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.