9 points of clarity

The points:

1. All political principles are derived from appetite
2. The ideal level of racism is non-zero
3. Everything is eugenics so you might as well do it well
4. Exit is ruinous in a genetic species
5. Every system that works is built on discrimination
6. Everything of value is built in hell
7. Practical consistency is better than moral consistency
8. Today's morality is largely incompatible with survival
9. The popular perception of reality is never the actual

1. All political principles are derived from appetite

Somebody tells you that you owe them reparations for the crimes of your ancestors against their ancestors. They really just want your money.

Another person says that it's transphobic to refuse to teach children about gender: they are really just a pedophile who wants access to children.

The culture tells you to work hard and you will succeed. In reality that is propaganda promoted by managers and owners who want you to work as hard as possible for your pay. (This propaganda might be good for the nation as a whole in some circumstances).

The government tells you that if you don't support the war you're unpatriotic. This is obviously propaganda to get you to send your sons to die in war, a war which is very profitable for someone. In truth you should never go to war unless it's to establish your own freedoms.

Feminism says that it is predatory for an older man's marry a younger woman. This is obviously a case of older women trying to prevent the competition from taking men their own age. Another feminist promotes the notion that any relationship between a boss and his subordinate is workplace sexual harassment. This is obviously an attempt by wives to prevent their husbands from cheating and the loss of income, relationship, and status a divorce would bring. These women have an investment in their husbands, especially if their husband is high ranking in the corporate world, especially if he makes a bunch of money, and have no desire to share that investment with a younger female.

Someone tells you that it's wrong to be racist. In truth they want you to give up your land, make yourself and your family unsafe, and invite hostile foreigners in your country. At best they want to gentrify your country and make it unaffordable for your descendants to live there, turning your country into a playground for the ultra wealthy. They want to price you out of your own nation and make all the worlds democracies rich only clubs. At worst they want to wipe you out because the psychology goes both ways; just as one may scheme by converting an appetite into a moral injunction, one may look around and see something that appears to be unjust and rationalize it by believing it is morally right. Telling the people they are guilty for being white alleviates the guilt of the wealthy and powerful who are replacing them with foreigners.

A Pakistani who seeks "freedom"  in the UK has an appetite for white women and for the unearned freedoms his religion seeks to destroy. He cannot stand his own country, does not have the humility to tolerate imperialism, desires to be ruled by whites, but cannot admit this to himself. His own values and Islamic religion destroy the very thing that he seeks.

The racist who wants to deport him has an appetite for a pollution-free environment, his desire to live without brownoids comes from the same place as a desire to breathe clean air. Even though all people are motivated by appetites all appetites are not equally valid. A white man's desire to have ugliness removed from his sight it's not the same as a browns man's fetish for white women and white spaces. Much of racism is in fact an appetite for cleanliness, orderliness, peace, harmony, and aesthetic healthy people. The fact anyone would think that this appetite is somehow less morally valid than a brown man's sexual obsession with white women, white nations, and getting even with white men, has got to be the greatest scam job of our era. BU-UT BUT BBUUT TH-ATS FASCISM! Yes, it is. Wanting a clean safe space free of brown pollution is definitely fascist and that is why fascism has moral legitimacy. The white man will say he wants safety or "jobs" or express concern about the UK losing rights. This is the moral logic that conceals his true appetite: not for hate or cruelty, but for an unpolluted environment. The proof that he is not motivated by hate is that he would be perfectly happy if they had never come in the first place. A man motivated by hate would want them to come just so he can make them leave. A man motivated by hate would be looking for reasons and scenarios that would give him an excuse to punish, and he would find no contentment with brown people leaving because that would remove any opportunity to inflict violence on them. A racist white man motivated by hate would operate much more like a liberal or a neocon; tormenting them until they leave, and then invading their space because their leaving is unacceptable to him. The average white nationalist is an isolationist and not an imperialist. He is motivated by disgust and not hate. Hate wants to know you so he can hurt you but disgust just wants you to go away.

The number of examples are endless and tedious to go through. Can you think of any? Can you think of an instance where somebody converted their appetite into a moral injunction and commanded you to obey it? Don't get me wrong, morals are real. Things like murder are wrong, but the instant you get into the political realm moral injunctions cease to be universally beneficial to everyone and become predatory.

A libertarian is motivated by an appetite for drugs, scams, and prostitutes. A neocon wants to inflict suffering for his own pleasure. A pro immigration cuck probably has a secret brown gay boyfriend. Keir Starmer is rumored to have a Pakistani boyfriend.

It is all like this. In one era you have to go fight the Gooks and kill the Hun so the powerful can get rich, in another era racism is prohibited so the powerful can get rich on imported labor. I am not some hippy telling you that the people are sheeple. I am telling you that you should use this to your advantage. If people are going to believe invented morality then we (whites men) should be the one who invent it. The inventors of a new morality might as well be white nationalists.

The implications of invented morality are various and devastating. It means that everyone is deceiving themselves and objective morality does not exist where politics is concerned. It means there is no "rising above" or "defeating authoritarianism" since the will-to-power is latent behind all political values, even democratic ones. It means that the people who protest the most and say they care about democracy are the most self-deceptive and power hungry. It means that naked force is actually more honest than the rule of experts. It means that separation of church and state is a fool's errand that simply allows a covert left-wing state religion through the back door with universities as the churches of mentally ill left-wing experts.

Since political morality is fake so are all liberal promises about rights. The left itself proved that morality does not exist in politics with their actions. When the defenders of democracy try to groom your children to be transgender so they can sodomize them you begin to realize no one is playing an honest game. The absence of government power and punishment can also facilitate abuse and tyranny, not just its presence. When the government allows a crime but does not allow vigilante justice then that is a different form of tyranny coming through the back door. For America's entire history the level of rights in this society have declined. Freeing slaves and giving women the vote might be important to those demographics but they are basically red herrings to distract from the fact that these newly liberated people have less rights than white men before them, and white men also have less rights than they used to.

Oh yes, a woman can now vote, but the elections are meaningless, and she is no longer secure in her possessions (civil asset forfeiture), and has no privacy (NSA). She cannot legally defend herself on public transport against rapists, imported to torment her for being white, she has lost the freedom to even use a slur against her rapist, etc. "Democracy" under the management of PMC liberals systematically deconstructed the rights of its own citizens even while pretending to expand those rights. It said it was winning rights for new groups but scratch the surface and these rights are either entirely performative or just cash payments / jobs programs. The real level of rights, even for these newly incorporated groups has declined. The police protected the property rights of blacks more under white supremacy because they would at least try to find the criminal responsible.  America now has cities like East St Louis with police no-go zones and the liberal managerial class is the cause. How can one have rights if the police won't defend you?

2. The ideal level of racism is non-zero

Racism is fundamentally a prisoner's dilemma and anyone who abolishes their own racism first will be horribly exploited by everyone else. If your goal is to maintain multiracial peace then the ideal level of racism is non-zero and you want to be just racist enough to disincentivize the racism of other races. The most stable multiracial society is the one where a dominant race suppresses the racism of all the others. Insisting that white people never be racist while everyone else is racist towards us will have the effect of encouraging abuse against white people. This in turn will create a backlash that gives white people a racial consciousness. In fact this is what we want, so by all means keep telling white people they're not allowed to be racist. Multiracial piece is like pure anarchy: impossible to maintain and just a transition state to a different system. Better to just let the population suffer abuse until it becomes enraged. Besides being a game theoretic problem racism is also a survival skill. How many white people are dead because they were not racist enough to avoid blacks? To avoid travel to foreign places that hate them? Many would be alive today if only they had some racial paranoia. There is a reason suspicion of outsiders evolved. Pain is there to tell you you're doing something wrong, and that is why you should listen to it, and just like pain racism is there to tell you that you are in danger, and you should listen to that too.

3. Everything is eugenics so you might as well do it well

The government subsidizes degenerates. That's eugenics. Corporations over work the middle class thus destroying their birth rates. That's eugenics. The tax code punishes the middle class also lowering their birth rates. That's eugenics. The government puts violent men in prison and these men don't start families. Also eugenics. The government refuses to incarcerate people and so they breed at a higher rate. Eugenics. The government hands out Adderall prescriptions this causing people with ADHD to have increased sex drives. These people then have more children. Eugenics. The mental health profession gives SSRIs to schizophrenics and bipolar people. That ruins their ability to get erections. Eugenics. America brings in high IQ people and wrecks their birth rates. Eugenics. Corporations encourage women to freeze their eggs but most of these women die childless after the IVF fails. Eugenics. Feminism teaches you to hate men so you don't have kids. Eugenics. Dating apps cause chads to ejaculate into latex bags and not breed. Eugenics. It's all eugenics and almost all of it is negative.

You're already doing eugenics, you're always doing it and there's no escaping it. The only question is whether or not it is creative or destructive, whether it is making the species better or worse. Everything the government does, everything corporations do, everything the medical industry does, pretty much everything affects birth rates or death rates and constitutes some sort of negative or positive eugenics. There is a whole twisted ball of forces at play here and ignoring those forces does civilization no favor. It's going to happen whether you like it or not but we don't have to let it happen in an uncontrolled way, we don't have to risk the destruction of civilization itself, we don't have to risk descent into Idiocracy. I'm not advocating we put people on box cars to concentration camps, but everything that every institution does should be studied for its genetic effects and laws modified in order to produce a better race.

4. Exit is ruinous in a genetic species

Libertarians have this fantasy called exit. They think that they are going to build some Island, some seastead and then escape to paradise far away from the crushing rules of government where they will be free to fuck whores, sell crypto scams, and fry their brains with hallucinogens. There is no exit in a genetic species because to do so is to limit your own options. Ultimately you need other people in order to reproduce, and ultimately every ideology needs to reproduce in order to reproduce the ideology. It is doubtful any group of people could permanently exit with a philosophy like libertarianism and still manage to propagate their genes. The non-aggression principle is something that people simply will not obey, and are genetically evolved to ignore. Control over territory, control over ideology, is control over women. Like it or not women will always serve strong men. Patriarchy is a female creation caused by women relentlessly choosing successful and capable men. It is also an essential feature of the genetic health of the species and if the patriarchy was ever abolished so would the health of the species. Women are right to favor the strong just like men are right to favor the beautiful.

Any ideology that enhances control over the opposite sex will always prevail over those that promote exit. This is why both feminism and the Christian right exist.  People want to fuck and "leave other people alone" is a dead on arrival ideology, a maladaptive belief system destined to be out competed by literally anything else.

5. Every system that works is built on discrimination

In order for brain surgeons to be competent they must be hired exclusively on the basis of merit, otherwise some black guy who was hired for his race or connections will hack away at someone's brain and lobotomize them.

Since some races have a naturally higher IQ distribution and can get away with practicing racism while others cannot. If you have a surplus of high IQ talent you don't really need anyone else, and those races that you would import high IQ people from would be better off if you did not import them, since to do so is to cause a brain drain in an already low IQ race. Within a white nation every functioning system is built BOTH on merit and discrimination, at least for whites and asians. Browns and blacks would benefit from anti-racist meritocracy as a method of siphoning off high IQ talent from more intelligent races, but their ego will not allow it, so basically the races that need to practice anti-racist meritocracy won't, and the races that are intelligent enough to practice anti-racist meritocracy don't need to, and actually benefit from combining racism with meritocracy.

There is a significant overlap between being racist and being successfully discriminatory against unqualified labor (among whites and asians). Meritocracy and racism are not a contradiction in a high IQ race, only a low IQ race.

The bridges you drive across need to be designed by engineers who can do the math. That means discriminating against stupid people. Since intelligence it's not perfectly distributed among all races that WILL have racist knock-on effects. You can debate whether the difference is caused by genetics or culture but this was never actually relevant to the issue at hand. Society must discriminate against stupid people to have competent engineers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, Supreme Court justices, etc. The fact that this has racist effects is irrelevant. If a civilization needs to be racist in order to succeed then racism is good at least in proportion to how much it is necessary. You don't want the bridges you drive across falling down because of race quotas. Intelligent people must be given preference. A fully communist society would also have to practice discrimination on the basis of intelligence in order to have bridges that stand up. They would also have racist side effects. Every job description is ultimately a list of discriminations against brown and black people, but also that segment of the white and asian races that is low IQ. Racism against brown and blacks is always going to be loosely proportionate to successful screening for merit.

Moreover, the need for discrimination does not stop with intelligence. Women must discriminate against incapable men, and men must discriminate against ugly women in order for the genetic health of the species to be maintained. Society must practice ableism in order to have able-bodied people in positions that require it. Firefighters must be able to carry people, athletes must be able to throw a ball, workers that stand on their feet have to be able to stand on their feet. Nearly all of it depends on some level of discrimination and allowances should only be made for veterans who served their country.

Necessary discrimination is not race neutral and african countries  would have to discriminate against their themselves in order to achieve civilizational competence. They would have to literally outsource labor to other societies, which they seem to be willing to do with the Chinese but not whites for her historical and egotistical reasons.

The gist of all of this is that every successful economic system will require discriminating against black and brown people, even those that are run by black and brown people. Communism will not escape this problem since the problem is rooted in technology rather than any social effects. Africans, for example, would do well to outsource clean governance to white Americans the same way they have outsourced engineering to the Chinese.

6. Everything of value is built in hell

God brings life forward. Life is struggle. Therefore God brings struggle. Humans are snowflakes in hell and this is more literal than you may think. The solar system is in a galactic habitable zone. Close to the center of the Galaxy is a deadly space of radiation thousands of light years in diameter where flesh will melt into paste. Farther from the Galaxy than us are metal poor worlds hostile to the emergence of intelligent life, since certain neurological functions require the kind of cation exchange that only metals facilitate. Within this galactic habitable zone is a heliopause, this is a boundary where the sun's solar wind protects the solar system from radiation outside of the solar system. Within that bubble is the habitable zone of the solar system, which is a region where liquid water is possible. Then you have the moon stabilizing the rotation of the Earth. Then the Earth has a bubble composed of a magnetic field, which prevents The atmosphere by being stripped off by the solar wind, and within the magnetic bubble is another bubble of the atmosphere, and within that is another bubble of the biosphere. Within those bubbles is the capitalist market and within that is the family structure, and within that men protect women and women protect children. Humanity exists within a matryoshka doll of concentric bubbles within bubbles. Not only is the earth an oasis in a desert of radiation, death, and vacuum, but it is several layers deep of oasis within oasis. It is doubtful that humanity in its present form will ever colonize the stars without converting into some more durable AI based form of life. 

Fascism is used as a term of abuse for anything that is harsh and in that sense the universe is most definitely extremely fascist. Survival in a fascist universe requires internalizing the values of that universe as moral injunctions. Nature gets to veto your moral code, and if you're moral code leads to your extinction or death then nature terminates your moral code and other people with different morals replace you. Thus, a form of social darwinism forms the boundary of what moral systems are survivable. It is imperative for your survival that you believe something compatible with the universe itself, something other than equality.

To quote from the book Xenosystems by Nick Land :

 

If social Darwinism is in any way unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, or more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion.

 

This is easy to say. As far as this blog is concerned, it is also—beyond all reasonable question—true. While very far from a dominant global opinion, it is not uncommonly held—if only nominally—by a considerable fraction of those among an educated segment of the world's high IQ populations. It is also, however, scarcely bearable to think.

 

The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

 

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed—from a human perspective—indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely my way of the relentless, brutal calling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been saved—with torturous inefficiency—from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher's yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth evenly subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then—still further—of the unavoidable horrors that fitness (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite. (This is still, perhaps, to put an irresponsibly positive spin on the story, but it should suffice for our purposes here.)

 

Crucially, any attempt to escape this fatality—or, more realistically, any mere accidental and temporary reprieve from it—leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. Malthusian relaxation is the whole of mercy, and it is the greatest engine of destruction our universe is able to bring about. To the precise extent that we are spared, even for a moment, we degenerate—and this Iron Law applies to every dimension and scale of existence: phylogenetic and ontogenetic, individual, social, and institutional, genomic, cellular, organic, and cultural. There is no machinery extent, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.

You see constantly in left-wing thought a profound resentment of darwinian processes of selection, and since darwinism is something we are within and inescapable from, this amounts to a profound resentment of reality itself. Civilization was striving for centuries to achieve the very malthusian relaxation we now enjoy. When we achieve the comfortable we also achieve the degeneracy of the mind and obesity of the body. There is a reason everyone is fat and delusional today. The process has gone through three phases, with each phase roughly definable by how it treats descriptive versus prescriptive logic. Prior to the era of malthusian relaxation, that is, Industrial Revolution, the logic followed roughly that of tradition, which is to say, is therefore ought. Just logic goes something like, "things have always been that way therefore they should continue to be that way." This transitions into Hume's guillotine, the logical law which says "just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they ought to be that way." After this comes the present logic that we now endure, which says, "things ought to be a certain way therefore they are." 

Eras:

Era 1: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 2: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 3: Ought ⊃ Is

The third form is a sign of civilization level mental decay. You see this logic everywhere:

"trans women ought to be women therefore they are"

"we ought to be able to establish democracy in Afghanistan and therefore we can"

"blacks ought to be capable of achieving parity with whites therefore they can"

"humans ought to be equal therefore they are." 

The fact that this last piece of logic goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence tells you something about how deep the rot goes.

7. Practical consistency is better than moral consistency

Let us say that you create an absolute moral principle and it says something like "all children must be taken care of and provided with sufficient resources for their development."

Sounds great, right?

In order to fulfill this moral principle a welfare state is created which gives every child free education, healthcare, and in case of abandonment, placement with foster parents. Awesome.

Of course this means that you can now exploit the hell out of this system and that is exactly what some people do. A man, let's call him Billy, knows that his children will be taken care of no matter how many women he impregnates, and so he goes around knocking up as many women as possible. His children all receive free health care, education, and if the mother cannot afford it placement with good foster parents. He knows his children will be taken care of and survive to adulthood. He now has the perfect system in place which he can exploit to replicate his narcissistic geans as much as possible. This is what adherence to your absolute moral principle has earned you: exploitation. 

Of course this dovetails with what we have said about everything being productive or destructive eugenics. Also, it should be noted, that the steady increase in narcissism will eventually destroy all willingness to cooperate with the welfare state by collapsing the level of altruism in the society among its voters. Even if it doesn't have genetic effects right away it will have devastating cultural effects which converge on the same outcome.

Every absolute moral principle earns you some sort of exploitation. In this universe absolutes are unattainable because humans are a complex ecosystem and not an engineering problem. It's not like the laws of physics where you can figure out what the laws are and then count on things to work every time the same way. In a garden or an ecosystem you have living organisms that are constantly adapting. Providing the same exact inputs of fertilizer, water, and light won't necessarily work all the time. Diseases can come and go, nutrient deficiencies can develop, nutrients might get washed out of the soil, or maybe salts will accumulate because of the wrong fertilizer. There is no absolute set of permanent inputs that you can use for such a system or if there is there is no way for human government to perfectly execute that and the kind of mind that could pull that off would be so precise it would never bother with absolute moral principles to begin with, since such principles are a sloppy idea. Absolutes are a liability and actually an engine of decay, because around any absolute moral principle will form an industry of exploitation that cannibalizes the whole society. It can be any absolute at all: an absolute commitment to help refugees, an absolute commitment to educating all children, an absolute commitment to rehabilitating all prisoners, an absolute prohibition against the death penalty. To set up absolutes is to court destruction and social decay.

What happens when you're absolute prohibition against the death penalty allows a cartel leader can have prison guards killed? What happens when the refugees turn toxic? What happens when some (black) children are such destructive thugs that ruin the ability of other children to learn? There is always somebody ready to step up and exploit your principles which is why every communist regime has resorted to using gulags. They won't fire people so people stop working. Go to gulag! When everyone gets the same outcome, lots of people exploit it, and then you need vast gulags to hold them all. Nice principle you got there, would be a shame if somebody exploited it! Just stop clinging to absolutes.

There is another aspect to this, which is that morality is ultimately rooted in intuition. Think about it, what do you use to judge whether something is right or wrong? Your intuition. When somebody comes up with a moral system, let's say deontological ethics or consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism, ethics of care, right to life, or whatever, ultimately you are going to use your intuition to judge its value. When somebody declares that you have to give all your spare income to foreigners you have never met, or be vegan, or feed the utility monster, or get an abortion to save the Earth, it is your intuition that's going to tell you that's wrong. Therefore your intuition is the superior moral code since the thing that judges is obviously superior to the thing that is judged. The only way that intuition can go wrong is if it doesn't anticipate the secondary and tertiary consequences of all actions. Intuition must be coupled with an understanding of all the consequences of the given action.

To iterate means to continuously refine a technique or design. You design something and then you constructively criticize your own design, then you redesign it, then criticize it again, then redesign it again. This is the process used in architecture and an interesting thing happens when you simply iterate towards doing what works: you converge on what is moral. This is because the same intuition that you use to judge morality is being used to judge workability and since intuition is the ultimate source of moral reasoning, (or perhaps God speaking through your intuition), then both moral intuition and design intuition converge on a morally sound plan of action. This is what I mean by saying that practical consistency is better than moral consistency. I mean that it is more important to be consistent with what works in reality than what is dogmatically correct according to some wokescold shrill dogma. Morality should come after discovering what works, not before. Leading with morality puts the cart before the horse. Saying "outcomes must be equal" is an example of this foolishness. Why must they be equal? Is equality actually optimum? Doing whatever works would by definition serve more people than dogmatic equality. Doing what works would cause less total suffering. Therefore practical consistency matters more than moral consistency, that is, consistency with what works.

The popular consensus is never true because any consensus will be exploited the moment it is achieved, thus changing what is actually true.

8. Today's morality is largely incompatible with survival

Reality has no obligation to respect your moral principles or to even tolerate your continued existence under those principles. Everything exists within the boundaries of natural selection including your values. If your values drive you to extinction then your values go extinct with you. Women's rights may or may not be compatible with the continued existence of the species. If they are not then all societies that embrace them will go extinct. Since the world is male-dominated to begin with it is highly likely that nature has a fundamental bias against gender equality within our species. Of course this says nothing of a newly designed artificial intelligence species, or technological workarounds like artificial wombs. All solutions create problems and radical solutions to biological problems will create radically new problems.

But the break even rate is a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 children per woman and if half of all women choose to focus on their careers then the remaining half need to have 4.2 each. Without pressure to reproduce and social stigma against singlehood the mere act of choosing not to have children can cause the extinction of a people. For thousands of years humans were bound by our biology and we reproduced much the way mammals reproduce: by having litters of children. The advent of birth control put an end to this paradigm and created women's rights. There is no reason to think that this new paradigm of women's rights is actually compatible with the survival of the species. Why would it be? Biological systems are almost always delicate at adapting to drastic changes. This is one more reason why an upgrade to an artificially intelligent substrate may be inevitable.

9. The popular perception of reality is never the actual

It is probably impossible for tens of millions of people to coordinate their perception of reality before that new consensus is exploited. Maybe in the future, neurological interfaces will solve this, but for now there is simply no way for millions of people to agree on anything that is actually true. By the time you have widespread agreement a group of people will have already moved to exploit that agreement, so that means that the new reality will not be the agreed upon reality, but instead will be the agreed upon reality plus exploitation. The true reality is always the exploited consensus, never the consensus itself. Until factual information delivery exceeds the rate at which the human brain can invent new lies there will always be an element of deception involved. It is best not to get fixated on forcing the consensus to change to meet an actual reality since that is simply never going to happen. Get content with knowing the truth amongst yourself and a small group of friends. You can broadcast what you know, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to know it while it's still fresh and true. By the time everyone agrees the world will have moved on.

RIP Charlie Kirk

Rest in Christ Charlie Kirk. May God keep and protect his family from all who would do them harm. 

Shoe0nhead, a video blogger I have an affinity for, is pretty beat up about the man's death.

My reaction was a little different. The left was always this evil and always capable of this in my mind. It is the reason I've always been anonymous, the reason I have never tried much to grow my audience, and the reason I delete many of my tweets and blog posts after the fact. I have been practicing infosec all these years precisely because I have always viewed the left as a cannibalistic unhinged entity with no respect for human life or free speech. I always knew they were capable of this sort of thing and have always been prepared. Maybe that comes from the extreme hardship I have endured at the hands of others but I've always had a more accurate and in many ways harsher estimation of humanity than most of the people I meet.

It is pretty obvious that the shooter was some Reddit fag obsessed with tranny porn and tranny boyfriend. The text messages between him and his partner seems staged, although that alone does not prove outside involvement. It looks like the partner knew what he was going to do in advance and they agreed to this text message exchange in order to prevent an accessory charge against the partner. It also looks like it was the act of a lone wolf, but what people need to understand is that just because something is done by a lone wolf doesn't mean it isn't the result of some sort of Israeli intelligence psyop. The way that social media is constructed it is possible to assign a team of agents to triangulate somebody who might be on the fence about committing a violent act and then psychologically prime them to go through with it, and it is possible to do all of this using only social media, anonymous erasable accounts, and a VPN. A lot of people think that the Hollywood image of spycraft is how things work, they think it's all James Bond but in reality spycraft is all about things like locating bitter losers and weaponizing them. Spycraft is not guns and high-speed chases, it is subtle psychological manipulation of targets in order to get them to disclose information, carry out actions, or radicalize them towards violence. It's a sexy woman who wouldn't normally pay you any attention getting you drunk while you disclose secrets, it's a whorehouse run by foreign agents, it's a fat pasty guy blackmailing you by threatening to tell your wife about all the whores he tricked you into fucking.

It's not that hard to find a borderline psycho online loser and give him a few "friends" (foreign agents) who will begin to validate subtly every deranged idea he has. You might even groom several of them and then concentrate on the most promising one as time progresses. 

Then, once the deed is done you can take over Kirk's business and turn it from MAGA to MIGA. Max Blumenthal (jew but somewhat based) has some excellent reporting about how prominent zionists tried to apply extreme pressure to Kirk in the weeks preceding his death. Mr Kirk was coincidentally thinking about turning on them before he got shot. Apparently he was willing to convert to Catholicism just so he could stop associating with evangelical cuckservatives.

If I were an evil maniacal billionaire Zionist I would pew pew this guy, take over his TPUSA business and have JD Vance deliver a passionate eulogy in order to crown my astroturfed Vance-cuck as the right honorable successor to Donald Trump in 2028. Then I would turn MAGA into an even greater controlled opposition until they forgot all this nonsense about opposing immigration and replacement. I might indulge their anti-immigrant sentiment by feeding them some meat and distract them from coming after me and my friends. Latinos are the ones I would deport to distract from far more threatening and necessary deportations of blacks and jews. As an evil zionist I would turn racism into sportsball, meaning that I would capture the impulse and direct it against a preferred target rather than the actual problems. "Here deport this latino gardner instead of that nog who murders people on the train." Once the whites calmed down I would resume 2016 levels of progressive blue-pilled cultural cuckoldry.

Maybe this guy's tranny girlfriend was his handler. Maybe the only pussy he could get was tranny mud hole. Maybe he really was a right wing incel loser. Maybe he'll have an accident and die in prison when he figures it out, figures out that he has been used, when his troon girlfriend stops returning his calls.

You don't pew pew a cuckservative podcaster to prove you love to your fag partner, e.g. Romeo and Trooniet. That's retarded. The smart thing to do is to wait until you're 80, or have terminal cancer, and then find one evil rich jew with a billion dollars and go full Luigi. You don't throw your whole life away over troon mud pussy. You don't kill a family man for such lame reasons. This idiot was worse than merely evil, he was stupid.

Brief note on political design

When we think about government we instinctively assume there will be only one unified government and that all functions will be concentrated into this single entity. It's assumed that all other governments will be unified under a single government, such as state and local being unified under federal. But what if this is the wrong design? What if what we need is multiple governments that have nothing to do with each other, that are not unified in any way? Multiple competing governments could be a disaster but if excellently designed could be superior to any unified form. 

The form of government that is best at upholding rights enforcement, for example, it's not the best form of government for producing services. A democracy is probably best for the productive aspects of government: water and trash utilities, building roads and bridges, delivering healthcare, operating ports, steel foundries and state owned businesses, but a monarchy is probably best for making laws since without the need for donations the king has no reason to favor industries. An assassination market which operates like a crowd-sourced Supreme Court, determining if leaders violated a Bill of Rights and then allowing the market to purchase contracts to eliminate them when they do, is undoubtedly the most accessible system for rights enforcement. Some sort of Dark Bill of Rights which specifically sanctions assassination because undoubtedly that is the best way to keep government in line. So let's think about this;

1. Productive government functions — roads, bridges, ports, healthcare, state owned companies — "consumer owned government," elected by the people.

2. Regulatory functions — unelected hereditary monarchy — unbiased, uncorruptible, never takes donations, a predator that preys on the corrupt and powerful by killing them and selling off their assets.

3. Rights enforcement — assassination market, constitutionally sanctioned vigilantism — The Dark Bill of Rights, only adjudicates when rights have been violated, keeps the other two in line.

And of course 

4. The free market — non-governmental production economy — consumer votes with their dollars.

—————

Number 1 is democratic because dictatorships historically have underperformed on building infrastructure and meeting the needs of the population. 

Number 2 is monarchical to insulate the lawmaking process from financial corruption. 

Number 3 is a system of constitutionally sanctioned vigilantism and market because pure Supreme Courts are inaccessible to ordinary people and subject to political manipulation.

Evil versus crazy

Our civilization is dying because of things we believe without knowing we believe them. 

There are four kinds of information, right? Things we know we know, things we know we don't know, things we don't know we don't know, and things we don't know we know. It's this last one that really causes problems. 

Evil people are crazy and crazy people are evil. When we say that someone is crazy we mean that they are evil but we're not going to hold them accountable. When we say that someone is evil we mean they are crazy but we are going to hold them accountable. Evil means bad + accountable while crazy means bad + unaccountable. But who gets to determine what is crazy and unaccountable?

Why an ever increasing list of DSM categories invented by a profession that profits from expanding what is considered mentally ill! Since we have decided that crazy people are allowed to be evil and cannot be incarcerated when they commit violent crimes, and since we have decided to empower a profession of so-called experts to continuously expand the definition of what constitutes insanity, then we have created a monster that constantly expands the amount of crime you can get away with using the insanity plea as a defense. 

Therefore the insanity plea must die. There is no reason why any behavior should be exempt from accountability even if the person doing it is experiencing psychosis. Justice is exactly a determination of the worth of the individual to society and when a person is considered destructive, they are considered of negative worth and are removed from society and placed in a cage. This is how it should be and there is no useful reason why their mental illness would ever change that assessment. 

Mental illness itself, craziness, is just a decision to NOT hold someone accountable. When we say that someone is crazy we mean that they are evil, or destructive, or harmful, or manipulative, or whatever and we're not going to hold them accountable. This is why we say women are crazy, because nobody wants to hold women accountable, because men want pussy, and because if you hold a woman accountable she won't give you any pussy. Women punish men who hold them accountable by denying them pussy and that is why they're able to get away with so much destructive behavior. Patriarchy is the necessary corrective to this and for whatever foolish reason we have decided to abolish it. Obviously when you cannot hold one sex accountable because of its pussy power you must give the other sex authority over it. The basis of patriarchy is not a desire by men to oppress women but a refusal by women to let men hold them accountable the same way they hold men accountable. The basis of patriarchy is women and their choices, their refusal to take responsibility, and also their preference for high status powerful men who dominate them.

Society will never hold women accountable so we say women are "insane." Women do not hold women accountable because why would they? This little bit about women is a tangent and only slightly related to the issue of crime but it is also why society blames white men for the problems created by women and minorities. We are drowning in the false and implicit belief that the white man has an infinite moral culpability while everyone else is infinitely exempt from that same accountability. If everyone is equal how do you explain holding only white men accountable? Equal ability would imply equal accountability. It is a contradiction to say that people have equal worth and then to say that one person can get away with the crime because of their mental illness. The exemption from accountability implies that you believe mental illness to be a higher category of being of greater worth.

Our society believes that men, as the so called privileged, have infinite moral culpability, and are infinitely to blame for women. It believes that whites are infinitely to blame for browns. In short, it does not believe in the agency of any other race but also tells you that everyone is equal. It believes this because white liberals would rather be the villain than unimportant and because brown people are stupid enough to fall into the trap of letting white liberals treat them like babies.

Now the question has to be asked, who would sign up for that? Who would sign up to take responsibility in a society that places infinite burden on the shoulders of those who do? If you have an infinitely expanding list of mental illnesses that exempt you from responsibility, and if responsibility is ruthlessly punished by dumping infinite problems on the responsible, then you have created an engine of social decay. This engine was invented in tandem by a judge who created the insanity defense and by a psychiatric profession that refuses to stop growing. Nobody voted for it, nobody debated it, it was invented out of whole cloth by professionals who should know better but probably won't know better (because they are evil). The purpose of a thing is what it does and if something enables evil then it is evil. Crazy and evil are just two different sides of the same thing, and the only difference between them is the choice of whether we hold someone accountable for it. Just because the law or experts classify something that's mentally ill doesn't mean the law isn't fundamentally broken and corrupt. A thing can be legal without being good, a thing can be illegal without being bad, and it can be totally irrelevant whether or not the person who committed the crime was in their right mind. The legality of something is not a test of its moral value. It can be evil for the justice system to let somebody who is destructive and violent back into society because it classifies them as mentally ill, even if experts agree that this is valid. You don't have to be a pansy ass bitch who agrees with the prevalent values of society just because it is the easy way out. To the liberal in the criminal is a victim and the victim is an afterthought. I was bitching today at someone on the internet and I told him more or less that he should care about the slaying of Iryna Zarutska. He immediately responded by talking about the mental health needs of her killer. This is an absolutely wild mentality and a fundamentally broken way of thinking. It is evil to care more about the mental health of the murderer than the victim, and yet this is what our psychiatric profession has enshrined in our laws without democratic approval, and since social attitudes are actually the result of power this fool has internalized it as a correct moral code.

Again, what gets us into trouble is the things we believe without knowing we believe it. Right now our whole culture suffers from an implicit belief that responsibility isn't a real thing, at least not for designated victims. We seem to think that the idea that humans have equal worth means that criminals are the real victims who have more worth than their victims. We believe that the mentally ill are entitled to commit murder, or at least that blacks are entitled to murder whites because of so-called historical injustice. We believe there is a difference between evil and insanity even when insanity is violent, we apparently believe that insanity justifies violence or at least justifies letting the insane out of prison. The left believes all of this apparently without knowing it believes it, and the right does not know the left believes it and does not have a plan to repeal all these foolish laws made by judges. The insanity plea itself has to go and could be easily repealed by an act of Congress, but this first requires knowing what you don't know you know.

As a side note I find a whole idea of democratic freedom a dubious proposition since at least half the population does not appear to have a mind, but only a container that power puts concepts into. If one does not have any mental sovereignty then giving that person a political voice is just giving them the ability to repeat what they are told by a class of experts. Since every profession seeks its own increase the opinions of experts are whatever let's their field cannibalize the whole society. An unchecked mental health field will eventually turn everyone into a ward of the state who gets away with murder (more murder if you are black) with every person assigned a caseworker psychiatrist. Faced with this proposition it would be much better to oppress the mental health profession than let it spin the society out of control. Remember that crazy people are attracted to education the same way bullies are attracted to the police. Remember that crazy is just another way of saying evil + unaccountable. If politicians with mental illnesses were banned from office nearly every liberal politician would lose their jobs and the remaining politicians would have an incentive to shrink the DSM list and therefore the power of the insanity plea. If the mentally ill were banned from education it would deal a devastating blow to leftist control of the universities and public schools, and for the love of all that is holy abolish insanity plea.

The Cubeshifter

A woman comes across a gelatinous cube sitting in a cube shaped hole in an embankment made of clay. The woman is very liberal, has a septum piercing, a piece symbol tattooed on her wrist, and blue hair. She scoops the gelatinous material out of its cube shaped hole and packs it in a tupperware container and takes it home. She pours the gelatinous shape shifter onto her granite countertop and begins rolling it out with a rolling pin to make it flat. She says "you can take any shape you want! You are no longer bound by capitalism or the conventions of society! I will EDUCATE YOU to be all kinds of wonderful things."

The gelatinous shapeshifter goes SSSSHUPP and takes the form of a cube 5" x 5" x 5."

Talking to the gelatinous cube she says "the first thing you need to learn about being anti-capitalist is that everything is a construct and we are oppressed by capitalism and patriarchy. To teach you I'm going to have to help you take a different shape." She begins to shape it into a log and then a long snake like form then she spirals it around until it forms a coil. She steps back and she says "see you can be a snake."

The gelatinous shapeshifter goes SSSSHUPP and takes the form of a cube.

She says, "I see that we have a lot of work to do to get through your trauma but I think in time you'll realize that you don't have to take the shape of a cube. Maybe we could try exposure therapy, maybe you could take the shape of a rectangle instead?" She begins to flatten the cube slightly. She is taking a more gentle approach, she makes the cube a little flatter, only about 4 in high instead of five.

The now cuboid shapeshifter goes SSHUPP and takes the form of a perfect cube.

She looks at it, exasperated and decides to go to bed. She literally wags her finger at it and shames it, and says "we will continue to do the work tomorrow." Then she turns out the lights and goes to bed. 

In the middle of the night the cube begins to slither across the countertop, it drops on the floor and then rolls towards the front door. It stretches itself under the door and out of the house, then turns into a wheel and begins rolling away. While the woman is sleeping an idea comes to her that she might use a knife to cut the cube in half. Maybe if she separates part of itself it will be able to learn. This wakes her up and she goes downstairs to the kitchen but the cube is already gone.

The gelatinous shapeshifter finds an embankment made of clay, digs a hole precisely 5" x 5" x 5" and pours itself into it. It can now relax since it no longer has to maintain its own shape. It can be the shape it wants without having to expend effort now. "Boy was that a stressful experience! But now I am back in my cube shaped hole safe and sound" it thinks.

The cube is society, the cube shaped hole is "capitalism."  That hole was not oppressing the cube, not forcing it to take that shape. It wants to be a cube, wants to be what it is, and will not be educated out of it. It dug that cube shaped hole precisely so it could relax. It dug every cube shape hole on that entire embankment. The cube is its lowest energy state, it's most relaxed condition. It might not be native to that planet but it lives there now. This is a Cubeshifter after all and the smallest amount of economic education could have taught her that all Cubeshifters seek to be cube shaped.

This entire story is an allegory for capitalism, society, and leftists. The form society sit in is not it's prison, and society likes a cube shaped hole. Humans are a Cubeshifter. 

Is Christian morality irreversibly cucked?

I don't have much to say on the subject of Christian morality but I would like to point one thing out, one crucial insight, which I think everyone is missing. 

In the past Christian morality went against material forces while today it goes with those forces. Let me explain. 

Humans have a tendency to psychologically internalize the material forces of their environment, right? In the past the world was incredibly brutal and the tendency would be to internalize those brutal forces as a moral code. Humans had no trouble staying in touch with reality since the brutal and unforgiving real was always an ever-present feature of existence. In such an environment you would want to tone it down, you would want to make people more compassionate and tolerant and forgiving. In that world the morality of Christ would help lift the civilization out of its most brutal tendencies, since the brutality of reality was being psychologically internalized by everyone.

Now come the industrial revolution and the tech revolution, and mass media, and people get really soft. It's possible that this great new world where everything is easy and soft could only have been made possible by the enlightening effect of Christianity, that no other moral system would make the industrial revolution possible. It's possible that you need an ideology that runs contrary to material forces in order to have a great civilization in order to overthrow violent material forces and realize a better world. But now that you have realized this better world people are getting really soft and they're turning into pansies. The human mind and body evolved under conditions of brutality and need resistance in order to get physically strong and mentally fit. In the absence of these forces of resistance the human mind becomes delusional and the body obese. But now the Christian morality that preached softness and compassion is contributing to the decay caused by soft people rather than resisting it. In the beginning Christian morality opposed material forces but now it aligns itself with them, now it exacerbates them. Now the leftist points to Christ and says "see that Christian morality supports socialism" and basically she has a valid point. Why yes, the morality of Christ does superficially support allowing infinity refugees and turning the other cheek for your rape gang, but I think it needs to be pointed out that Christ was a contrarian and would be called an "incel," by these very leftists and that the kind of conformist people who use Christ as a weapon today hated him back then.

Today what is needed is self-discipline and responsibility. There are lots of harsh things that Christ said too and in a soft world that is dying from its own softness it's better to pay attention to the harsh Bible verses than the soft ones. Mathew 5:17-19 has more relevance than Matthew 5:38-42, "every word of the law will be fulfilled," and when Jesus says he comes to bring the sword he's being literal not metaphorical. Matt 10:34 The Bible has to be understood in it's historical context and that means understanding what intentions the speaker would have today under these new material forces, how a contrarian Christ would respond now.

Remember her name

X removed this trending news story just as fast as it happened. Here is the footage but beware it is disturbing. Her name was Iryna Zarutska and she is the only type of immigrant we should want.

Progressives are really the ones who killed her and they are the ones who should be punished. White liberals should be deported to Africa for being the reason her killer was released from prison on a different charge. Not everyone needs deportation they thoughtful policy is important. Deportation should be the standard punishment for all violent crimes committed by blacks, even the first offense. This is because the level of domestication in the black race (for those who remain) has to be caught up to that of whites. Gang and cartel members should be summarily executed, and white liberal activists deported to Africa. Jews who choose to be subversive go to Israel.

What homelessness, psychology, and jobs will evolve into

Everything the government does creates a cycle of money and power where the government gives money to something or special privileges and then the receivers of those privileges turn around and give donations to politicians. Elected governments do this wholesale with every election cycle but even monarchies wind up with state sponsored oil companies (Russia today, Saudi Arabia) or a vodka monopoly. One of the reasons the Bolsheviks put the entire Russian royal family to death was for fostering a nation of alcoholics. Russia was literally ruled by its version of the Sackler family (opioid epidemic pushers) since the monarchy had a state monopoly on vodka production.

Thus everything the government does becomes institutionalized, sticky, and impossible to repeal. The historian Edward Gibbon remarked in his history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that when the empire finally fell it lifted a huge weight off of the people of the empire. 

The homeless industrial complex wants to evolve into some sort of plantation system, or tenement landlord system. It's natural vector is towards a system or drug addicts and the mentally ill living in group homes supported mostly by taxpayer dollars and donations and becoming a permanent underclass that reproduces itself, having children in permanent supportive housing (free or low cost apartments with no expectation of quitting drugs). When one looks at the birth rates of the ultra poor, and the comparative failure to reproduce of the middle class, one sees that this hugely growing demographic. Drug addicts are very fecund, and although the professional managerial class (PMC) left refuses to gather statistics about their total fertility rate (TFR) of the four drug addicts that I have met in person each of them has between them a total of 12 children, and I have seen many more examples in media. This is because a woman who is drug addicted will have promiscuous sex that leads to pregnancy. Drugs ramp up sex drive while lowering inhibitions and standards. The woman will typically lose custody of her children and then have more children, lose custody of those, and then have more. This is a sort of industrial cuckoldry since these low quality offspring are dumped on family members who must pay for their upbringing at the expense of their own lowered TFR. Since everything the government does becomes a cycle of money and power, since the lower classes have a high TFR, since permanent supportive housing has no barriers to entry, and since the management of these addicts and mentally ill pay good salaries to the PMCs who oversee it, the natural tendency is to form an industry of dependence. When you combine this with foreigners and private equity firms pushing up the price of rent and causing homelessness, and local governments refusing to issue building permits it becomes clear that society is headed towards a two-class system.

A class of millions of people born into dependence. It has happened before during the industrial revolution and is on track to happen again in a much more dysgenic way. Systems that function do not maintain themselves automatically, idealism will not save you, only self-discipline and responsibility can make a society free and great, and there is no motive force fostering responsibility since there is no contact with the unforgiving.

Next we have the mental health profession which is a parasite that co-evolves with its host. Mental health professionals promote irresponsibility and the victim mentality which has the effect of perpetuating the cycle of abuse, the very cycle that keeps people going to mental health professionals. The nature of the profession does not lend itself to promoting responsibility. Unlike a priest or pastor who gets his income from donations, a therapist gets their income from the very people trapped in cycles of abuse. This is a conflict of interest where if the therapist holds the patient accountable the patient will dump the therapist. Any therapist that pushes responsibility gets fired by their client. The nature of the profession favors only mildly effective forms of therapy. A therapist that is too effective loses their clients, while a therapist that is totally ineffective should (in theory) also lose clients. The mildly effective ones have successful careers and go on to teach because they have the resumes necessary to get teaching positions. Anyone too effective, too incompetent, or who holds the patient accountable, has no career.

Therapists are responsible for the spread of victim culture. The left is often blamed for this but the left goes to therapy. Taking responsibility applies the brakes that interrupt the cycle of abuse from one generation to the next. The profession selects for a certain type of expert who refuses to hold the client accountable and then these experts worm their way into government, and since everything the government does becomes a cycle of money and power the process of enabling self-destruction becomes institutionalized as a profitable industry of dependence. Moreover, insane people are attracted to education in the same way that bullies are attracted to the police, and insane people are also attracted to government. Just go to any city council meeting and watch one mental ill person after another stand up to rant at city council for their allotted speaking time.

Last we have Pajeets and the job market. Employers are legally required to list a job in order to give the natives the chance to apply to it, but there is no percentage quota to hire natives. This means that the employer lists thousands of jobs they have no intention of filling, in order to make the company look good shareholders and also fulfill the legal requirement. A native born American then goes looking for a job only to submit hundreds of applications with no response while the company hires the Pajeet it wanted to anyway. On top of this Indians are intensely racist and engage in cast-based and nepotistic discrimination so that when they get into a position of authority they never hire anyone other than each other ever again. The system where one progresses through high school, then college, and then to a job was always designed for a high trust society. The instant this system comes in contact with a low trust third world it is destroyed. Because whites are not racist enough for their own survival they cannot recognize that this system has already been deconstructed. The battering ram of a billion low trust Indians was always destined to destroy the so-called job market. Low trust societies exploit high trust societies and make everything low trust. They wish to immigrate to your country precisely because they cannot enjoy the benefits of the system they destroy within their own country. They are intensely racist and insular practicing nepotism and therefore lack the opportunities to get ahead in their own nation. They seek to immigrate to your country precisely so they can benefit from a system they will destroy with their presence. Ditto for muslims. Whites are such domesticated cucks they cannot recognize reality when it slaps them in the face. Meritocracy was always and only possible within a homogeneous population. 

The last three jobs I've gotten have all been with staffing agencies or professional recruiters through Linkedin. Consider listing yourself as gay and Latino on all job applications. Remember that you have no obligation to be honest with a tyrannical system and the more honest you are the more you help it harm you. On the other hand if you commit a crime and get noticed you have also helped it harm you. Your goal is self preservation and not loyalty to abstract morals.

 There is one system that is absolutely resilient no matter what the government or corporations choose to do: entrepreneurship. Start a company and then hire only your family members. Don't bother getting an LLC or filing any paperwork with the government. Whenever possible work for cash. Incorporation only has the effect of letting the government track you and force you to do DEI within your own business. It is supposed to limit your liability but that is debatable these days. Gray markets are going to become more and more the way to do business as the government gets worse and more tyrannical. Nepotism is a highly resilient system compared to the so-called job market, so is gifts and loans to family members. Pay your taxes in order to avoid scrutiny and comply with the law to the minimum degree necessary to avoid being noticed by it. And there is always organized crime. Mafia organizations can provide the necessary justice and ethnic homogeneity necessary for survival when all else fails. They can also keep local politicians and cops in line.

We are in that stage before a naive people wake up. We are in the denial phase of the four phases of grief. Next comes bargaining and then rage. Can't wait for rage! The future is going to be lit!

Authoritarianism is the way

It's too many selection effects: AI girlfriends, porn-brained impotent zoomers, toxic gender war, LGBT recruitment, discrimination against average men by dating apps, castration of males on the spectrum through transgenderism, the 4B movement, MGTOW, and so forth. 

Saying "well that's just natural selection and those who don't reproduce don't deserve to" is cope. The point is to slow it down, the point is that there's so much of it it could cause human extinction, the point is that authoritarianism is the way. The point is that those cultures that find a way to use authoritarianism to curb the artificial selection effects of technology will survive and eventually adapt while those who engage in consera-cope and weaponized apathy die off. It's you, you're the internet-poisoned fool being removed from the gene pool. Even if you're not, the sheer number of opposite sex members who are is limiting your options. You're settling for a chick who's fatter or uglier than she should be because her brain was poisoned by feminist media. Oh you're settling for a man who's uglier or less successful for the same reason.

There is no substitute for power because there is no exit. We are a genetic species and we depend on others for our survival and reproduction. There can be no libertarian "exit" without a substantial cost called a genetic bottleneck. Genetic bottlenecks are bad, they make the species less healthy, less genetically diverse. They make your race less genetically diverse if you let them. If you undergo a genetic bottleneck your genes can then mutate and then you die off. Or you become inbred and highly neurotic like a certain group of ultra-subversive Christ-rejecting white people. 

POWER matters. Not terrorism, not vigilantism, but actual control of public offices, actual power. Fascism is winning because people want to survive, because liberalism refuses to control material forces, because liberalism cannot conceive of material forces that betray you. The Right Side Of History dogma is literally the conception the material forces run and only one direction towards greater prosperity, tolerance, and progress for humanity. The tech industry proves that technology can be a weapon of auto-genocide. Global warming and microplastics also prove this. We must control the forces that control us. We must develop a steely-eyed realism and will-to-power over our environment that includes a thorough understanding of how the forces we control, control us. We must achieve not just domination over nature, but dominion over technology. No, man will not become a tool of his technology, for the day that happens mankind has been abolished. To the degree that humanity persists it will only continue because it has achieved mastery over the forces it has unleashed on itself.

Get elected, get power, don't be a bitch. Money is the weapon of the enemy and the Chinese are right to value control > profit.

The will to desecrate

A writer I respect and admire, who writes on Substack as Letters from Fiddler's Greene, a one called Dave Greene, had this to say in reference to a quoted post on X. He is talking about the implicit liberal beliefs in mass-replacement, destruction of the past, change as virtue,a etc. Greene says in a quote tweet which is it itself a quote tweet:

"But what Raspail doesn’t say explicitly is that the beautiful oak door SHOULD burn. It needs to burn. Because its beauty is idolatrous. 

Why is that? 

Examine the teleology of the door, why it was made beautifully. The door was made within the tradition of sacred syncretism, to unify the Universal divinity of God with the local spirit of the hearth, as above so below.

But then the Frenchman stopped believing in God. 

Then he stopped believing in the sacred hearth and family. 

And now he just has an ornate door, sitting alone, unable to explain its beauty or purpose, trying to justify its existence to desperate people in a dying society.

In other words, it’s an idol to a dead god. And idols MUST BURN. No human can tolerate the existence of such manifest desecration and be fully alive spiritually. We want to destroy these false promises that can’t be made real. 

The Frenchman doesn’t have the grit to destroy the false idols of the past. The migrants do. That might be the reason the Frenchman invited them in to his country to begin with."

 

— Dave Greene 

 

The amount of people who refuse to get what he is saying here is pretty telling. I have never struggled with knee-jerk denial but I find the behavior everywhere in others. Most people cope with threats to their viewpoint by using defensive mechanisms to keep information out. These defensive mechanisms constitute the laundry list of logical fallacies. I have felt for a long time that it is better to either not conflate your identity with your beliefs (that way your ego is not bruised when your beliefs are attacked), or even better to have a worldview that can absorb all kinds of new information without being threatened. 

Preferably one would do both. 

Oh sure he makes a few technical mistakes. Obviously not every Frenchmen wants to desecrate their own traditions, probably not even most, and I do not think he means to say that the writer of The Camp Of The Saints wanted replacement. But I think focusing on the trivial mistakes misses the forest for the trees. There is obviously a true point he is making, so let's go through it step by step. 

He asserts that elites who hate their own population wish to destroy the past. This is observably true. He says that the beautiful old things were made using a belief system that is largely dead to these people. This is also true.

It never occurred to me that a rigid inflexible kind of autistic mentality would be common among liberal elites, and that one would find the past culture of one's own bygone nation offensive, but I guess if you struggle to let new information in and react with a kind of juvenile rage to stuff that threatens your worldview you would find the past and it's accomplishments mysterious, inexplicable, and a challenge to your liberal progressive notions. After all, if the past is filled with bigots, and if bigots build great cathedrals, then logical consistency demands that cathedrals must be evil. 

The modern liberal needs everything he believes to be logically consistent with everything else he believes. Therefore if a single thing is challenged the whole belief architecture may come down like a house of cards. Therefore he must react with knee jerk insults and denials to keep out even the most trivial point of disagreement. Since his fixated autistic nature demands that everything be consistent with everything else he cannot allow his viewpoint to gradually evolve, and since he conflates his viewpoint with himself he has an ego investment in maintaining it. His viewpoint is brittle and in a slight change causes a crisis of faith.

I always assumed that the reason the left wanted to tear down the past is because of a fundamental misunderstanding with the nature of progress. Progress is the effect of technology, not the effect of the liberal. The liberal leftist places themselves in the position of prime mover causing social progress. This is a rather obscenely arrogant viewpoint to hold since the world is much bigger than you and governed by vast forces beyond your control. The only forces big enough to change all the values of an entire planet all at once are material forces, and the only lever with enough leverage to allow a single individual to move the material forces of the entire world is technology. 

Technology is a kind of super leveraging device for individual power to express itself as a new value system, but that process is irreversible in a way that is even more irreversible than lawmaking. Also, that process is individual, that is, it is the result of an individual inventor and not a group of activists agitating for change. What the liberal claims is that his movements for change caused progress when in reality it was inventors and their funding sources.

All problems create both political and market demand for solutions, and all solutions create new problems. This is the problems-solutions-cycle.

If you play your cards right each new problem created is of less magnitude than the previous ones and the total amount of entropy in society diminishes. If you play your cards wrong you solve your way into a crisis, that is, your solutions actually create a crisis. 

When a solution decreases entropy we call that progress. 

When a solution increases entropy we call that crisis. Modern leftists don't even believe in considering trade-offs which means they cannot avoid creating bigger problems than the ones they solve.

The liberal belief in the right side of history is caused by a series of cognitive mistakes: they refuse to give proper credit to technology, instead reserving that credit for themselves. This is arrogance. They despise the past and the people in it for reminding them of their own spiritual and aesthetic ugliness. This is petty resentment. They only ever imply their values instead of stating them out loud. This is cowardice. They hate their culture because they hate themselves. Self-hatred is a form of narcissism. They believe everyone else is racist  so they may get away with being racist towards conservatives. This is hypocrisy.

How many deadly sins can one group commit? 

It should also be noted that if you build all your highways at the same time then you will have to repair them all at the same time. If you build all your bridges today then you will have to replace them all in like 30 years.

And if you solve all the problems at the same time then all the new problems created by those solutions will arrive at the same time. Then you'll have an era of crisis. 

You want to feed people so you harness fossil fuels. This solution creates the problem of global warming. 

You want to cure people so you create antibiotics. This creates the problem of antibiotic resistance. 

You want to stabilize your population so you no longer have to fight endless wars to feed your children, so you create birth control. This creates feminism and population collapse, among other things.

You are tired of people going blind from malnutrition so you build an interstate highway system that allows you to deliver food grown in one place to other places. You also need to be able to move your troops from one side of the country to another in an increasingly globalized world with foreign threats to your soil, but building the interstate highway system creates auto-dependent culture.

Problem --> solution, problem --> solution, over and over. The problems are solved in waves, the new problems are created in waves. When a whole bunch of problems get solved at once that's a golden era, when the new problems all arrive at the same time that's a crisis era. The RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY is just the gap between two eras. It's the drug high you get when you are riding the wave before it crashes.

It is also the might-makes-right ideology of the American left. Now that we are in an era of crisis they say capitalism is the cause, not themselves. They were eager to take credit for all the social progress caused by technology, but now that those solutions are creating new problems somehow someone else is to blame.

But I like Dave Greene's explanation because I felt like there was something missing in my own viewpoint, that I had worked out the process by which this occurs but not the exact psychology of it's people. I understood that technology creates values but has never fully grasped the pettiness and rigid thinking of the professional managerial class. It had never occurred to me that PMC's could have autistic traits. I always saw them more as schizophrenics on the schizo-to-autism scale.

And while we are at it let's talk about racism. White people did not invent racism, nor colonization, nor extermination, nor slavery. The PMC belief in progress must also be justified by a condemnation of the past and it's inhabitants, by a condemnation of the original European culture. This is a political formula designed to support their power, but having a political formula that gives you power does not mean you have discovered some profound truth. Your political formula can "work" and still be shit. I guess the human mind is just not flexible enough to both espouse a political formula while knowing it is bullshit. 

But I think the political formula is destined to collapse because progress doesn't seem to be happening. If the political formula of a group is that they are on The Right Side Of History this implies that history must continue to progress. What happens when it doesn't? What happens when it goes backwards? What happens when PMCs can no longer deliver on never ending progress? This would appear to be a huge flaw eating away at the left. 

We are in an era of crisis because the bill for our innumerable past solutions is all coming due at the same time. This is going to create a tremendous snapback effect and may cause future generations to view liberalism as mistake and not just what came before it. Condemnation of the past moves on and condemns the liberal progressive. Every generation gets high on its own farts. All  liberal children are convinced of the superiority of their own values relative to their ancestors.