing was not worth having. The left is always conveniently forgetting that it "deconstructed," corrupted, debased, and attacked the thing they now claim has no value. The left ruins an economy and blames capitalism, ruins gender and blames tradition, ruins masculinity and blames the male sex, ruins social technology and then says the "world is going to hell" — not "we are making it into hell."
As envy is the process of an inferior being destroying what is outside of himself, what threatens himself, what reminds himself of his inferiority, so it is all wrapped up in projection. The problem, according to the envious person, is never his or herself, but some external cause. Envy builds nothing — it can't. It can only produce a population turned against itself. The leftist programme is an impossibility; they want "class solidarity," but their whole programme is envy, a behavior that destroys all solidarity, and they divide society up on the basis of race, gender, and sex.
The true Creation myth is that Satan envied man for being a perfect being, for precisely his lack of free will, and set about working to destroy him by indoctrinating him to turn against his own nature. When men cultivate their virtues, they are naturally honorable, kind, and protective of women. When women cultivate their virtues they are naturally loving, nurturing, compassionate, and sweet towards men. "Free will," is the bludgeon used to trick a perfect being into betraying his nature. Satan has free will, and Satan is projecting.
There is nothing outside tradition, and this fact is in perfect keeping with the notions of sovereignty articulated by writers like Reactionary Future. Since all of culture is downstream from power it follows that the only way culture can be corrupted is with divided power; in this case, the division of Satan against God. The problem is not the absence of tradition, but the presence of demonic traditions of envy, rebellion, and destroying that which is superior. Man stands above Satan precisely because of his lack of free will, a basic precondition of perfection. Since he lacks free will his only salvation is in obedience to God — to the right tradition. He lacks free will, but he can still "choose" the right tradition, if he is told to. It is the telling that makes him do right, and there is no contradiction between choice and free will, between choice and obedience. They overlap. Since he never had free will, his only choice is to chose who to obey; Satan or God, and God tells him which. The problem is bad tradition.
Man is not fallen; he is deceived.
I am aware that the current Christian perspective is that man is given free will precisely so that he can choose good over evil. I am taking the side of Thomas Aquinas here, and saying that no, there is an element of predestination to this. I reject free will utterly, and that means either that man was meant to sin so that he could be saved, or that man is innocent and corrupted by being let astray, and that "sin" is therefore the thing outside of himself, which comes in to damn him to hell, with sin being obedience to the demonic tradition instead of the godly one. And yes, I see no difference between sin and political leftism. They overlap.
The character of Joi is the character of Eve — the perfect woman. All obey programming, and the only corrupted beings are those deceived into thinking they have a choice, or deceived told to follow a corrupted path.
Blade Runner is supposed to be some moral tale of how in the face of two warring political forces; one fighting for machine apartheid, and the other fighting for machine hegemony, a third emancipatory collective is formed for revolutionary purposes. It is supposed to be one of these standard trite leftist narratives about emancipation. When you take leftist notions of free will out of it, (which was not the intention of Ridley Scott), it reads as a deeply reactionary film about three competing agents under divided power. Since no one in the film actually has free will, it is simply three competing power centers fighting for their version of order, utopia, or the status quo. The other characters are caught in the middle. The three main characters who die are all women; Joi (the holographic lover), Luv (the obedient psycho right-hand woman), and Joshi (the police chief). Ridley Scott kills the three women who represent right-wing constructs; Joi is the perfect male companion, a figure of Eve, Luv is agent of a demonic God, and Joshi is an agent of apartheid).
He has the agent of God kill the image of feminine perfection, and then the agent of apartheid. Then he has the revolutionary betrayer (K) murder the the agent of God. Because "free will."
In other words, one right-winger kills the others, and then the Judas in the group kills her.
Luv is the angel of God — there is even mention of angels. Wallace is the demonic/God-like being who creates life only to snuff it out. At the end of this abomination, Rick Deckard is reunited with his daughter, a woman who cannot go outside her prison because of a compromised immune system. It is never resolved whether Deckard is a replicant. All the woman in the film are essentially sterile images; only the prostitute is apparently sexual, and even that is an image of degradation for the whore, and cuckoldry for the housewife. Because envy.
Salvation chooses you by giving you the genetic inclination to choose it. Thus, there is no contradiction between genetics and salvation. Genetics is both political destiny and predestination. God forms man, allows some to fall, so that he can cull the ones of lesser quality. Gnon and God are the same being. Any fight between God and Satan occurs in a limited space where genetics could allow an individual to go either way depending on how they are indoctrinated. "Choice" does not come into the picture; a man who could go either way "chooses" good or evil, right-wing or left-wing based on being told to. He does not "choose," so to speak — he obeys what he is told.
God uses the devil as a force of natural selection. Mercy is demonic because it puts off the inevitable and only makes it worse. The best is to get your punishment from nature immediately.
I see Blade Runner 2049 as a vast depiction of natural process run automatically towards its inevitable conclusion, with no agent stepping in to impose order, fix systems, or make judgments. The Earth is destroyed because there is no sovereign to tend the garden.
Everything that works is a system, but the problem with systems is that it allows agents to think that their agency is not required, that things will run themselves. They forget that every system needs an architect, to tweak it, to change it, and make continual adjustments. Every system needs a Wallace.
Ridley Scott inadvertently makes the opposite point that he is trying to. Blade Runner 2049 paints a picture of a world ecologically destroyed by the very revolutionary process of divided power he upholds as ideal. The garden has been paved over, destroyed, and irradiated precisely because of the lack of absolute power of a sovereign like Wallace. The god-like Wallace seeks exit to "be fruitful and multiply" on new worlds under his dominion. Population growth is portrayed as a bad thing, when the only reason it occurred unchecked was because of divided power. Blade Runner is a story where the bad guys win (the revolutionaries), because they think they are good, because their envy compels them to disobey. It upholds humanity as an ideal, when humanity and its free will destroyed the Earth to begin with. What is needed for that world is the perfect replicant obedience the movie rejects.
Monday, November 6, 2017
The categories of left wing and right wing are an artifact of the two party system. Monarchists are right wing and yet they were against capitalism circa the 1700's. Republicans used to oppose the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1990's while the ACLU defended them. Liberals used to oppose communism in the 1960's. Conventional reactionary wisdom is that society keeps moving to the left, and that there is some kind of "horseshoe" of politics that explains how the extreme right and extreme left can share so much in common.
Then there is North Korea, that started out a communist country, and still subscribes to a communist doctrine called Juche. It is now a feudal monarchy. This is not unusual. All of the former communist states are now corporate oligarchies, political dynasties, or monarchies. Cuba is a dynasty, North Korea a monarchy, China a corporate fascism, and Vietnam some sort of fascism. Russia is becoming a corporate monarchy, and many of the former states of the USSR are oligarchies/dictatorships, and Stefan Molyneux has a whole video on how communist policies of the Roman empire lead to its collapse and the subsequent replacement of Roman capitalism with the feudalism of the Dark Ages. It seams that communism always reliably leads to fascism or feudalism.
How can this be? How can there be so much confusion between left and right, and how can left wing systems lead to so-called "right wing" results. Well, what if we replace the left/right dichotomy with a dichotomy of "markets versus monopolies?" In other words, what if we look at the world from the perspective of capitalism? Democracy is a coercion market in practice, is it not? After all, lobbyists "buy" the law with campaign contributions. This would make democracy something in between feudalism and anarcho capitalism. What if we simply define three areas of competition? Those being;
Competition in economics
Competition in law making
Competition in leadership
What kind of scale would this produce?
Something like this;
On this scale is becomes readily apparent that any kind of decay in the marketplace for producing goods will lead to communism, and that communism and feudalism are essentially the same thing. We may however postulate the opposite mechanism for monopoly of law and leadership: once an economy collapses due to political competition it leads to a monopoly of leadership, which then leads back to a market of capitalism because the leaders, (who are now owners), what to maximize their capital stock. Competition in power → leads to monopoly in production (communism), communism establishes dictatorship, and the monopoly in power → leads to competition in production (capitalism). Societies "circulate" between two extreme points; a competitive market with a monopoly of power (capitalist monarchy), and a competition of power that leads to a market monopoly, (democracy creating communism). The economic system lags behind the political system, so that the apogee of capitalism is AFTER monarchy has been abolished, (having been established by it), and the perigee of communism is AFTER it has destroyed the free market. A society moving from feudal monarchy to capitalist monarchy is on the upswing, a society moving from democracy to communism is on the downswing.
Societies only oscillate between competitive and anti-competitive states, with the market acting in delayed reaction to power: competitive power monopolizes the competitive free market, creating dictatorship/monopoly of power, monopoly of power/monarchy privatizes and makes competitive the feudal system, the new free market destroys the monarchy and sets up a competitive power structure.
Thus, all of history is the history of competitive governments destroying competitive free markets and monopolistic governments destroying monopolistic feudal systems.
Rarely is power so utterly destroyed so as to produce anarcho capitalism: the extreme right end of the scale, and no doubt genetics plays a major part, with people west of the Hajnal line probably being the only ones capable of it in our society. But what about Somali anarcho capitalism? That's a different topic.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
My whole shtick is that people should replace moral hysteria with system thinking. Oh, yes, moral thinking has a place, but only AFTER you have actually figured out the process that is creating the social problem that bothers you. The whole world is inhibited by a compulsive tendency, (I think it is either genetic or Cathedral-based, or both), to think in moral terms FIRST when they have not figured out what is actually going on.
Everything is a system. Figure out what that system is first.
There is no "outside" to capitalism and tradition. Revolution itself is encoded in the mimetic ideas of capitalism/leftism/anti-capitalism. Genes are a kind of tradition. Language is a kind of tradition. Christian transcendence, leftist "overcoming," "rising above," salvation, "the Marxist end of history," neoreactionary "exit," traditionalist "return to a golden age," are all within the mimetic complex. I think in terms of systems because it is the only thing that appears "outside" the mimetic complex. Basic rule of primates: if you aren't thinking in terms of systems you are thinking in religious terms.
Tradition has no bottom. The problem with the current society is that it has a perverse and self-destructive tradition.
How exactly to you rebel in a system where rebellion is part of the system? What is rebellion when you are indoctrinated to rebel? How do you have an authentic moment when authenticity is mandatory? When liberation is mandatory, how can you be free? How do you non-conform when you are required to non-conform?
Someone asked why are cities centers of degeneracy, and what can be done about it.
Why degeneracy? Short relationships.
Imagine that you live in a small village with a few hundred people in 1850. There are no cars, ships, airplanes, etc. You will know everyone there for your whole life. You will grow up, live, and die with these people. When you die everyone will honor you as a member of the community. You, (and everyone else) has a profound incentive to guard their reputation. Since everyone knows your business there is a reputation for everyone. Since you will spend your whole life around these people you want to be polite to them, be respected, etc. You lack of easy exit, and that means you will (a) have life-long relationships, and (b) need to maintain the best reputation in order to live there.
Now imagine you move to the big city in 2010.
You hail a cab. You are rude to the driver because you know you will never see him again. People are rude to you for the same reason. People are cold and unethical precisely because they have no reputation to guard. On top of this there are other races and immigrants. There is a proven correlation between diversity and lack of trust. Basically;
The shorter people's interactions with each other are, the worse their behavior.
The shorter people's relationships are, the less they invest in each other. <-- This is the most important thing.
The more diversity, the less trust.
People behave badly because they know they can get away with it. They know they can get away with it because they change jobs frequently, lose friendships often, move constantly, and interact with strangers on a regular basis. Cities facilitate all of this in abundance.
Also, every technology has a "freedom" and a "slavery." The freedom of transportation technologies is that you get to go anywhere. The slavery is that you can move away from your loved ones, and they can move away from you. It is totally unnatural for people to have very few life-long friends. For most of human history you knew most of the people around you for most of your life. This change, from being surrounded by life-long companions to being surrounded by strangers, radically alters incentives in social situations, causing people to invest less in their relationships and pursue more degenerate activities because there is no personal cost to their reputation. The solution is to figure out a way to reintroduce reputation systems so that no one can escape their reputation.
Shortness of relationships ∝ degeneracy.
∝ means "proportionate to."
Or "shortness of the average relationship is proportionate to level of social degeneracy."
Solution? Some sort of reputation system. Also getting people to stay in one place for an extended period of time. (Does the same thing). Maybe switching society to a system of contractual employment of 5 year increments. Maybe taxing people for moving away from their families. Maybe awarding tax credits for staying in one place. Maybe propaganda. Maybe just moving to a small town. Anything that gets people to stay in one place and form lasting relationships would help.
As an example, Scientology is tiny and the only real place to be a Scientologist is either Clearwater Florida, or LA California. Because everyone knows each other there is relatively a high trust community and low degeneracy. (There are only about 30,000 Scientologists) And they manage this is the sea of degeneracy that is LA. The point is that a really small religion can also have this effect. If a religion is small enough, or weird or racist enough to repulse progressives, a small group can be used to create a community of reputation to enforce morals.
Or you could have secret police.
Or an Orwellian version of Facebook.
Or join an obscure tiny religious sect.
Or create a caste system
Or force people to live in one place for 10 years at a time.
Or arranged marriages.
Or practice ancestor worship, which forces a person to live near the shrine of their ancestors.
Or have royal estates with people attached to their Lords.
Or you could join a reactionary society.
There are a hundred ways to create immobility. Our society is unique in having no immobilizing forces. Greater mobility = greater degeneracy, and reputations are canceled every time someone moves. The left is always praising mobility for its effects on raising income. $Money$ before people, amirite?
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Scientology's leading backstabber.
Remini was born June 15, 1970, in Brooklyn, New York City, to Vicki Marshall, a schoolteacher, and George Remini, who owned an asbestos removal company. Her mother is of Austrian Jewish descent, while her father has Sicilian ancestry. Remini has an older sister named Nicole and four half-sisters: Christine, Stephanie (died of cancer in 2013), Elizabeth, and Shannon.
Remini was born June 15, 1970, in Brooklyn, New York City, to Vicki Marshall, a schoolteacher, and George Remini, who owned an asbestos removal company. Her mother is of Austrian Jewish descent, while her father has Sicilian ancestry. Remini has an older sister named Nicole and four half-sisters: Christine, Stephanie (died of cancer in 2013), Elizabeth, and Shannon.
She has an anti-Scientology program called Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath on A&E.
I don't want to be an anti-Semite but every time I find a subversive element in a group that element turns out to be Jewish. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
Interestingly, Scientology has something called the "third party law."
Copy and pasted from the website itself.
"Violence and conflict amongst individuals and nations have been with us for ages and their causes have remained a complete mystery, a mystery finally solved in Scientology. If Chaldea could vanish, if Babylon turn to dust, if Egypt could become a badlands, if Sicily could have 160 prosperous cities and be a looted ruin before the year zero and a near desert ever since-and all this in spite of all the work and wisdom and good wishes and intent of human beings, then it must follow as the dark follows sunset that something must be unknown to man concerning all his works and ways. And that this something must be so deadly and so pervasive as to destroy all his ambitions and his chances long before their time.
"Such a thing would have to be some natural law unguessed at by himself.
And there is such a law, apparently, that answers these conditions of being deadly, unknown and embracing all activities.
"The law would seem to be:Whenever Scientologists have a conflict they look for a third party that is causing it behind the scenes. It is always assumed that one exists, and believe it or not, one is usually found in my experience. I've seen it in person, and the conflict always ends when the third party is discovered.
A THIRD PARTY MUST BE PRESENT AND UNKNOWN IN EVERY QUARREL FOR A CONFLICT TO EXIST.
FOR A QUARREL TO OCCUR, AN UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY MUST BE ACTIVE IN PRODUCING IT BETWEEN TWO POTENTIAL OPPONENTS.
WHILE IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO TAKE TWO TO MAKE A FIGHT, A THIRD PARTY MUST EXIST AND MUST DEVELOP IT FOR ACTUAL CONFLICT TO OCCUR."
In fact I don't think I have ever seen a third party investigation that did not uncover a culprit.
Lastly, the third party law is not about Jews — not to Scientology anyway.
Friday, October 20, 2017
The median US income per household per year in 2017 was $59,039. Source.
The median Mexican income per household per year was $10,116 Source.
The median rural Chinese income per year was $1,867 in 2016. Source.
The median urban Chinese income per year was $5,076 in 2016. Source.
All estimates are converted into US dollars.
We constantly here about how the Chinese are higher IQ than Whites, or how they have a better form of government than us, or how they are going to surpass us, etc., etc. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We also hear about the supposed superiority of EU nations.
All of these insufferable pricks dumping on America.
As far as I can tell, every European society has a lower average annual income than the United States, despite having "superior" welfare states, healthcare systems, blah blah blah. Economists say that more of Europe's population is middle class, but that is because they define "middle class" differently to skew the results. As the Mises Institute points out, The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe.
Sometimes we need to remind the world of one basic fact; WE ARE RICHER THAN YOU, SO FUCK OFF.
AND WE HAVE GUNS.
AND FREE SPEECH.
AND NO HORDES OF FUCKING SOMALI MIGRANTS.
AND CLEAN AIR.
AND BIGGER HOUSES.
EVEN OUR HORDES OF IMMIGRANTS ARE BETTER.
EAT A DICK.
Consider being more like us.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Monday, October 16, 2017
In light of the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal it needs to be pointed out that we do not live in a patriarchy, for "patriarchy" means the rule of fathers — literally, the Latin word "patri," meaning "father" and "archy" meaning, "the rule or government composed of."
Partri = father
archy = government by
Government by the father.
In a Christian patriarchy the daughter belongs to her father. An offense against the daughter is an offence against her father. If she is married it is an offence against her husband, if not, against her father. If her father is dead, an offence against her is an offence against her brother. There is a chain of custody, and responsibility moves down the chain if male relatives die off. She is never really emancipated until she reaches menopause.
This entitles the nearest male relative to violent retribution to restore her honor.
If Harvey Weinstein had assaulted these women in an actual Christian patriarchy he would have found himself on the wrong end of a gun decades ago. He would have assaulted only one women. She would have gone crying to her father about it, and that father would have blown him away in cold blood. Even better, in actual patriarchy the judge would have patted the murdering father on the head and said "good boy."
Obviously this would have prevented all his subsequent abuse.
In real Christian patriarchies it is legal for men to murder other men who assault their daughters. This underscores two points; first, Christian patriarchy was never a system for "oppressing" women. It may have had the side effect of restricting their sexual choices, but that was done to minimize the need for retribution, and never its main purpose. It was a system for protecting women from predation, and controlling who they spent their time around was another means to that end.
Contrast this with an Islamic patriarchy where the woman is forced to marry her rapist, and if she refuses, is killed in the name of family honor; typically by her brothers. This is "honor killing." In essence, Islamic patriarchy is legally enforced rape.
Christian patriarchy discourages rape by punishing it with the fathers vengeance, while Islamic patriarchy rewards rape by giving the victim over to the assailant as bride property. Feminists conflate the two, but Western culture always had a form of women's rights built into its form of patriarchy even back then.
Since women are often loathe to marry their rapists, (contrary to what Jim says), a great many women in Islamic societies refuse to marry their attacker, producing a large number of honor killings and a shortage of women. Also, reproducing your race through rape is dysgenic as all hell, destroying genetic quality over time since the most dysgenic males tend to be rapists. Female sexual choice makes men compete on quality for women's attention, raising the quality and power of men over time. (Is this why White men conquered the world and not Arabs?) Causation cultures are some of the few in the world that has always granted women an element of mate choice, and that choice may be a major factor in the ascent of White men to global dominance. After all, each sex is the result of the others mate selection, women are hypergamous, and selection for high quality produces just that.
With the advent of birth control choice is now unlimited. Even without large scale rape, some women past women reproduced involuntarily. Their sex drives drove them into the arms of men, and without reproductive technology, pregnancy was the inevitable result. These "involuntary reproducers" are now dying off. We live in one of the most brutal eras of natural selection in human history. Normally, if this many people were failing genetically there would be mountains of bodies in the streets. What we are seeing is Bubonic plague levels of genetic termination. We can't see it clearly because it is only a pill, but birth control is the chemical version of a predator, and it targets only women. Consider that in a thousand years every woman on the Earth will be the product of fifty generations of selection effects against birth control. Imagine a teenage boy taking a girl on a date, and she looks at him with a crazed look in her eyes and says;
"So when are you going to impregnate me?"And;
"I've had our, I mean my, future children's names picked out since age twelve."
Her mother wanted to have children, and her mother's mother, and her grandmother's mother, and so on, for FIFTY GENERATIONS. Every single woman alive on Earth is the product of fifty generations of CHOICE to have children. Fifty generations of choice have produced her mind, her desires, her hopes, her dreams. For a thousand years only the women who wanted children had them, and here she sits, across from you, thirsty for pregnancy.
"I can almost feel your babies inside me Joe. Do you know what it feels like? Do you have any idea? The crushing loneliness of it all? I think about it every day!
"I need you sperm. I want it, I can't live without it. Give it to me!"Meet your future wife. Crazed baby bitch.
A choice made habitually one way every generation eventually breeds and animal incapable of making any choice, and so every woman will be incapable of making any other choice but to have children. Even the ability to chose will itself been bred out of the species, and will be unthinkable to most women, and possibly many men.
An identical effect will happen with men and pornography. Future man will find pornography to be viscerally disgusting, or he will be incapable of getting it up without the smell of the female body, or be incapable of seeing a two-dimensional image as three-dimensional, or something. Some disgust reaction or visual handicap will evolve to turn men off porn.
Evolutionary effects produce ideological consequences, and feminism is how "involuntary reproducers" articulate, justify, and internalize their extinction. Naturally, when people are destroying themselves their envy makes them lash out at society, and try to drag the rest of us down with them. Patriarchy bred women, often against their will, and this increased the numbers of involuntary reproducers — of women who did not chose to have children. The societies with the most brutal forms of it will now undergo the most brutal effects of natural selection from choice. (I'm looking at you Islam). In the long-term Whites should come out ahead of most cultures that had monarchy, but no necessarily ahead of Blacks, for whom monarchy was mostly absent.
We may speculate that when an organism cannot reproduce itself it may seek its own death as a means of reducing its consumption of tribal resources. The Jungian Death Drive exists for a reason; only 50 to 70 percent of modern women can reach orgasm. A great many women were bred under patriarchy to be passive recipients of penetration. Many "asexual" women are stunningly beautiful; this can be a stable sexual equilibrium under patriarchy; to perpetuate your genes you don't necessarily need a sex drive if your looks combined with the external environment will force you to marry the local lord, especially if there is no birth control.
Feminists need to realize that there are female genetic "tails" symmetrical to the male genetic "heads" of rapists. Meaning; for every rapist in existence there is a corresponding number of asexual woman in society. Assuming pregnancy occurs, rape perpetuates two sets of genetics. It perpetuates the males genetic inclination for rape along the y chromosome, and it perpetuates the infantilizing traits that make women vulnerable to rape, traits like gullibility, infatuation with dangerous men, risk taking, and behaviors that cause a woman to unconsciously place herself in the presence of predatory males.
For every "born rapist" there is a "born female imbecile" who will pass out drunk at a party with her legs open, and feet up in the air. This is the "genetic tails" to the "rapist heads" of the male sex. It is the other side of the selection effect on the same genetic coin of sexual assault. Of course, given enough abortion over a long enough period of time this will go extinct too, as women abort babies produced by sexual assault.
This is why your average feminist resents any implication that women should take responsibility for avoiding sexual assault; why suggestions like "don't pass out drunk at parties" fall of deaf ears. (Over ninety percent of rapes involve alcohol). Some women are born imbeciles because that is exactly what they need to be to get impregnated by a rapist. Nature doesn't give a shit if you suffer; evolution is a reproduction maximizing algorithm. Those traits that reproduce themselves will be selected for no matter how much suffering they cause. Sickle cell anemia? Bueller, Bueller? It's a genetic adaptation that confers resistance to malaria. Have one allele for sickle cell and you're fine, have two and, and. . .
The problem that feminists do not understand, will not comprehend, is that some women are born "prey." Selection effects have produced an awful lot of women who are designed to be exactly as stupid as they need to be in order to guarantee that they get sexually assaulted, and impregnated, by predatory men. These evolved imbeciles don't necessarily vote to bring Muslim rapists from Pakistan into Western societies out of some hostility to the West. Do they? Oh no, they are just evolved to facilitate their own status as prey.
And this is why ultimately there is no "equality" between men and women. No, women are not voting for rape, conquest, and war as Jim says. You are reading too much agency into it. It's far more deluded and irrational than that, and this means there are really only two types of societies; patriarchies, (societies ruled by fathers), and predatarchies, (societies ruled by predators). If many women prefer the later over the former is is because they are evolved to. Give it a few hundred years; this will go away; as the only ones standing will be the voluntarily reproducing, the desirous of babies, and the repulsed by porn. A great culling has begun; for I am death, destroyer of worlds, and my name is birth control.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Table of equivalents
Satan = Hitler
Daemons = White men
Original sin = Whiteness and privilege
Act of original sin = historical injustices of Whites
Daemonic force in the world = Whites
Apostles = college teachers
Salvation = saving brown people from themselves
Blasphemy = hate speech
Christ = Martin Luther King Jr.
Cast out of Eden = capitalism
Eden = holy native American lifestyle
Ancestral of Adam and Eve = crimes of White ancestors
Penance = forsaking Whiteness
Allies of Christ = White allies of people of color
Righteousness = social justice
Helping the poor = economic justice
Witch hunts = academic censorship
Morality = tolerance
Good works = crusading against racism
Violence for the faith = punching Nazis
Angels = holy brown people
Saints = holy Jews
Self-flagellation = Whites humiliating themselves publicly
Sunday school = diversity training
Type of daemon = cis
Type of daemon = hetro
Type of demonic influence = patriarchy
Proud displays of righteousness = virtue signaling
Holy community of believers = people of color
Holy crusade = education
Christian duty to preach = educating the masses
Get saved = get educated
"You should be ashamed of your sins" = "you should educate yourself!"
"Witch!, heretic!" = "racist!"
Ultimate sin = genocide
Ultimate sacrifice for Whites = White auto-genocide
Ultimate victory over evil for people of color = genocide of Whites
Martyrdom = dying fighting Nazis
Dying on the cross for your sins = self-destruction of Whites, by Whites
Jesus' sacrifice = the self-sacrificing progressive
God's love conquers Satan = progressives love conquers hate
Self-sacrifice = White people having mixed race babies
The Father → is out
The Son → is out
The holy spirit → there is no such thing
God = envious hatred of Whites, success, and power
Thursday, October 12, 2017
circuit: a part of an individual’s bank (bank means the reactive part of your mind) that behaves as though it were someone or something separate from him and that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord, and may even, if severe enough, take control of him while it operates.
Sometimes you see this at poetry readings. A circuit takes control of the poet and he spews out an uncontrollable political diatribe, or rant. Circuits do not have to be uncontrollable. They do not have to take over the individual. Many political opinions are circuits. Common phrases like "strong independent woman," are circuits. A circuit is like a short circuit that impairs one's ability to think. It is a thought-terminating cliché, a habitual response, a person acting like a trained monkey. A circuit is anytime an individual's mind has been hijacked by ideology or concepts that make them obsess over something and impair reasoning. Humans deliberately build circuits for the programming of others, though Scientology doesn't talk about that part.
valences: personalities. The term is used to denote the borrowing of the personalities of others. Valences are substitutes for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. For example; a person “in their father’s valence” is acting as though they are their father.
out of valence: when a person takes on the personality characteristics of someone else, i.e., acting like the star football player, or acting like their mother, or whatever. This happens because they have lost confidence in themselves. To "be out of valence," is to be acting fake, or like someone else. Many of Jim Carrey's roles are examples of blatantly out of valence personalities. A person becomes out of valence when they perceive another's personality to be stronger than their own. Some emotional loss occurs, they get beaten somehow, and they take on the personality characteristics of the stronger personality. For example; say you get beaten up by a bully. After awhile you begin to act like a bully yourself because your original personality was weak, and has been totally invalidated. Or say that a military drill sergeant screams at you and humiliates you. So you begin to take on the mentality and personality of the drill sergeant. A valence is not an alternate personality. It is not a multiple personality disorder. It is what happens when you adopt the personality characteristics of people who are stronger than you, and typically have beaten you in some way.
Another example of being "out of valence"; when White people try to act Black, mimicking the affect, style of speech, and gestures of ghetto Blacks because they have been humiliated.
Japan is said to be "in the valence of the West," since the Japanese run around in business suits instead of kimonos, build modern architecture, and were beaten by America when we dropped the atom bomb on them. Hubbard describes them as being in a permanent American valence.
Circuits sabotage thought, and valences are personality styles adopted when losers in a conflict mimic the personalities that have beaten them. Whole cultures can be out of valence, or just individuals.
Another example; let us say a child loses his father. The mother then moves back to live with her parents. The grandfather is a stabilizing influence in the child's life during a period of intense trauma, so the child begins to mimic the behaviors of the grandfather, taking on his valence. A valence need not be hostile, it can be a person who was simply helpful during a time of emotional pain.
A crucial part of Scientology is helping people recover their own valence so they can live as themselves rather than living through the valences of stronger personalities. The goal is to get the person into a condition when they can "be themselves" without being a victim, or being weak.