Go to the Contents.
The Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis
Natural laws are
denoted with an *
We live in a golden age of enlightenment. The beings inhabiting this space have no respect for it, instead preferring to remake the degraded conditions of their prior circumstance. One million years of tribal communism was one million years of economic depression, and half the population, (the left) longs for a return to it. Half the population doesn't get it. Our glorious system, capitalism, has delivered us from ourselves, is resented by millions, and is better that the human primate deserves.
In the eternal dark age of human evolution the human primate raised himself above basic subsistence. Only for several thousand has he been feudal, and only for mere hundreds has he had capitalism. Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis, or (ELH) is simply the hypothesis that genetics has not kept pace with technological change. Simply put, the hypothesis is that humans are a biological system running a seven thousand year old software program in the twenty-first century, and failing to adapt. It is humans that are the problem—not the system.
Our genes are outdated for our new environment and all modern social problems emerge as a consequence of this continual maladaptation caused by legacy. The gap caused by this situation we will call the rift between human nature and the modern world. This feels upside down to you because you are human, you are running the legacy code, and so you see the world from inside out instead of outside in. When you resent it you place up in the position of down, wrong in the position of right. It is the system that is superior to you, not you which are superior to it.
Capitalism is not the problem, genetics is.
If a culture persists long enough it will modify the genes of the people inhabiting it. The million year economic depression that was tribal communism has genetically programmed us to favor those conditions.
Put another way; humans evolved for one environment and live in another. This results in chronic misery and hatred of the political order. Some rebel against the inhuman nature of capitalism. Others dislike immigration and mass migration. Some resent massive inequalities. Still others refuse to have children. All of these manifestations are the result of techno-material conditions outstripping our humanity. We are simply not made for the modern world, and either it, or us, needs to be remade to bridge the rift. Here are some examples of this chronic maladaptation.
- Social media causes social isolation, making relationships more superficial in nature.
- Modern transportation destroys family connections, as people move away for work.
- Corporate ownership of the means of production alienates men from each other by separating man from his own output, and by separating all men from community with each other.
- Apartment living causes social separation and isolation.
- Pornography sabotages the natural reproductive instinct.
- Overwork and the education of women destroys population replacement.
- Pollution toxifies the Earth, leading to rampant harmful genetic mutations.
- Aviation spreads epidemics around the world.
Humans are bad at economics and math. We suffer from countless cognitive biases. Humans instinctively use logical fallacies when thinking. Some of the most common are the ad hominem, tu quoque, begging the question, moralistic fallacy, and slippery slope. They contaminate everything and make honest political discussion with people who have not been trained in recognizing logical fallacies next to impossible. Get this, a person must actually be trained out of their biases before they can think. In their natural state their mind is configured to prevent new ideas from getting in.
Piled on top all this is a basic set of impulses that can be divided into the two categories of psychological and physical. There are more possible categories than those listed here, but from what this author can tell the impulses listed below are sufficient to describe the cause of most political problems in modern society, after all, all political and social problems are postulated to be the consequence of legacy code.*
Genetic Compulsions of Legacy Code
The Psychological Impulses
- The equality obsession (fairness neurosis).
- The xenophobic impulse (compulsive hatred of outsiders, "us versus them" thinking).
- The argumentative impulse (irrational Dunbar thinking).
- The collective delusion capacity (capacity for collective belief in non-existent things).
- The violent craving for agreement (that attacks all who refuse to agree, sometimes violently)
- The spiritual compulsion
Physical Impulses (listed in order of most to least important for survival)
- Breath (air).
- Appetite (food).
- Libido (sex).
- Loneliness, (and the need for touch).
We will disregard all the physical impulses. Capitalistic technology has done a marvelous job of satisfying basic urges and needs. It is the psychological impulses that have political consequences and can kill millions if not dealt with. The equality obsession gave us communism, and the xenophobic impulse Nazism.
All impulses must be contained, harnessed, directed, suppressed through education, or accommodated for a society to be successful. This is a basic law of governance. *
Going back to our list of psychological impulses, the first three require some explanation. The argumentative impulse, or irrational Dunbar thinking, is the name I have given to what Patri Friedman calls 'folk activism.' It is the tendency of people to think that their opinion's matter when they factually don't. Humans evolved in small groups and tend to believe they can argue their way into changing society. Every heated political debate in a bar is an example of the argumentative impulse. The world today is composed of billions of people and is simply too large to change with an argument. It operates according to forces of economics, a subject that the average human is terrible at understanding. In reality, no one is in control. The leaders you think govern things are themselves governed by the forces they seek to control. Human agency is remarkably lacking, with every puppet thinking he is a master. Whenever you think humans are in charge you are probably wrong. It is human nature to overestimate human control.*
It is all a set of blind idiot forces of nature that subsumes humans in a torrent of material forces pushing them around and controlling outcome and values. It determines the very values of the individual, making them think they are choosing—when in reality—it has chosen them. How much power these blind forces have we will explore later.
The xenophobic impulse is fairly self-explanatory. It should be understood that racism is a specific expression of xenophobia. It is true that racism is learned. It is not true that xenophobia is learned. That is innate. Everyone has a moral blind spot where outsiders are concerned. They will not even think to consider the rights of someone they feel is beyond comprehension. People despise anyone they do not want to understand, and make a compulsive habit out of willfully misunderstanding others they do not like. They want an excuse to kill you, especially if their beliefs are threatened with hate speech, blasphemy, crimethink, etc. If you doubt that all people are xenophobic find a "tolerant" liberal and express some reactionary opinions. If you want people in general to become violent toward you may perform an experiment; simply disagree with them relentlessly about everything. It will eventually come to blows. Trust me.
The equality obsession is so-called because it really is an obsession for most people. Humans are riddled with envy, and envy is not to be understood as wanting what other people have, no. Envy is hating them for having it. Envy is a deep sense of unfairness over your life conditions. Envy wears a thousand faces and is insidious. Envy is a craving for "justice." All forms of emotion that involve the feeling that others are privileged, that life has been unfair, that the universe has wronged you (even if it has), etc., are examples of the equality obsession. Every petty resentment you have ever experienced is an example of envy. The universe is not unfair. That is just one of your genetic compulsions talking.
The last two are the collective delusion capacity and the violent craving for agreement. We touched on the collective delusion capacity in the introduction to this book when we talked briefly about the human capacity for make-believe. Since this is a long topic we will get to these later.
The general concept of maladaptation is in everything. These are just some examples. Other people have had similar ideas, but I do not believe anyone has put forward legacy itself as hypothesis worthy of serious academic consideration. It is such an obvious idea that it appears to always be stated as a given, even when no one realizes they are talking about it.
The human species is at sub-replacement fertility levels in the west. This fact proves that the conditions of the modern world have exceeded the human capacity for adaptation. Legacy genetics can only go so far. This should not be surprising. Animals don't breed in captivity and humans apparently don't breed under pure capitalism. Modern capitalism is unwilling to pay for the replacement of its own workers and consumers without political intervention. So though the system is superior to the animal that does not automatically mean the animal can survive the system.
Various attempts have been made to rectify this conflict between human nature and technologically alienating modern conditions. They are all more or less abysmal failures.
Communism tried to force human nature to change, and to force both the political and economic system to regress to a parody of human tribal communist form. It failed because the very presence of modern technology makes capitalism automatically competitive over communism, because communism does not work above the Dunbar limit (egalitarian anti-hierarchy), because it needed lies to maintain the system, and because of the economic calculation problem, among others.
On the other hand, fascism tried to make a super-tribe out of Germany, expressing a hyper-xenophobia as a unifying force. We all know how that turned out.
Liberal capitalism has worked so far, but is now dying from the individualization that it uses to break up family clans so as to better exploit people. The process of exploitative social atomization has reached its conclusion with the failure of individuals to breed. It is attacking the family itself and thus the reproductive unit necessary for its own continued existence. It is doing this under the influence of liberalism, which is now a tool of capitalism.
Political approaches can be characterized under two categories: those systems that concentrate on trying to modify human nature to fit the system, and those systems that modify themselves to fit human nature. There are also combination systems.
Communism is a combination of the two. Liberalism, and transhumanism are attempts to modify the individual to fit the system. The first of these three operates through economics, the second through indoctrination, and the third through gene hacking. All will be disastrous at some point in history. Even if we could genetically modify humans to become more capable of handling modern capitalism, to what end? How do we know what genetic changes would be best? How do we anticipate side effects? We run into a problem where a more primitive software program (human nature) is trying to engineer a more sophisticated software program. Yet nature herself is far more complex at deriving this answer. The problem is that we are simply too stupid for the task, and we are likely to engineer ourselves into a dead end as a species.
The second approach is to modify our politics and economics to suit human nature. This is reactionary in orientation, and far more likely to work. Also, if it causes a disaster, as long we have been careful to avoid revolution and respect the laws of economics, it is likely to be minimal in its harm. Human nature is tribal communist and xenophobic in nature. The modification of politics to suit human nature must occur in a modern developed economy, and must not attempt to be left wing. That is to say, it must not be blank state based, or based on the notion that human nature is modifiable.
Going back to year zero like the Khmer rouge is not feasible since human nature cooperates with technology. By forcing humans to live without it the regime had to use drastic violence. It was basically fighting the demand side of the supply and demand curve. The Khmer rouge attempted to defy human nature in this way, making its politics deeply left wing.
Nearly all modern political philosophy is unified by a need to close the rift between human nature and modern technologically developed society. They can be divided into three categories based on what they believe is the source of maladaptation. Progressives believe that the source is culture, the problem inequality, and the solution abolishing whiteness, or educating the people. The Khmer Rouge believed the source was modern industrial capitalism, the problem inequality, and the solution a return to agrarian communism. Communists believed that the source was capitalism, the problem inequality, and the solution communism. The Amish believe that the source is modern decadence, the problem is modernity itself, and the solution is to live without modern technology. Scientologists believe the source is the reactive mind, the problem how to erase it by clearing people of their engrams, and the solution auditing. Transhumanists believe the source is human nature, the problem genetics, and the solution genetic and intelligence enhancement through gene therapy and/or mind uploading. Accelerationists believe in abolishing the rift by abolishing either the human race with artificial intelligence or capitalism itself. Reactionaries believe that the source is the Cathedral and modernity, the problem the absence of traditional structures, and the solution a return to traditional living forms.
(Some of the above links will take you to the horses mouth on Scientology).
These forms can be divided by what category they use to determine the source of the gap between human nature and human structure. Some attribute the cause to be spiritual in nature, (Scientologists), believing that what is needed is a spiritual evolution of humanity.
Some liberals believe that a moral evolution of humanity is necessary.
Some believe that all the problems are caused by culture, (liberals and conservatives), with liberals believing that is is caused by inequality, white privilege, or whiteness itself, or environmental attitudes, depending on the liberal. Conservatives believe it is caused by a culture of fatherlessness among blacks, criminal attitudes, differing cultural values, or differences in educational participation and parental investment, depending on the conservative.
Some believe that current structures are themselves the problem. These would be the Amish and reactionaries. The former reject modern technology and culture, the later only reject modern ideology.
So these sort themselves into the causal categories causes of spiritual, moral, cultural, technological, and genetic.
Essentially, either people can be brought up, or society can be brought down (poor choice of words), to close the gap. Either human nature can be changed, or human the human environment. On the first of these two, liberalism is pushing the limit of what education can is capable of, and the liberal order is breaking down under delusional expectations that
High fecundity is maintained only by groups such as the Amish, Mennonites, Hasidics jews, Haredi Jews, the Quiverfulls, Hutterites, Bruderhof, Russia old believers, and Mormons, among others worldwide.
If not going slowly extinct is a criteria of successfully adapting to the modern world, then groups who turn their backs on modern technology, specifically birth control, are thriving. At present birth rates, they should out-populate us all in the long run. They will survive modernity by turning their backs on it.
The rift between human nature and modern structure is the central theme of all modern ideology. Whole schema have been developed to address this problem. They differ by their diagnosed cause, (spiritual, cultural, genetic, etc.), by the proscribed solution, (spiritual, educational, genetic, or singularity), and by the method, (change the man for the environment or the environment to suite the man).
Monarchy, democracy (up until the present era), and Patchwork are examples of political systems that have worked or could, by accommodating human nature in a controlled fashion. This brings the government into alignment with the needs and natural instincts of the person, giving them an outlet for their impulses, and using that outlet to constrain other, more destructive impulses. Controlled expression of either the xenophobic or equality impulse form the basis of all successful governments. Systems that attempt to suppress all human nature fail.*
The only reason that democracy is failing today is that the left treats all problems as perceptual in nature. The lefts commitment to "education," meaning indoctrination, causes it to ignore reality. This sabotages the feedback mechanism that democracy uses to correct itself. Democracy relies on correct information to make a decision, and if that process is interfered with by an entity that dominates the perception of the population and controls its every thought through the organs of media, academic, and stifling political correctness, the feedback mechanism ceases to function. This only happens when democracies fantastic success brings its insulated elites into a condition of no longer having 'skin in the game,' so to speak, being afforded the capacity of willful ignorance as luxury. Perhaps this is inevitable for all democratic states. But whatever the case, having problems caused by ones own prosperity-induced delusional idealism is the best kind of problem to have, and if democracy yields this regularly it is not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but must be corrected.
On the subject of the Patchwork, we will get to that later when we design the transitional mechanism for getting to it later on.
All political and Utopian systems can be conceived of as more or less failures to deal with this basic conflict between human nature and modern requirements of the industrialized world. Some, like communism and fascism, are utterly spectacular failures, killing millions in the process. All political orders are converging towards a single set of coping mechanisms for dealing with the human nature/financial capitalist conflict. What that is has yet to be seen. The purpose of this work is to try to outline some possible solutions. We start by first recognizing the fact that the problem exists, and then exploring the various aspects of it. Each aspect is a narrative that helps us wrap our minds around what is going on. Each tells the story from a different angle. Any conflicts between these narratives are superficial and language based. It is the process of understanding the problem from these different angles that is fruitful.
Let us start by exploring the first of the manifestations of our evolutionary legacy. This will give us a foundation rooted in human cultural history and their adaptations.
First Aspect, or How Material Conditions Become Culture
Many neoreactionaries believe in a philosophy of political inactivism. This makes sense from the perspective that democratic politics has an inherently left-wing vector. If the struggle between right in left always results in a leftward ratchet then is is best to do nothing. Engagement is simply an excuse for the Cathedral to impose its totalitarian will. By having an enemy, the left has an excuse. Political resistance serves as a tool of legitimization by maintaining the illusion the opposition ever had a chance at victory. As Nick Land says, (referencing Moldbug), in The Dark Enlightenment:
'The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them. Insofar as there is a pure logic of politics, it is that. One immediate consequence (repeatedly emphasized by Mencius Moldbug) is that progressivism has no enemies to the left. It recognizes only idealists, whose time has not yet come. Factional conflicts on the left are politically dynamic, celebrated for their motive potential. Conservatism, in contrast, is caught between a rock and a hard place: bludgeoned from the left by the juggernaut of post-constitutional statism, and agitated from ‘the right’ by inchoate tendencies which are both unassimilable (to the mainstream) and often mutually incompatible, ranging from extreme (Austro-libertarian) varieties of laissez-faire capitalist advocacy to strains of obstinate, theologically-grounded social traditionalism, ultra-nationalism, or white identity politics.'
'‘The right’ has no unity, actual or prospective, and thus has no definition symmetrical to that of the left. It is for this reason that political dialectics (a tautology) ratchets only in one direction, predictably, towards state expansion and an increasingly coercive substantial-egalitarian ideal. The right moves to the center, and the center moves to the left.'I am going to dispute some of this because I believe that the Cathedral's unifying and organizing principle is not ideology but various forms of monetary and psychological incentives. With this perspective, it becomes possible to hack the Cathedral by the surreptitious re-engineering its financial incentive structures. Progressives are still slaves to money like everyone else, and given the right monetary incentives I think they will change their ideology. In fact, I think ideology itself is entirely the product of emotional, psychological and financial incentives. When excuses are repeated long enough, they harden into ideology. I deny that pure ideology, divorced from incentives, is even possible.
The basic neoreactionary hypothesis is this:
(a) society moves left because the right is divided.
(b) the ideology of the Cathedral is a mimetic puritan virus.
What I will assert is that while both (a) and (b) are technically true we neoreactionaries are missing the larger picture of things. I would reformulate the hypothesis as follows:
(a) society moves leftward because of legislative accumulation and left-enabling technology,
(b) the right is divided because the previous reality makes it ineffective,
(c) under success, division becomes irrelevant,
(d) while it is a mimetic puritan virus, the ideology of the Cathedral is still guided by incentives,
(e) those incentives can be hacked.
Some of these ideas, like legislative accumulation, we will define later. We are going to concentrate for now on (e), the hacking of incentives.
Remember that line from Modbug's essay The Lightworker wants to touch your junk.
'The perfect leftist is the fanatical hypocrite. While his beliefs correspond precisely to his own advantage, he believes in them furiously just the same. His opportunism does not even slightly detract from his sincerity, which is palpable and enormous. Indeed, if the situation changes and so do his interests, his mind will change as well. And change sincerely.'The point here is that even the most sincere fanatic is an incentive slave, and will eventually change his tune as his source of profits change. This is what Moldbug is doing with Urbit: hacking the Cathedral. And he is not the only one who can do this. Politically, incentives can be constructed that are either technologically or politically derived.
Politically engineered reward structures are simultaneously more flexible and more subject to attack, while technologically derived incentive structures are completely permanent, irrevocable changes in the marketplace that make going back nearly impossible.
Culture really is downstream from power, but what we are missing is that power is downstream from incentives. We may go even one step further and say that incentives are the outcome synthesis of several material conditions in combination with human nature. Also, ideology programs people's morals. When we put this all together we get a chain of causality. This gives us a diagram that looks something like this:
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
= A Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals
Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change, that is, society reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.
What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to effect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. One thing I have not decided is whether religion belongs in the location of (1) or (4). It appears to have characteristics of both at it reflexively reacts to new technologies and simultaneously defies their influence. I suppose it depends on how embracing of fads and trends a faith is. More cathedral prone religions are in the category of (4).
But no matter.
What this tells us is that it is more important to control incentive structures than ideology. It also tells us that ideological warfare is a rather fruitless uphill battle against these reward structures. One could fight for a thousand years and never get anywhere. Because humans evolved in tribal societies they have an instinctive tendency to believe they can argue people into changing their minds. This is wrong. To quote Upton Sinclair,
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'In the back of his mind, a person may believe you are right and still not change his mind. This puts him in the uncomfortable position of hating you for reminding him he is a whore, and makes you very unpopular around the dinner table. Going around reminding people of their ideological prostitution is not an effective way to build social capital. The financially successful, (wealthy), are the most slavishly devoted to their incentives, hence they are wealthy. They are also the most ideological and powerful people in society. Truth will only alienate them, and these are precisely the people we want to reach. They are also the most immune to the truth, and in greatest need of self-deception. After all, it was their devotion to their appetite that made them wealthy in the first place. A large appetite requires larger justification.
Humans can be conceived the way Freud does: id driven beings, with egos that do the janitorial work of cleaning up for lustful appetites. The id wants what it wants, pursuing it on a subconscious level, and in a self-deceiving manner. The ego then provides the necessary cleaning service of giving rationalizations and moral justifications to the id. The individual is thus composed of two parts, a craven unconscious one the calculates its best advantage, and a logical rational conscious faculty that justifies everything post hoc using ideological/moral reasoning. Ideology is janitorial work.*
In fact, I conceive that intelligence itself evolved precisely so that humans could play status seeking games within the confines of the tribe. By increasing relative status they ensured reproductive access to mates. Men compete while women conform. Since status is always a relative commodity it necessitates a measure of predation. This predation drove the development of a human capacity for self-deception. It also means that humanity can be conceived of as a self-predatory species, man is the species that preys on itself.*
Human intelligence is then the product of a Red Queen spiral of social status predation where the host can never escape its parasite because host and parasite, being of the same species, interbreed with each other. Through this predatory status competition, an upward ratcheting effect occurs where all humans are under selective pressure to be more intelligent in competition with all other member of their species. The baseline constantly shifts upward, causing intellect to evolve well beyond what is necessary for survival.
Nothing else explains just why humans are so unnecessarily smart relative to other species. Lots of animals hunt, breed, and survive with far less intelligence. Intelligence may not be conserved among humans. Malthusian relaxation is not a given here.
Organized religion, (which was originally inseparable from the state), and later royalty, politics, activism, lobbying, popularity contests, fashion, beauty, power seeking, and holiness spirals, are all part of the human instinct to prey on ones fellow man. Humans, being social predators, seek to maximize social and material gain in relative status competitions, and evolved intelligence only for that purpose. Self-deception is an integral and necessary part of that. One wants to nakedly pursue incentives without losing status or self-esteem. Self-deception and ideology are the means people use to get there.
Ideology = solidified rationalizations for unethical behavior. It is post hoc to the real issue. Debating it is pointless since you are debating an effect, and not a cause. The cause is incentives.
I am using the term 'incentive' expansively to mean 'anything that motivates human behavior with a reward,' this includes sex, power, prestige, happy feelings, pain avoidance, respect, love and others. It is not just money.
When we look at things from this perspective we realize that yes, of course feminists want power. Black Lives Matter is also about power, so is Mattress Girl, and all the rest of it. Of course the pursuit of equality is really just a cover for the pursuit of power. Humans must rationalize their unethical behavior, and self-deception steps in to provide seemingly legitimate philosophical excuses. Equality could never be anything but a ruse designed to lure humans into complacency about their rights so that they can be more effectively and systemically plundered for wealth and relative status.
That the people who do it, deceive themselves, confirms rather than denies our hypothesis. Humans evolved intelligence to prey on each other in status games. Of course they would also evolve magnificent capacities for self-deception, since it would make them more effective predators to appear sincere towards others. Since humans are both predatory towards one another and totally sincere in their self-deception, we come to understand that exploitation is completely and utterly inescapable, and that people who claim to free others are destined to enslave them—and without even intending to. This is why communists killed more people than fascists: their intentions were noble, and thus, more comprehensively self-deceiving. The more noble you believe you are, the more genocidal you will be.
What this pattern also tells us is that hacking the Cathedral is about inserting oneself at the top of the hierarchy. Let's put it another way. The Cathedral, is simply too valuable to ever be destroyed, and we intend to use it for both our own selfish and altruistic moral ends. We admit self-interest because we should. It is no mistake that the most fantastically genocidal regimes in history have been founded under the superficially noble intentions of universal equality. The higher and more lofty the intentions the more atrocities they enable. This can be defined as saying that,
D ∝ N.
Translated as D is proportionate to N.Meaning death toll is proportionate to nobility of intentions.* The better the intentions the more people will probably be killed. For example, the NAZI's wanted to exterminate an entire race and still killed 13 times fewer people than the communists. This does not of course excuse what they did, it simply illustrates the point.
Also, it is simply too powerful to even be destroyed. If you believe that you can uninstall a cathedral I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The point is that our intentions are selfish, they should be, and we should admit it. Moreover, we should be always cognizant of the potential for self-deception. If the intentions of neoreaction are to achieve power for its adherents then they should always admit this to themselves privately. The predator of power who deceives himself less is less effective at predation, and the selfish predatory needs of a monarch are fewer than that of a howling irrational mass of voters simply because he is one and they are many. Since exploitation can never be abolished the goal is to minimize it to the farthest possible degree, keeping in mind that the people who implement things have to be given their cut of the profits.
The Cathedral is a hierarchy that perfectly mimics the structure of the Technology/Incentives/
Politics/Ideology/Morals process, which we will abbreviate here as TIPIM. The process encodes itself in the acronym. We intend to turn TIPIM into Hacked TIPIM, or Hkd-TIPIM. Going back to our chain of causality we see that part of the chain is also the hierarchy of the Cathedral.
(1) T-----Tech + Material Conditions + Hum Nature + Polit Pgm.
(2) I -----Synthesis of Incentives operating through both the free, and coercion markets.
(3) P ----Programs. The U.S. Government (through democracy and bureaucracy).
(4) I -----Ideology. The Universities (through which neoliberalism and Marxism are disseminated)
(5) M ---Morals. The People and their morals
The Cathedral does not know it is being run by the first and second levels. It operates under the heavenly mandate of progress, a notion of meliorism that sees itself as the guiding principle in the world towards a greater perfection of humanity and the triumph of equality over human nature. It falsely believes that it, meaning, ('we liberal progressive socialists') create progress and change. It is unaware that it has already been hacked, that it has always been hacked, and that the technological and incentive layers are running it. Liberal progressiveness is the outcome of technology. It is an effect of change rather than its cause, and because of hubris it doesn't realize its not in control.
So the Cathedral is already hacked and no one realized it. We realize it and intend to insert ourselves in the process.
Put it another way: 'the right side of history' is whatever the inventors and political incentive engineers make of it. Material conditions, inventions, and political incentives are upstream from everyone's ideology and morals.
Inventors alter the material incentives of society, and as a result, change its morals. The printing press is created, the reformation and renaissance happen. Movable type comes along, then the enlightenment. A man invents the first accurate firearm. Democracy follows because equal weapons create a more equal political order. The cotton gin destroys the profitability of slavery. Lincoln takes credit. The pill dramatically lessens the incentive for chastity. Sexual revolution happens. In every case liberals steal credit for technologies works. A mythos of "progress" is created with the left as changemaker. But they incorrectly take credit, and technology was the puppet master all along.
We perceive the cathedral to be (3) through (5) but it is pozzed by (1) and (2). The Cathedral makes the same mistake as their adversaries, the conservatives: they believe that the ideological layer is where the battle is won. This was Marx's mistake, it is the left's mistake, and now it is even the right's mistake.
The left's belief in the changeability of human nature, the predictability of man, of notions of progress and rising above, and the ideas of egalitarianism all have a religious origin. But what is the origin of these religious notions? It is the material conditions that produced them. It is Layer 1.
The progressive believes that human nature can be changed, (It can't). People become better because technology makes life easier and they can afford to be nice. The notion of perfectibility has a Christian origin. The very belief in equality derives itself from the spiritual notion that all are equal in the sight of God and entitled to equal rights. It is, of course, a secularized version of creationism.
Liberalism shares this flawed belief in its own historical nature with Marxism, from which it derives the notion. Marx correctly identified that religion was the outcome of material conditions. This is somewhat true and somewhat false. We more accurately say that the religious impulse is inborn, but the shape it takes is determined by material conditions and past memetic influence acting on a culture.
Though his reasoning on the issue is flawed, and though Marx attributes the belief in God to alienation from ones fellow man, his basic assertion that ideology comes from economic conditions is sound. He then falsely presented his communism as based in sound analytical reasoning, and attempted to downplay any idealistic and normative assertions. Communists would declare that Marxism was a science, and beyond the scope of historical influence. In reality it was always the bastardization of materialism with pseudo spirituality. Materialistic thought, (science) gives credibility to all that it touches. It is repeatedly mixed with religious ideas to bolster them. Then materialism is scapegoated when the results go bad.
He refused to take this idea of economic determinism to its logical conclusion and critique his own doctrine of equality. He also did not see that this doctrine originated in the very Christian faith that he was critiquing. Nor did he reject the religious nature of his influences in Hegel, Kant, Feuerbach and others. He incorporated their ideas without disentangling them from his own materialism. He stumbled upon the truth of human nature, but was so attached to his influences he refused to detach himself from the culture that gave him his worldview. If Marx's own thesis of economic determinism is taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines the progressive universalist concept of inevitable progress. It also undermines Marx's own historicism. Consistently applied, historical determinism leads to right-wing conclusions. If all morals are driven by base instincts operating under incentives, then there is no holy mandate for change, no higher purpose, and no perfectibility of the world. Salvation, politically contextualized as equality, is dead, being killed by a knowledge of its crass origins.
So Marx committed four grave errors: first he incorrectly described the process of religion. He thought it was determined by culture. In reality the cause is innate, only the form is determined. He also left out how memetics and cultural inertia influence things. Religion evolves in parallel with it's material incentives to facilitate psychological reconciliation with them, and evolves based on past ideas through cultural inertia. Nature selects for virulence (memetics), not correctness.
Second, Marx falsely presented his ideas as rooted in an analytical reasoning when they are really driven by his own prejudice against faith and bias for communism. He fit the logic to his conclusions and not the other way around.
Thirdly, he refused to apply the two things he got right, (historical determinism of societies form, and historical determinism of and its ideology), to his own ideology. Placing communism outside of historical processes is hubris. Nothing is outside of it.
Fourth, like his influence Hegel, he failed to rid himself of religious ideas. He came to a materialist conclusion, then maintained a spiritual idealistic foundation in contradiction to his own premises. He thus turned his ideology into a pseudo-religion. Also, if society evolves under material forces there is absolutely no reason to assume it is always upward, and there is no reason to think upward means communism. Tribal communism is the past, not the future.
Nothing in western civilization could be without Christian influence, not even Marx. Notions of historical progress are really a parallel memetic form to Gods perfection of the world through Christ. "Oppression," and now "whiteness" are really just new forms of original sin. Class struggle is the struggle with temptation. Global warming is the apocalypse. An so on, and so on. Cathedral thought infected Marx and created memetic super AIDS. On the plus side communism spared the countries that adopted it the family and gender destroying effects of modern leftism. The fast virus of communism inoculates against the slow virus of western decadence.
The Christian cognitive pattern is found in everything from environmentalism to feminism, from progressive to socialist thought. The entire left is infected with fake Christianity: the right with its actual counterpart.
The reason the Cathedral evolves in parallel with technology is a form of cultural natural selection. Incentives act as the selection pressure. You see, at any given time there are a multitude of ideologies on the shelf. Because of self-deception, humans instinctively reach for whatever particular ideology allows them to do whatever evil they are incentivized to do while excusing their behavior and having a happy conscience. They often like doing bad things, they just don't like feeling awful about it.
Tribal communism programs humans to have a need for the conditions of our evolution. When this need is not met the neurotypical mind spins a conspiracy theory and believes that there is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate inequality. There must be some mysterious force of "oppression" in the world. Or maybe it's the "system" or the "machine." They all believe that you have to be corrupt to succeed. All leftist are thus conspiracy theorists of a type.
The incentives that program their desires are driven by material conditions. Those conditions evolve along a vector as the improvement of technology happens generation after generation. So the incentives also evolve generation after generation.
As incentives are changed and refined, existing ideologies are adapted. This is not hard since at any given time their will be multiple parallel versions of the ideology lying around. People will instinctively pick the one that is the most enabling of their desires, and their desires, having been altered to manifest in incentive approved ways, will program behavior. This in turn will program the choice of the what the next incentive structure will be. For example: a woman might not want an abortion, but the lack of suitable husbands combined with her sex drive will make her get one.
The process of picking the most enabling ideology happens over and over, generation after generation, as material incentives change. Each ideological iteration has a range of versions. The version selected is always the most whoring of the bunch, (to use a crass but accurate term), and it becomes the dominant force in society. There is only really one dominant ideology at any given time, the one that enables the greatest servitude to the incentives of material forces and power.* Regardless of the fact that other ideologies may continue in parallel, their will be only a single dominate one, the one that enables people to sell out the most while maintaining a clear conscience.
Thus, ideology undergoes parallel evolution with the technologies that drive it. The liberal, being blind to this process, perceives change itself as good. All credit goes to the actor who arrived last on the stage and signed the law, fought the war, or whatever was necessary to make the social/political more closely match the material. Change itself is worshiped eventually as permanent technological revolution caused by markets for innovation drive it forward. Markets for innovation are the patent and copyright systems, not a magical Hegelian force of Spirit. They can also be abolished, and that means that ever accelerating change could be abolished. But that will never happen. All the nations of the Earth would have to destroy their patent and copyright systems at the same time to halt change. Anyone who abstained would have a strategic military advantage in weapons technology development. They are locked into a prisoner's dilemma. Thus, systems evolve on their current trajectory, with no one in control, and with little hope of change. 'Teh joos' are not the reason for it. They are incentive slaves too.
Humans obey incentives. This cannot be repeated enough. It is also to be understood that it could be no other way. Natural selection would develop intelligent beings that could rationalize any slavery to their material conditions in order to survive and reproduce. It would gift them with the psychology of self-deception necessary to win resources without sacrificing satisfaction. It would develop them to make a religion out of their incentives, in order to co-ordinate their gains, so as to maximize them, because group effort has a greater payoff than individual labor.
Material conditions form incentives. Incentives drive politics. Politics is rationalized by people. Rationalizations solidify into ideology. Ideology is internalized as morals. The Cathedral is the last three of these sentences which are underlined. It is a five-phase process that shapes the cultural and political evolution of humanity. The ideology and incentives of the previous system choose the types of new technologies that are developed. Once chosen, the newly developed technologies determines new incentives. The new incentives create new ideologies through their need for justification. The process is circular, continual, and iterative, with each new form creating the next like the slow accretion of tree rings.
Control is about incentives, not ideology. Arguing with the latter is a waste of time.
Attempts by men like Stefan Molyneux, SEK3, and Curt Doolittle are or were always destined to fail. They waste their time focusing too much on moral justifications and ideology. Power comes through strategy and technology, not morals and reason. They are focusing on (4) and (5) when they should be focusing on (1) thru (3) of the five-phase process. Human thought may instinctively work on ideological and moral terms, but the physical universe runs on physics, calculus, economics, and natural selection, and the human ant colony, that is the average human city, operates on the basis of the five-phase process.
The trick is to use the kind of moral reason that libertarians employ to decide the ends, then to envision what a libertarian nation would look like, and then to work out the strategy to support creating that society. They are excessively focused on morals, reason, and not results. I will do the strategy they won't do here. But getting back to process...
Go back to the Introduction
Go to the Contents.
Go to Chapter 1b