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."

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.

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.

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.

The object and the source: on the impossibility of objective abstract morals, and the hallucinations of philosophers of moral reason

Whenever I challenge any liberal or conservative about the notion of equality they pull a series of goal post movings. "Moving the goal post" is a logical fallacy where the individual simply adjusts their standard as more and more evidence is presented to refute their assertion. For example;

Me: "communism has killed 94 million people."

Commie: "that is not the true communism. Real communism has never been tried."

Me: "they just tried real communism in Venezuela and it failed."

Commie: "it failed so that was also not the true communism."

It goes on and on like this.

In an argument about whether equality is real, the person who asserts that equality is true will make a series of retreats. First I will point out that humans are not equal: that humans are not the same. Remarkably, they will argue that indeed they are the same. After this retarded argument is put down with logic and simple observation of reality, they will insist that humans have equal worth!

They will insist that the equal worth argument was the one they were making all along. They will then retroactively change their own memory of the conversation and conclude that they never believed in equality as sameness, oh no, clearly people are not the same, but they must have equal worth! Oh yes, "that was the argument I was making all along!", they say.

They will simply change the argument a dozen ways and then insist that you must present a counter argument to each and every version of their delusional belief in human equality: equality as sameness, equal opportunity, equal worth, equal justice, and equal rights. They make you argue against each and every one, as they lodge personal attacks against you, call you names, engage in logical fallacies, rewrite their own memories of the conversation, and engage in a level of total mendacity that crosses into schizophrenic delusion and self-deception. This is motivated cognition par excellence. I have had entire conversations with Progressives that they have then later "forgotten" ever occurred because the red pills they were exposed to would have lowered their social standing if they accepted them.

So I am just going to cut to the chase and go straight for the jugular. Rather than the tedious task of refuting all forms of equality, I will simply attack the most important one, the one that is the Bailey of the Motte and Bailey argument: equal worth. I am going to make a simple assertion;

"innocent children do not have equal worth."

Here is the proof. Let us say that you are standing on a beach. On your left is your child swimming in the water about 200 yards away. On the right is some strangers child of the same age also about 200 yards away. They are both drowning. Because of the laws of physics, you only have enough time to save one. There is no one else on the beach to help you, and no one nearby. What do you do?

(a) save your own child because you are racist.
(b) save the strangers child because you are a guilty self-hating White liberal.
(c) practice equality by flipping a coin to decide who to save, thus, potentially allowing your own child to drown. (the coin flip adds a negligible amount of time to the equation).

So who do you save, huh? You can only save one because of time constraints. By the time you get to the other it will be too late. Pick. Your own child or the strangers?

If you flip a coin then you are a monster. If you save the strangers child, instead of your own, you are also a monster. Saving your own child is the correct thing to do in this situation. You should be prejudiced. You should be nepotistic. You should protect your own. That is what morality is all about: inclusive fitness. Your genes are the start of moral reasoning. That which is closest to you is the most important. The closer someone is to you genetically the more value they should have. This is why, contra Peter Singer, if you are White you should NOT give money to starving African children, but should spend that additional money on your own. If you have extra money beyond that then you should spend it on your extended family. If you still have extra, you should spend it on your distant family. You should NOT give your money to strangers and you should NOT set up foundations to help people you don't know. Your extended family clan is more important. Even your race is more important.

Of course, you can save the strangers child if there is time to. But this is a no time scenario. In a scenario where you have time to save both you should save your child first and the strangers child second, because of the different probabilities of death involved as a result of time constraints. If saving the strangers child would harm your own family, or your extended family, or even your race or nation, let them drown.

There are three political orientations that correspond to these three attitudes.

(a) corresponds to racism/nationalism

(b) corresponds to progressivism and "Israel first" type conservatism.

(c) corresponds to libertarianism, communism, and anarcho capitalism.

That's right. Libertarianism is a "flip a coin over your own child". . . "morality." That's why it's soul is closer to communism. Equality is just a plea for coin flipping.

I fail to see why either coin flipping or cuckoldry are superior alternatives to racism. The soul of heartlessness lies in equality while the soul of cuckoldry lies in self-sacrifice for strangers. Deep down all morality is sexual because all morality has its origins in genetics. It is very real to equate sacrifice for strangers with cuckoldry because subconsciously it is. Equality is an inversion of genetic inclination, and western culture has a shame word for everything noble: nepotism, racism, national chauvinism. You should be discriminatory. You should protect your own. You should be nepotistic. That is just helping your kid get into Harvard. Morality is like a Russian nesting doll: it comes in layers of loyalty: family first, community and then race, biosphere last, and in that order. I don't see "capitalism," or "equality" on that genetic list of things to be loyal to.

The problem is people. There is always a person. These people want to reduce morality to an abstract formula like "the greatest good," or the "kingdom of ends," This is a corruption of natural morality — which can never be divorced from the subject. Morality is always moral obligation towards someone just like power is always power over someone. There is always a recipient, always a person it is "being done to." There can be no such thing as legitimate moral math formulas that fail to take into account who it is being done to.

Just like morality is always done to an object, and thus, relative to the object, it is always done by a source, and thus, relative to the source. This is why there can be no moral "objectivity."

Objectivity does not exist. To state it ironically, objectively there can be no objectivity, since there is no objective viewpoint: only a series of subjective viewpoints. There is no objective morality, just billions of subjective moralit(ies), (plural). And there are as many subjective moralities as there are sentient beings in the universe, and possibly more than that.

Every person has a subjective morality. The will to make subjective morality real is the root of mass murder. The desire to make the subjective objective has killed millions.

There can never be an objective morality because morality has a source: the person "doing" morality. Morality will thus be practiced according to that person's subjective viewpoint, and this is the only morality that ever actually exists. Thus, to Hitler, Hitler was a moral man. And to Mao Zedong, Mao was doing what was necessary. And to X, Y moral atrocity is justified. And this is the only way it can be. Since there is no truly "objective" standard in physical reality, and since the attempt to impose an objective standards on physical reality only results in more bloodshed, no objective morality can ever exist. So the problem then becomes one of conflict management. All attempts to define objective morality are evasions of the far more important work of designing systems of conflict reduction.

In a nutshell;

Worth is defined by the subjective viewpoint of a person. Worth is always worth to someone. People cannot have equal worth because of inclusive fitness, and because worth is relative to the values of the person who values them.

Morality is always defined in the mind of a person. It is relative to a subjective viewpoint. The attempt to make it solid always ends in disaster.

Children do not have equal worth. They only have worth relative to the people who care about them. If a parent abandons their child then the parent has committed a crime against the worth of that child. Same with all family members.

Since worth is established by others placing a value on people, worth is established by the action of care. To perform caring actions is to establish worth. To refuse to perform those actions is to degrade the worth of others and betray them. Since there is no objective worth, failure to perform actions that prove the worth of another is a betrayal and a refusal to establish their worth. To allow injustice is to establish the worthlessness of the victim. To perform justice is to establish their worth. Caring is taking responsibility.

Notions of moral objectivity invariably lead to moral betrayal and even mass killings.

Morality is an action, a verb, and not a noun. It is a thing done to or for someone, either as a moral judgement against them, to protect them, or as an act of care. It is an action.

Moral sentiments towards strangers are a lie, equality is a coin toss, and real moral obligation is nested in concentric circles.

Last but not least. Both deontology and utilitarianism are reifications. They are the undead ideas of zombie philosophy that just refuse to die. They aren't real. There can never be an objective morality nor moral formulae, and thus, there can be no deontological ethics or utilitarianism. Consider that when you judge one of these two artificial abominations of natural morality, you always get the sense that something is not quite right. You feel there is something queasy about utilitarianism, or posturing and fanatical about deontology. You know that natural sense that you use to judge these other moral codes? That natural sense is your natural morals. It is the subjective morals that we just described: the morals of inclusive fitness. Your natural morals tell you instinctively that these moral codes worked out by philosophers are all either abominations or incomplete. Listen to your instincts. They are right. Nothing that is judged can ever be superior to the thing that does the judging — not where morality is concerned. That your instinctive morals judge both deontology and utilitarianism prove that natural morality is superior to either. That these two moralities are simply poor attempts to approximate natural morality is proof of the legitimacy of inclusive fitness. Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, and both of these artificial systems are just grasping at the thing they cannot quite put their finger on: the morals of inclusive fitness, the morals of nested tribalism, subjective worth, and demonstrated value.

Deport them all to Africa

An African man in 1600 gets captured by a Black slave trader. The Black slave trader sells the man to a White slave trader. The White slave trader takes the Black man to America and sells him at auction. Slavers give campaign contributions to senators. As a result, senators are unwilling to repeal slavery, and in fact they expand it to more states as the United States conquers the Western Frontier. Since this brings more Africans into America we will call it a "vicious cycle."

It takes a civil war to get rid of it. That is how hard it is to abolish a feedback loop in democracy. It is so hard that you need a war that kills 30 % of Southern males ages 18 to 40.

A man gets arrested. The private prison that incarcerates him is paid for by the government. Using the money they make off his incarceration, they give politicians campaign contributions. Politicians respond to these contributions by writing harsher laws that incarcerate more people. It feeds on itself. Call it a "virtuous cycle," since it reduces anarcho-tyranny.

As a result, America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. That is obviously a bad thing, but it is a hell of a lot better than more anarcho-tyranny, and liberals are importing the crime problem by the millions.

President Shitlord makes everything the left does, and only the things leftists habitually do, illegal. The penalty for all of these offenses that only liberals tend to do is deportation to Africa. Private deportation armies perform the service and Uncle Sam pays for it. These armies give campaign contributions to senators. Because of campaign contributions, the senators change more and more laws so the penalty is deportation. More and more degenerates are deported to Africa. It just so happens that there are slavers waiting at the airport to take new arrivals into custody. So the deportation industry profits on the back end too. More and more degenerates are deported. Now America no longer has the worlds highest incarceration rate. The cycle feeds on itself. Call it a "more virtuous cycle."

This is what democracy does. Democracy has a habit of accumulating feedback loops: welfare states, slavery, identity politics, profits from immigration, frivolous law suits, military profits, profits from college subsidies, and social security voters. In all these cases there is a feedback loop. Someone is getting paid. That someone is turning around and either paying back the senators or voting for them. Feedback loops basically run democracies. Everything the left does is a series of feedback loops. Why do they import hostile immigrants? Votes and profits from globalization will pay them back. Why can't social security be reformed? The elderly will stop paying back senators by voting against them. Why are colleges subsidized? Teachers unions pay congress back with campaign contributions. Why does identity politics exist? Activists pay back senators by campaigning for them. Paybacks don't have to be monetary. Votes and activism will also work. It's all the same in democracy: feedback loops.

Let's invent a feedback loop of our own.

The way to smash a leftist feedback loop without a civil war is to invent another feedback loop that cannibalizes off the previous one by making the previous feedback loop unprofitable. In other words, deport their immigrant investment. And while you are at it, deport white liberals as well — to Africa. No one can ever accuse you of being unequal that way. And why bring the Third World to America when you can deport the spoiled brats of the First World to Africa? Also, make refusing to uphold your laws itself a crime. Then deport the leftist judge who refuses to uphold you laws — to Africa. In fact, just deport them all. Where? Say it with me now.

AFRICA

Make everything the left does a crime.
Make taking money for leftist causes a crime.
Make George Soros a crime.
Make propagating leftist ideology hate speech.
Make censorship and no platforming a crime.
Make receiving profits from harassment lawsuits a crime.
Make hiring illegals a crime.
Make renting to illegals a crime.
Make refusing to uphold your laws a crime.
Make uncooperative generals a crime.
Make all crimes punishable by deportation.

Ending Mortgage Debt Slavery

Houses could be traded on a futures exchange. If this was combined with a 100% tax on the profits from the sale of a home, (whatever you make after paying the debt you own is confiscated), then a society could be created that was virtually mortgage free. Furthermore, because you make an exception for builders and architects, you can still have housing development. And because you have a house trading system in the form of a housing futures market, people can still move out of their homes or leave the equity to their children.

The reason housing and apartments are so expensive is because homeowners lobby local governments to restrict the supply in order to raise its price. All other things being equal, anything that restricts supply of a thing results in a price increase. They do this for racial and crime reasons. We will have to address that in a separate article. For now, our goal is to abolish the debt slavery to banks that everyone deals with if they want to buy or sell a home.

The mortgage stimulates Americans to go into debt. It incentivizes people to treat their homes as a bank account. It causes people to lobby governments to screw renters by restricting the supply of housing and accomplishing a de facto transfer of wealth from renters (mostly the poor children of the middle class) to home owners, (mostly their parents). The high cost of a mortgage is dysgenic, causing the best families to delay reproduction. The mortgage boom and bust cycle is corrupting to politics. The act of paying a mortgage makes you a wage cuck until the day you die. The very existence of the mortgage has caused the size and cost of homes to increase through induced demand, and therefore the length of debt service to increase. Originally, mortgages were for only 6 years and covered only half the cost of your home.

Every time you move you get trapped by a new mortgage. The fact that you can cash out the equity in the old mortgage encourages people to be financially undisciplined. Lastly, being tied to a location decreases ones job prospects. Employees who can move are more likely to have higher pay and lower unemployment levels. However, one should not move for money. One should live where family is, and a mortgage can prevent family regrouping.

The mortgage is the perfect obscenity for the democratic man and his throw-it-away/strip mall/planned-obsolesce-high time preference R selected shite culture. It is improper for any reactionary economic system that follows in the wake of democracy.

The housing futures market works as follows; when you want to move out of an old home and into a new one the value of your home is assessed. Then a banker broker for the market issues you a pile of call options equal to the value of your home. Let's say you home is worth $230 thousand dollars. He gives you 230 one thousand dollar call options. Additionally, he loans you an additional 50 call options so you have some wiggle room to buy a more expensive home, (230 + 50 = 280). So now you have $280,000 in equity to purchase your next home with. You locate a new house worth equal or less than that amount. You have up to 90 days to vacate. If you go over that time, daily penalties accrue.

So you find another home, say it is worth $270,000. 10K in call options is refunded to your broker. 270 in call options are used to pay the seller. The seller, in turn, receives 270 put options, which can be cashed out (upon vacancy of the property), applied to any mortgage debts remaining, (upon vacancy), or converted to call options, (to move into another house).

The whole market is structured this way. The less debt you have the easier it is to move because you aren't having to finance part of the transaction or apply a portion of your equity to the debt. Less debt simply gives you more room to do what you want. More equity gives you a bigger house.

And you can pass the equity onto your heirs by leaving them equity certificates. So there is no need to haggle over who gets the house. Upon your death the market will simply sell the house, (in accordance with your will), and hand equity certificates to your heirs. They have 90 days to pack your stuff, or a fee is charged against the equity, and a moving company does the packing for them, and places it in storage for a proscribed amount of time, say 6 months. The equity certificates are reduced according to the fee amount as proscribed by will.

There is also a tax on speculation.

So how is this different than right now? Well, for one, you only finance the difference between homes. So that saves you a lot of money if you own your home free and clear. Second, since no one can profit from the sale of equity there is a tremendous incentive to minimize debts and maximize equity. So everyone in the market is frugal. Third, since you cannot cash out your equity you have no real reason to have too much. You want enough equity to buy the house of the size that you like. Fourth, if the market goes "upside down" all that means is that you need to trade into a smaller home. If you still own money on a part of your home you might abolish that debt by trading into a smaller home of less value and applying the surplus equity to the debt. So when the market is "down" there is an increased demand for small homes and when the market is "up" for large homes. Fifth, you are not nearly as bound to a particular location. You are both more able to move away from family (bad) and more able to move towards family (good). So in a way this accelerates exit and makes attempts to bar exit meaningless. Lastly, without profits from the sale of equity every person simply leaves their equity to their children. This give capitalism a profoundly feudal component, and encourages massive hoardings of equity in trusts controlled by families. Unlike the property of the feudal past, these estates are mobile. A whole extended family with a trust might buy 20 homes in one area and relocate everyone there only to pack up and move the entire family someplace else a few years later. It enables families to practice a kind of band-level nomadic tribalism in a landscape of capitalism. It is an ultimate exit technology.