The pile

Are you afraid of the pile? Do your knees tremble when you think about it? Do you get hard, (if male) or wet, (if female). The pile is life, the pile is us, the pile is where you want to be. A thousand rhythmic bodies grinding in sexual ecstasy. The pile calls to you.

Are you listening?

The fascist fears the pile, its warmth, its penetrating power. He covers his butt hole nervously. His fascism is the insistence that he must always be the one to penetrate, and never be penetrated. Of course as a male it is his destiny to be the penetrator most of the time anyway, but he resists even the occasional bumping of someone else's junk against his body. Even a brush of another mans cock walking past scares him.

When all races blend into one there is the pile. When your Asian gf calls you to her tight pussy the pile is there. When you conform and have normie opinions the pile is wining. The pile is life, conformity, happiness, agreement — it is temptation itself. The pile is wet and sweaty, dirty and smelly. When you play in the mud that is pile. When you stand in a river the pile has you. When you don't bathe and don't care you are in the midst of pile. When you are popular you are the pile. When you live in a tiny house and smoke weed all day and hang out with dirty hippie girls and get laid you are living the pile life.

Each of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and 1,048,576, 17-times great-great grandparents. That's right: over a million people fucked so you could exist. Wrap your mind around that. You a a drop in an ocean of protoplasm, a small piece of a massive pile. The pile made you and you owe it, and that is why there can be no exit. Look man, the only exit is biological. If you can't separate your protoplasm from the pile of all humanity, if you initiate a speciation event, then you are bound to its fate. To exit is to betray your pile.

And why exit when you can *enter.* That's cuck logic. Why cede an ounce of pile to your enemies? Why the fuck should they have all the fun? The pile is yours broheim, along with all the women in it. DOMINATE. And if someone tries to put a dick in your ass then a knee to their groin will fix that. Don't be afraid of other men's junk. It's all good. The pile is yours for the taking. Stand up and defend your people, your race, and your culture. Your culture is your pile. Don't retreat from it.

Responding to Imperial Energy, December 21st 2017

IMPERIAL ENERGY asks;

"On the subject of moral responsibility, what is your take on the argument made by Bruce Waller than since we do not have (libertarian) free will, moral responsibility must go by the board?

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/against-moral-responsibility"


The assertion is often made that because free will is a non-entity that moral accountability is wrong. This is paradox on multiple levels. First, how can moral accountability be "wrong" if "wrong" does not exist? This is like the liberal that says he has a right to advocate censorship. He believes that he has the right to use his freedom of speech to advocate against free speech. "You cannot censor me while I advocate censorship" is his essential assertion. Oh but we may, and the intelligent thing for a state to do is agree with the censor and kill him, (thus censoring him and giving him what he wants).

If a man is the sum of his genetics + environmental inputs then there is no rational claim that we cannot modify his inputs or even genetics. Saying "we should not hold people accountable because it is wrong," is using notions of right and wrong to support the abolishment of notions of right and wrong. It is akin to using the logic of monarchy to support democracy, so that the "divine right of kings" becomes the "equal rights of the people." It is using the logic of a prior system to support overthrowing that system, like how communists are all atheists and yet believe in the "salvation" of equality, and the "original sin" of inequality — thus practicing a kind of heretical secular crypto-Christianity, complete with notions of rapture in the form of historical destiny, while believing they are not.

If there is no free will, then we just wind up recreating all notions of accountability again as notions of inputs.

"Negative inputs" replaces "deterrence," as the logic that supports punishment. Even if the punishment does not work it is acceptable because without any system of right and wrong there is no reason NOT to give the victim, (or even the public) satisfaction, since this provides the public with positive inputs.

Similarly, we should not allow innocent people to be punished because that provides an incentive, (negative input) to disrespect the law, which generates social disorder. Thus we recreate the rule of law.

Without morality, might becomes right and the state's legitimacy goes from being one on the basis of religious logic such as divine right, or based on popular sovereignty, to one based on "because it has all the guns dummy."

Basically, we wind up doing everything we are already doing because what we are already doing works. All of the logic of "rights," "freedoms," "moral obligations," etc., simply gets recreated with pragmatism "because it works," or "because there is no moral reason not to because morality itself is a spook," or "because might makes right." The only thing that might change is that we would probably be much more willing to use genetic modification on prisoners, and eugenics in general. Bruce Waller's argument does not lead to where Bruce Waller wants it to go; it does not lead to a morally permissive utopia. It leads right back to the reality we already live in: to violence being the ultimate source of sovereignty, and to there being no reason not to.

The story of Elagabalus: perverted trannie emperor, and virtue signaling zealot

In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 6, Gibbon writes;

"To this temple, as to the common centre of religious worship, the Imperial fanatic attempted to remove the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred pledges of the faith of Numa. A crowd of inferior deities attended in various stations the majesty of the god of Emesa; but his court was still imperfect, till a female of distinguished rank was admitted to his bed. Pallas had been first chosen for his consort; but as it was dreaded lest her warlike terrors might affright the soft delicacy of a Syrian deity, the Moon, adorned by the Africans under the name of Astarte, was deemed a more suitable companion for the Sun. Her image, with the rich offerings of her temple as a marriage portion, was transported with solemn pomp from Carthage to Rome, and the day of these mystic nuptials was a general festival in the capital and throughout the empire.

"A rational voluptuary adheres with invariable respect to the temperate dictates of nature, and improves the gratifications of sense by social intercourse, endearing connections, and the soft coloring of taste and the imagination. But Elagabalus, (I speak of the emperor of that name,) corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitude and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronized by the monarch, signalized his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit of magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonored the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband.

"It may seem probable, the vices and follies of Elagabalus have been adorned by fancy, and blackened by prejudice. Yet, confining ourselves to the public scenes displayed before the Roman people, and attested by grave and contemporary historians, their inexpressible infamy surpasses that of any other age or country. The license of an eastern monarch is secluded from the eye of curiosity by the inaccessible walls of his seraglio. The sentiments of honor and gallantry have introduced a refinement of pleasure, a regard for decency, and a respect for the public opinion, into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and opulent nobles of Rome gratified every vice that could be collected from the mighty conflux of nations and manners. Secure of impunity, careless of censure, they lived without restraint in the patient and humble society of their slaves and parasites. The emperor, in his turn, viewing every rank of his subjects with the same contemptuous indifference, asserted without control his sovereign privilege of lust and luxury.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference of age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction. The licentious soldiers, who had raised to the throne the dissolute son of Caracalla, blushed at their ignominious choice, and turned with disgust from that monster, to contemplate with pleasure the opening virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The crafty Mæsa, sensible that her grandson Elagabalus must inevitably destroy himself by his own vices, had provided another and surer support of her family. Embracing a favorable moment of fondness and devotion, she had persuaded the young emperor to adopt Alexander, and to invest him with the title of Cæsar, that his own divine occupations might be no longer interrupted by the care of the earth. In the second rank that amiable prince soon acquired the affections of the public, and excited the tyrant's jealousy, who resolved to terminate the dangerous competition, either by corrupting the manners, or by taking away the life, of his rival. His arts proved unsuccessful; his vain designs were constantly discovered by his own loquacious folly, and disappointed by those virtuous and faithful servants whom the prudence of Mamæa had placed about the person of her son. In a hasty sally of passion, Elagabalus resolved to execute by force what he had been unable to compass by fraud, and by a despotic sentence degraded his cousin from the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was received in the senate with silence, and in the camp with fury. The Prætorian guards swore to protect Alexander, and to revenge the dishonored majesty of the throne. The tears and promises of the trembling Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life, and to leave him in the possession of his beloved Hierocles, diverted their just indignation; and they contented themselves with empowering their præfects to watch over the safety of Alexander, and the conduct of the emperor.

"It was impossible that such a reconciliation should last, or that even the mean soul of Elagabalus could hold an empire on such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon attempted, by a dangerous experiment, to try the temper of the soldiers. The report of the death of Alexander, and the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, inflamed their passions into fury, and the tempest of the camp could only be appeased by the presence and authority of the popular youth. Provoked at this new instance of their affection for his cousin, and their contempt for his person, the emperor ventured to punish some of the leaders of the mutiny. His unseasonable severity proved instantly fatal to his minions, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was massacred by the indignant Prætorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber. His memory was branded with eternal infamy by the senate; the justice of whose decree has been ratified by posterity.

"In the room of Elagabalus, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Prætorian guards. His relation to the family of Severus, whose name he assumed, was the same as that of his predecessor; his virtue and his danger had already endeared him to the Romans, and the eager liberality of the senate conferred upon him, in one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial dignity. But as Alexander was a modest and dutiful youth, of only seventeen years of age, the reins of government were in the hands of two women, of his mother, Mamæa, and of Mæsa, his grandmother. After the death of the latter, who survived but a short time the elevation of Alexander, Mamæa remained the sole regent of her son and of the empire.

From La Wik;

"Elagabalus /ˌɛləˈɡæbələs/, also known as Heliogabalus (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperorfrom 218 to 222. A member of the Severan dynasty, he was Syrian, the second son of Julia Soaemias and Sextus Varius Marcellus. In his early youth he served as a priest of the god Elagabalus in the hometown of his mother's family, Emesa. As a private citizen, he was probably named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus.[1] Upon becoming emperor he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. He was called Elagabalus only after his death.[2]

"In 217, the emperor Caracalla was assassinated and replaced by his Praetorian prefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. Caracalla's maternal aunt, Julia Maesa, successfully instigated a revolt among the Legio III Gallica to have her eldest grandson (and Caracalla's cousin), Elagabalus, declared emperor in his place. Macrinus was defeated on 8 June 218 at the Battle of Antioch. Elagabalus, barely 14 years old, became emperor, initiating a reign remembered mainly for sex scandals and religious controversy.

"Later historians suggest Elagabalus showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos. He replaced the traditional head of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, with the deity Elagabalus, of whom he had been high priest. He forced leading members of Rome's government to participate in religious rites celebrating this deity, over which he personally presided. Elagabalus was supposedly "married" as many as five times, lavishing favours on male courtiers popularly thought to have been his lovers,[3][4] and was reported to have prostituted himself in the imperial palace. His behavior estranged the Praetorian Guard, the Senate, and the common people alike. Amidst growing opposition, Elagabalus, just 18 years old, was assassinated and replaced by his much more favorable cousin Severus Alexander on 11 March 222, who ruled for 13 years before his own assassination which would mark the epoch event for the Crisis of the Third Century. The assassination plot against Elagabalus was devised by his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and carried out by disaffected members of the Praetorian Guard."

Sex/gender controversy

"The question of Elagabalus' sexual orientation is confused, owing to salacious and unreliable sources. Elagabalus married and divorced five women,[47] three of whom are known. His first wife was Julia Cornelia Paula;[45] the second was the Vestal Virgin Julia Aquilia Severa.[45][50]

"Within a year, he abandoned her and married Annia Aurelia Faustina,[45] a descendant of Marcus Aurelius and the widow of a man he had recently had executed. He had returned to his second wife Severa by the end of the year.[47] According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband.[38]

Elagabalus practiced ghey marriage

"The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[51] Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, depilate his body hair and wear wigs before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels,[52] and even in the imperial palace:

He was a "sex worker."

"Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by. There were, of course, men who had been specially instructed to play their part. For, as in other matters, so in this business, too, he had numerous agents who sought out those who could best please him by their foulness. He would collect money from his patrons and give himself airs over his gains; he would also dispute with his associates in this shameful occupation, claiming that he had more lovers than they and took in more money.[53]

"Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[45] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[39] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender.[54][55][56]"

And a trannie.

Back to the first part of the Wikipedia entry;

"Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence, and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and with writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury".[6] According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life".[7] His unstable reign has also been marked as a major point leading to the eventual Fall of the Western Roman Empire."

Social Justice is Religious Capitalism

Liberal Capitalism

Under the liberal variant of capitalism, the morality of exchange infects everything. As people value objects for their use, they begin to value each other for their use. Unfettered by faith or tradition, humans under capitalism become consumable objects from the perspective of others. Patriarchy is hated not because it is evil and authoritarian, but because it places a restraint on the ability of a woman to consume men, their wealth, and their attention. Tolerance is celebrated because standards get in the way of consuming others, and because being held accountable to any standard is not fun, and not entertaining. People are regarded by each other as sources of entertainment, sources of validation, (no matter how unworthy of validation they really are), sources of sex, sources of attention, sources of income, sources of child support. Everyone wants to get it now. Women, being inherently more consumable than men under liberal capitalism, are more respected than men, and more readily cooperate with liberal capitalism's morals. Women are turned into consumable prostitutes, men into Jons. Everything that is presented as "left-wing" under such a system is actually in the service of the morals of capitalism. "Hate speech" is simply speech that is unpleasant, and thus, not consumable as entertainment. Everything that interferes with the validation of the ego; things like truth, argument, logic, masculinity, patriarchy, tradition, gender, sexual standards, "slut shamming," etc., are systematically destroyed by the very people who think they hate capitalism, and who paradoxically share it morals most deeply. Capitalism seeks the standardization of every human being, just as it seeks the standardization of every object. Everyone must be able to go into debt, be consumable, be productive, be a non-controversial employee, be a worker drone, be polite, be politically correct, and conform. Rather than being opposed to capitalism, diversity training is the very essence of capitalism, which seeks to fragment and standardize all races, communities, and structures outside of itself until the individual is noting by a worker and consumer in a machine. Tolerance is only done because standards are inconvenient for both the enforcer, who receives no compensation and much hostile resistance, and the one enforced against, who is made uncomfortable and not entertained or validated.

From my previous article, quoted in full.

"I keep saying that there is nothing outside capitalism, except maybe North Korea. Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. It is a subset of capitalist behavior. Dictatorships and oligarchies are essentially giant corporations that own countries. Democracies are markets, and all other countries are firms. China is just one big firm.

"Cathedral PR says that tolerance is the highest virtue. In reality it is a moral value of capitalism. Tolerance is really indifference. Our tolerance is supposed to be love. In reality, by indulging you in your gender neurosis we are assisting in your destruction. Caring is too expensive and brings no profit/social status to the one who does it. Even worse, "intolerance" costs the one who does it status points as the person who is inhibited from acting out punishes the person who is inhibiting them. All of this follows from a pure logic of status profit maximization. The one acting out earns status though self-destruction. (The self-destruction of others is enjoyed as entertainment by other human monkeys). The entertained pay status points to the self-destroyer, who destroyers herself for status. (It's usually a White female who is destroying herself). The process is not inhibited because it would cost the surrounding people status points. Gender neurosis is a gift economy for trading on the self-destruction of others.

"There is a double aspect to this. The gender neurosis is also a "shit test" for the surrounding males. (The only one that sterilizes the female tester). It is also an updated version of classic female attention whoring.

"Veblen goods are goods that become more desired as they get more expensive. A Rolex is a Veblen good. The purpose of Veblen is to give status to the owner. These type of goods are consumed for their status rather than their usefulness. Social justice is a poor woman's substitute for Veblen goods. This also explains why the SJWs hate ostentatious displays of wealth, (like Trump).

"Lots of people crave higher status, especially university educated people. But the oversupply of education means that a degree is not what it used to be. Hard work does not lead to the wealth necessary for acquiring Veblen goods. Political correctness is the poor college graduate's substitute. The more one virtue signals, the more it superficially appears that virtue signaling has value. But the more other people virtue signal the cheaper one's own virtue signaling becomes relative to theirs. The only way to maintain high status is to out-perform the ritual relative to others with an even greater display of ritual perfection. Status is acquired through superior ritual recitation of the words of political correctness.

"Social justice is religious capitalism. Universities are now in the business of selling political perfection or the ritual because they can no longer sell higher status though direct knowledge transfer. People go to college to be trained to recite the ritual better than others.

Far from being opposed to capitalism, feminism is a distinctly capitalist thing. It is essentially a labor union for sex workers, which all women become under capitalism, as capitalism colonizes all ideological territory with the morality of use-value, a moral code where all humans are reduced to being only an object for other people's consumption. Under this system of pervasive using of others, women become "nasty women," who take pride in their nastiness. The female sex takes on a uniquely unpleasant air, so that most women become rather intolerable to the men around them. In a system of pervasive sexual usury and manipulation, men practice "game," while women practice feminism. Under such a system, the recent flurry of both false and true accusations of sexual harassment should be seen for what it is; an attempt by sex workers (career women) to gain an extortionate financial advantage over their Jons, (male employers). Feminism thinks of itself as a distinctly Marxist, or anti-capitalist idea, but that is the logic of all labor unions, and unions are a distinctly capitalistic behavior that seek to maximize the financial gain of their workers.

Gender becomes a consumable commodity, hence "transgendered" people. Even race becomes a commodity, see Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King. The commodity follows the trends of fashion, so that in one era Michael Jackson is lightening his skin to become White, and in another Whites are masquerading as Blacks.

As the logic of pervasive usury of others for entertainment, validation, sex, etc., marches forward, so does the extent of the ideological territory colonized by liberal capitalism. A market for virtue signaling emerges so that people can earn validation for virtue without doing any good deeds to deserve it. This is the ultimate expression of use-value; the act of being as lazy as possible while earning the respect of millions. Naturally, the market for virtue signaling favors the one with the least value and the most sociopathic traits. Hence we inevitably praise the most abominable people.

Religion does not escape the moral logic of use value. Megachurches spring up to provide us with our Sunday validation. The market relentlessly favors the most pandering expressions of Christianity, so that the gospel is replaced with speeches and rants about the pastor's own personal views, carefully curated to produce the optimum agreement from the congregation. If I have a church, and you have a church, and I give strict boring sermons which the public does not find entertaining, while you give highly entertaining events complete with a free rock concert and laser show, then your congregation grows while mine shrinks, and gradually real religion is driven out of the market by bad religion. The market relentlessly selects in favor of the churches that pander the most, while pushing any real expressions of faith out. Like money, bad religion drives out good religion.

The logic of use value extends to the classroom, where boring classical educations are replaced with the far more use-value-full, and entertaining form of political indoctrination. Since Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws by lobbyists, it is far more valuable to indoctrinate people to be a single bloc of allied purchasers of economic rents, (the left), than to give them a real education, and this also reduces the supply of real education to the students, rationing it so that the graduate is less of a competitive threat to his professors, and needs to eventually upgrade to a masters degree. Political education is watered-down education, which has the effect of causing the student to need more of it, and to pay more money to the university. Political education is to real education as inflation is to sound money, and social justice is the substitute Veblen good provided in place of a real upgrade of status.

Last but not least, this is only one variety of capitalism. There are other forms of capitalism that provide different values. See the essay on Reactionary Capitalism.

I'm not responding to Imperial Energy's response

Imperial Energy writes his response to my critique here. A reader requested that I give my thoughts of the subject of Reactionary Future's thesis, and that is the only reason I did. The reasons I won't bother writing a response to his response now, is that I don't care, I never cared, and I'm lazy.

He accuses me of not getting it, (perhaps I don't), of confusing several issues, of misrepresentation, and then tells me to read a pile of references.

I am not going to read the pile.

Though I have my own reference to recommend: The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

Imperial Energy's critique of my critique ends with him saying;

"As for when a ruler is secure, we will have more to say on that issue shortly."

Cool, I will wait for that. I want to find out what the goal post is before I say anything more.

Regarding the Interview with Reactionary Future

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.

A mad proposal

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.

Blade Runner 2049, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

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.

An economic theory of history

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.

No substitute for good institutional design

Institutional logic is the internal logic of institutions, of how they behave, of their internal incentive structures, and the social effects that these internal incentives produce on the external world. Slavoj Zizek's documentary called The Perverts Guide to Ideology is an excellent critique of culture, but since he is a leftist communist, while he gets a lot of his criticism correct, all his normative implications are wrong, and there is a subtle incorrectness to everything he says.

At 11:09 minutes into the film, Zizek is talking about the institutional logic of the Catholic Church, and about the communist censorship of a part of the movie The Sound of Music. He says;

*Sniffle* "I think the censor was a very intelligent man. He knew — as probably an atheist communist where the power of attraction of Catholic religion resides. If you read intelligent Catholic propagandists, and if you really try to discern what deal [sic] are they offering you, it's not to prohibit, in this case, sexual pleasures, it's a much more cynical contract as it were, between the church as an institution, and the believer troubled with, in this case, sexual desires. It is this hidden obscene permission you get. You are covered by the divine Big Other, you can do whatever you want. Enjoy it."

In other words, the church gives you permission to fuck like rabbits, but only within the boundaries of marriage, and only with the blessing of the Church through Catholic marriage. As an institution, the Catholic church wants more Catholic babies to be born. So it restricts the sexuality of its adherents in order to channel that sexual energy into family formation. This is an example of institutional logic, of how an institution needs something, (growth, more Catholics, etc.) and so propagandizes a certain logic in order to get it. Zizek's wrongness is that he thinks there is anything wrong with this compact between church and adherent. Actually, old fashioned Catholicism is a great example of a perfect alignment of incentives. The Church wants more customers and the individual wants to perpetuate his genes, form a family, have a wife or husband, get laid, etc. This is basically the opposite of communism, which aligns the goals of the state against the genetic interests of the population, dooming the society to autogenocide. The average man will have more sex and be more fulfilled within marriage; the average women will have better sex and better support for her children within marriage, so the traditional Catholicism is better for all parties, church included.

There is no escaping power since men with power won't let you escape it, and since they have the guns to enforce their will. Only literal escape — to Mars or something, to the next frontier, works, and so the communist dream of a (society without power?) or maybe just a society without inequality? Are impossible. Power is inequality; inequality is power. In the end we are forced to deal with institutions, and that means depending on how we construct institutions, the internal logic of those institutions is going to produce the external ideology that we are all subject to. The question becomes; what kind of propaganda do you want to live under? From that we get our parameter for what kind of institution we want to design.

But first something has to be pointed out, and this this; all ideologies need elite sponsorship in order to become famous, otherwise they just sit on the bookshelf and turn to dust. Every prominent ideology in existence is/was sponsored by some elite, at some point in time. Even Marx was sponsored by Engels, and one will observe that Marxism always produces corporate feudalism. Even if Marx did not realize that communism would lead to feudalism, Engels must have, for that is what it did, and Engels was an industrialist.

As Reactionary Future pointed out, Ludwig Von Mises was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. See Libertarianism as a foundation created entity. Also see The Cathedral enforces anarcho-capitalism. Here is me quoting Reactionary Future quoting Richard M. Ebeling;

“Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters.”

Now some leftist may object and say that social justice or intersectionality are some sort of exception to the rule. Why would elites sponsor an ideology to divide and conquer the population on the basis of race and gender? The question answers itself.

Here is Borealis Philanthropy talking about its grant program;

"Our grantees are demonstrating intersectionality in action. In this moment, we are witnessing diverse communities coming together to protect each other amidst deeply troubling policies and attacks. LGBTQ young leaders are playing an important role in this work. They are not only advancing efforts to protect communities from harm based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They are also leading efforts to demand that #Not1More deportation takes place under a broken immigration system. They are on the frontlines in places like Ferguson, proclaiming #BlackLivesMatter. They are integral to the reproductive and gender justice movements, working to ensure all people have the power to make decisions about their bodies, families, and communities.

"These LGBTQ young leaders are also bringing together movements that are traditionally viewed as isolated from each other. A recent example is the effort to expand sanctuary cities to include not only undocumented immigrants, but also Black communities and others who have been harmed by over-policing and criminalization. In short, these leaders have been challenging issue and funding silos. They are building more durable movements and they need our support. Yet, this work and approach often does not fit neatly into most funding strategies leaving a gap where resources are vital."
— Borealis Philanthropy website

At the bottom of the page it says;

"The TMF is a collaborative fund that includes the Arcus Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Anonymous Donors. For more information about the TMF and to learn more about the work of our grantees, visit the TMF page."

They usually don't try to hide it. With the exception of "anonymous donors" most of these foundations are proud to put their politics right on the masthead.

Again, the point is that all prominent ideologies receive financial sponsorship. Someone is always paying for the megaphone that makes these concepts invade your space. The logic of propaganda follows the same pattern as logic the logic of escalation. I was talking about property rights and I asserted that they ultimately came from violence. I said;

"Two words: commitment limits.

"Yes, you may be able to protect your property rights. Let us assume that your property is small enough to be viewed from every point by yourself. In that case it is most likely possible that you could deter a single intruder from seizing your property. But what about twenty intruders? Or a thousand? What about an army of fifty thousand? The essential difference between the state and the individual is that the state can ratchet up its commitment to almost infinite limits relative to the paltry power of individuals. And thus, your property rights come from the state, because the state says so, and because the state can bring to bear any measure of force against you in order to overwhelm your opposition. Might makes right. The state wins. You lose. Therefore your property rights come from it."
— [THE UNTITLED MAGNUM OPUS] THE STATIST ORIGIN OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

The dominance of elite-sponsored ideology does not mean that a small ideology can never win, but it does mean that if you try to compete against it then you are competing against a megaphone. Just like the state can ratchet violence beyond the individual's capability, so the elite can ratchet propaganda beyond the individual's voice, and simply drown it out. Ultimately, public opinion becomes whatever the largest megaphone says it should be.

This means that the public, through their electors, must control the largest megaphone. The reactionary impulse is to do the opposite, to observe the manipulation of society by power and throw our hands up in the air and say "well fuck it, if power is always going to influence democratic systems then there might as well be monarchy." This is a fools errand because it ignores the reality that elites were struggling over ideology in monarchies as well.  The Protestant Reformation, The Hundred Years' War, and all of European history is a bloodbath of elites trying to unify their power and failing spectacularly. In Asia we have the Mongols fighting each other during the Toluid Civil War, the First Chinese Civil War, The Second Chinese Civil War, and before that the Warring States Period. The history of every society all over the world is the history of elites killing people to unify their power, and failing. Unified power is a delusion.

And I keep saying, elites are all insane.

No, the solution is to go in the opposite direction. If the media is being controlled by the foundations then both the media and the foundations need to become democracies. If corporate influence is a problem then the largest corporations should be run like credit unions; by their customers with elected boards. If censorship by Facebook, Google, et al., is a problem then the tech giants need to be democratized. Since any concentration of power that is not a democracy can be used to infiltrate democracy, then all concentrations of power must be democratized. Democracy must chase power all over the face of the entire Earth until it has broken it down a subjugated it to the utter domination of the people. The true communism is the true democracy; a society where there are no concentrations of power left, where even news anchors, CEOs, university deans, university department heads, must stand for election. To prevent monetary influence from subverting democracy all campaign contributions for all offices, public and private, are taxed at a high rate of 80%. The money is then distributed in the form of campaign contribution vouchers. Of course with so many elections going on simultaneously most people will tune out and ignore them. This is fine, it means that the most dedicated people will command the most influence, as they should. No, the solution is to break power down utterly. If the elites are using immigration policy as a weapon then all immigration law must be subject to referendum, and the head of INS should be elected. The people have always been anti-immigration anyway. If the Supreme Court interferes with the will of the people then the justices should be elected; elected judges are always more conservative than appointed ones.

The solution is A LOT MORE DEMOCRACY. The proof is Switzerland, which has lots of direct democracy and some of the worlds best immigration laws. Contrast this with the favorite societies of neoreaction, Dubai, Singapore, Kong Kong, all of which have vast immigrant populations. Dubai even has a vast population of guest workers who get deported if they lose their jobs, in other words, slaves.

Both Hoppe and Moldbug blame democracy for the leftward movement of society. But Moldbug points out that the Cathedral, a non-democratic element, is what is using democracy for those ends, and Hoppe does the same. They both blame democracy for the thing corrupting it, and this might be believable if authoritarianism actually produced the results they like, but it does not.

Guide to progressive crypto-Christianity

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

How to solve illegal immigration

I put this off so it could be part of a larger work but one of my readers wants to know what can be done about America's race problems.

So I will offer one brief solution to one small aspect of this enormous problem.

Step 1: write a law that taxes landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. Make the tax enormous and cost prohibitive so that no landlord will rent to them. Have it collected by private business entities so that way you create a new industry lobby that will fight against any attempt to repeal the law in the future. (It works with private prisons).

Step 2: gather signatures and place your bill on the ballot as a ballot proposition.

Step 3: illegal immigrants flee your state because they cannot find housing.

Step 4: repeat in all other states.

Step 5: invent hundreds of new PRIVATE industries that punish the left / redistribute its wealth / tax its redistribution / tax profits from lawsuits, etc.

They need to be PRIVATE industries because every time you subsidize an industry or outsource a function of the state to the private sector you create a lobby that changes the composition of the Deep State. Basically, the deep state is the sum of its lobbies. The left hates private prisons and defense contractors because they are right-wing organs of the Deep State. The only reason the Deep State is left-wing is because its institutions are left-wing, and the only reason its institutions are left-wing is because the nature of those industries demands left-wing ideological justifications.

Principle # 1: Power is made out of feedback loops.
Principle # 2: Feedback loops need ideological justifications.
Principle # 3: The type of industry each lobby is in determines whether it is inherently "left-wing" or "right-wing."
Principle # 4: The balance of industry lobbies determines if the state is "left-wing" or "right-wing."
Principle # 5: In right-wing states it will be nearly impossible for the left to make headway, in left-wing states it will be nearly impossible for the right to make headway.
Principle # 6: Victory over the left can only be achieved by changing the balance of institutions that are plugged into the state as feedback loops.

Inherently left-wing institutions / activities / feedback loops.

Subsidized universities
Teachers Unions
Large businesses receiving subsidies
Any large classes receiving handouts
Welfare, including corporate welfare
All unions, including civil service unions
Protected classes

Inherently right-wing institutions / activities / feedback loops.

Slave Plantations
Privateers (private pirates)
Tax farmers
Private enforcement of law
Private prisons
Private legal codes
Private roads
Entrepreneurs
Small businesses
Private armies, mercenaries

Handouts to industries, businesses, unions, etc., are always left-wing. Privatization is always right-wing. Whenever a power is owned it supports right-wing government and right-wing ideology. When it is used as a cash machine for unproductive interests is becomes left-wing. A publicly funded university will be more left-wing than ones that takes no state money. A publicly administered prison will be run by a left-wing union, while a privately owned prison will be run by right-wing management. All these institutions then feed money back to politicians as campaign contributions. Thus, the deep state is either left or right based on the balance of its institutions. Changing the balance of institutions, and creating right-wing feedback loops is the key to conquering the Deep State.

For more on the subject see, Deport them all to Africa. Also see;
When government subsidies are a ruse for an even more discriminatory system, and

The cost of inner peace.

To deny exit is to confirm its legitimacy

The welfare state subsidizes the birth rates of the poor, and taxes the birth rates of the rich, thus defeating itself. Poverty can never be eliminated because it is bred faster than it can be solved. The eventual consequence is dysgenic collapse.

The only motive for denying someone exit is that you need their resources to sustain yourself. Thus, the denial of exit is parasitical. Thus, exit is justified. If humans are equal then a transfer of wealth is unnecessary. If they are not, then a transfer of wealth is unjustified. "Equal worth" is just a moral idea, and moral assertions are beyond provability. We may however prove that wealth transfer is dysgenic, and therefore eventually destroys the capacity to generate wealth, and is therefore immoral according to its own moral criteria. If the highest communist morality is never ending wealth transfer, then liberal morality becomes immoral by destroying the genetics necessary for wealth production to exist, thus eventually destroying wealth transfer.

As a result, the only morally consistent communism is Nazism, since it is the only parasitical strategy that maintains the health of the host by defeating the dysgenic consequences of its own socialism. In Nazism, wealth transfer can continue "forever," since the health/wealth/productive capacity/IQ of the population is maintained through eugenics. Nazism is the true liberalism.

This is no endorsement of Nazism—merely a statement of fact.

Let us postulate that the political system is really defined by two pure opposite archetypes of "parasitism" and "hostism." Parasitism is the true liberalism, and is functionally Nazism. A smart parasite wants its host to live forever.

"Hostism" is the true conservatism, and is functionally accelerationism. A smart host wants only to escape its parasite.

Under this interpretation the political left is an insane parasite, (since it destroys its host with dysgenics) and the right is a stupid host, (since it seeks accommodation with the left).

To even be a host in the first place is to be stupid enough to have been put in that position to begin with. Thus, the right is stupid.

Every evolution of a new species starts with an exit from the original. Accelerationism is a speciation event, whether through the Exit of some AI from us, or the Exit of genetically enhanced CRISPR billionaires from homo sapiens. We are what is being exited from; not the ones exiting. The only question is whether you oppose this Exit and support stupidity, or support this Exit and support intelligence.