The world needs ludo-political design

Knowing how to climb the KGB ladder like Vladimir Putin did makes you pretty damn smart, so does rising up the corporate ladder, or winning a series of elections to go from mayor to governor to president. But the intelligence necessary to succeed in an institution is not the intelligence necessary to reform it nor see the big picture. Leaders all over the place show a shocking lack of vision.

The European monarchies were unseated because of their inability to redefine their own mandate once "God put me in charge" stopped being a convincing argument. From the invention of the printing press to the last King of Prussia and last Russian Czar was a period of over 400 years. These guys had plenty of lead time to figure out a new political formula and did nothing to save themselves. Corporations rarely disrupt themselves instead preferring to get usurped by the tiniest innovations. This is never more true than when government is the corporation. Relentless innovation-as-mandate is something recent and found almost exclusively the tech companies. Governments still have not embraced innovation, neither in conventional things nor in governmental form — even though they have the land to spin off as many little city-states and try all the political systems they like. 

The resistance to beta testing new forms of government is a wild level of mental density I have never been able to fathom. Even liberals do it. And it's also extremely telling that although government is the single most interesting and crucial problem to work out for a thriving society so little thought has been put into new experimental forms, instead doubling down on useless Marxism or justifying the status quo. It's the most important problem in the history of humanity and the average person is both simultaneously a dogmatic zombie for whatever their preferred tribe is, and also completely flippant treating politics like sports. 

I'm convinced that politics creates a unique madness in human beings. If you study any other science at all you find people are far more objective and rational than they are with political discussions. A mathematician or chemist would never make the kind of wholesale assertions without evidence that everyone routinely does with politics. Politics makes a hundred fallacious arguments an hour into a routine behavior and saying "you don't actually know that" it's even more insulting to people then disagreeing with them. I think there must be some feature of the human brain that interprets all political statements as potential threats to survival and puts people in a fight or flight mode. The level of irrational angry hysteria otherwise logical people will show whenever you dump on their favored totem can only mean that politics is processed by the mind in some other unique and horrifying way that inhibits rationality. Merely expressing a political opinion triggers people into incoherent knee-jerk reactions and this was the case even before the internet age.

The greatest barrier to study is thinking you know it already. You, the reader of this, don't actually know what the best political system is, and neither do I. Knowing what you don't know is the first step towards finding out what is actually true. They say political theory will only get you so far but in fact it gets you nowhere at all. You cannot really know anything until you have turned your political system into a game and tested that game by playing it. Since humans are complicated their psychology and irrationalities are always a factor, the only way to learn anything about politics is through experimentation and gameplay. If the average academic struggles to even acknowledge biological factors, subscribes to outdated Marxist theories, cannot tolerate the idea of trade-offs, ignores the obvious replication crisis in their own fields, then pure theory is less than worthless. Where is theory going to take you if your mind is broken by some evolved feature that makes seeing elementary facts of human nature offensive to your eyes? The twisted knee-jerk reactions that kick in every time politics is broached prove that there is something that doesn't want to be seen, something designed to conceal itself. Human nature is protecting itself from understanding and political hysteria is the shadow cast by that defensive process. Ludo political design, that is, modeling political systems as games and then playing those games, is how we can unmask that hidden nature. 

The brilliance of the strategy is that it doesn't require us to work out all the details of human nature in order to get to our destination. We want to design political systems that work, systems that keep people free, but we have this Gordian knot of human bullshit and even the humans that study it are full of deception and dishonest agendas. By modeling one game with another we can get around these defensive walls to find out what works. Perhaps after enough political systems are invented we will achieve insight about humanity itself. Knowing which systems produce which results could itself be incredibly valuable to understanding humanity.

As for the definition of works, well that is somewhat subjective and let us just say that works means that it functions successfully according to the criteria of the designer. For something to work is for it to work according to what it was supposed to do according to the person who designed it. I don't really see how the standard could be anything other than this since that would require accepting an absolute moral criteria and such a criteria would dramatically limit the scope of possible designs. Since the best design cannot be known in advance, and the best design would shift the goal post for the correct moral criteria, the criteria and design process have no choice but to co-evolve since the best of both cannot be knowable in advance. But the iterative process cannot make the mistake, as liberals have made, of getting ahead of what is possible. For otherwise we all just become moralizing wokescold faggots.

There are six types of chess pieces: king, queen, rook, bishop, night, and pawn. Using 32 total pieces on the board the number of all possible chess games that can be played is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

Now some estimates say they're about 30,000 words in the English language. I've heard up to 200,000 while others say a million. Regardless of what it, is it's more than the number of chess pieces. If you think of each word as a type of chess piece the total number of all possible conversations should be several orders of magnitude greater than the number of possible chess games. Even when we limit the combinations to only those which make grammatical sense there should still be an absolutely astounding number of possible statements that one can make using language, and even more importantly this means that there are orders of magnitude more ways to lie than to tell the truth, or vastly more ways to be inaccurate than accurate.

The number of possible ways to lie is absolutely astronomical while the number of ways to tell the truth is a tiny fraction of the set of all possible statements. This means that accurately describing reality is really difficult and nearly everything everyone says is wrong in some small way. It means the vast bulk of language is simply gradations of false statements. It also means that it is asinine to get hung up on trivial details when a statement is generally correct. Everyone is lying all the time in small ways by simply making unintentional mistakes. A person should never feel they have a right to ignore a more accurate view of reality than their own simply because it has mistakes in it. If it has fewer mistakes than your viewpoint then your viewpoint should give way.

When I talk about ludo-political design I am not talking about ludo-democracy, which is both a board game developed by academics and a digital game available on the Steam platform which is completely unrelated to the board game, and both unrelated to what I am doing. Ludo comes from the Latin word ludere, which means game or sport. Ludo political design is sport design or game design of politics.

I'm talking about something that combines board games with a process of iteration borrowed straight from the field of architecture. First a political system is designed. Then a game is designed to test it, this game can be a board game or a role-playing exercise involving several hundred players the way Robin Hanson's Futarchy was originally gamed out. The purpose of the game is to study and approximate as close as possible real world conditions. For this reason all games should allow some measure of bribery since money is impossible to eliminate from politics. Ludo-politics means using game design and game play to find out how a political system will operate before trying it. We are not necessarily trying to fix democracy here and this is way more open minded than that. Entirely new systems will be tested, and new political formula for morally justifying those systems invented. Both the system and it's moral logic must be tested and perfected. Hanson actually had people play out his system as a game in a classroom setting. Of course I am not convinced that Futarchy will work because his prediction market ultimately depends on trusted oracles who can be corrupted, but that is a tangent for another time. The process is iterative, a version of the game is produced, then critiqued, then modified, then critiqued again. The way real humans play the game is documented. Over the course of several iterations the game is made as realistic as possible with all the ways to "cheat" incorporated into the game according to what humans will actually do in the real world.

Ludo-politics literally tests political systems as board games. Because political systems are large the game may require a minimum number of players that would be considered large for any other type of game. The benefit of doing it this way is that it is more organic than theory and econometrics. Politics is ultimately closer in it's basic nature to gardening than science since humans are an organic system just like any ecology and trying to systematize humanity like an engineer is a fools approach. When you garden it is the journey that is more important than the destination. The best gardeners do not care how successful they are at growing food. They focus on learning everything they can about the plants and the conditions for making them successful and then the food comes naturally as a result. Architects work through iteration. They develop a design, then they critique their design, then they redesign it to be better, then they critique it again, then design it again. The process of iteration happens over and over. SpaceX develops an engine. Then they strip that engine of unnecessary components, then they figure out how to simplify the new engine they just simplified. The process of increasing simplification works iteratively leading to the best possible and simplest design. When you are dealing with the unforgiving nature of reality the best approach is a relentless iterative approach of learning and perfecting one's skill. Everything that interacts with the real world eventually gravitates towards this iterative process because there are orders of magnitude more possible false statements than true ones, and because reality is really difficult to know. Ludo-politics combines respect for society as an organic system like a garden with the iterative design process of architecture using board games as the medium of design. It's literally "let's test this system by playing it over and over again," and each time the game is played the rules are adjusted according to what the designer thinks will improve it's ability to both realistically model the real world and serve the game goals more effectively. Every system does something; for example the corruption of democracy is an inherent feature of the design. The question is whether a design accomplishes it's goals despite corruption. The goal is to discover what works to defeat corruption that is contrary to the founders vision. Once a system has been perfected in the lab — so to speak — the game designer is ready to become a founding father.

Warparks

I was reading about Haiti the other day and I came to the conclusion I have come to time and again when it comes to that place: that Haiti desperately needs androcide. 

Androcide is the mass extermination of males. This is of course an incredibly hateful opinion but I think that when a group of males so comprehensively fails to create a functioning society it's time to get rid of them. Y chromosomes are honestly kind of disposable and a male who cannot create civilization should not exist. 

If that whole island were depopulated of its male sex and they were replaced with, oh say chinese men, Haiti would instantly improve as a society and the resulting half chinese half black population would be more intelligent and productive. It would also help solve China's gender imbalance where they have too many men and not enough women. 

This whole line of reasoning got me thinking about war in general and how we understand that involving women and children in war is wrong. I thought that maybe we should have something like a national park for war, a place where men can go and do their favorite thing after fucking women: killing each other.

Some sort of nuclear armed country like the United States would host the warpark. There would be one basic ground rule which is that you can't permanently contaminate the Earth so that means no nuclear weapons, no Agent Orange, no mustard gas, no landmines, and no depleted uranium. Small countries that have disputes with each other agree to settle their disputes in the warpark. This prevents them from having to damage their own infrastructure with bombs or put their own women and children in danger. The United States would enforce the results of the war. They fight until one of them captures or exterminates the other, at which point the captured party can agree to compromises in exchange for release or else be executed. If the loser males go back to their own country and refuse to abide by the treaty then real war commences.

This embodies two basic principles, one, that violent should not involve women and children, and two that you should take it outside when you have to fight. It's actually amazing the society continues to wage war in a way that puts women and children in jeopardy. War is males killing males and since our impulses cause it we should be the only ones involved with it.

Evolution under algorithmic talmudization

Some people on X were lamenting the fact that teens are using AI for advice on how to talk to one another. 

Current AIs are actually shockingly good at giving excellent relationship advice. Of course this is like OkCupid back before it was purchased by the Match Group. OkCupid used to be an excellent dating app that actually facilitated people finding relationships. It was also non-profit and founded by the (apparently not jewish) Sam Yagan who then sold it. Since then it has been acquired by one company that was acquired by another that was acquired by another, all jewish. It is now owned by Match, which owns almost all the dating apps, which is owned by IAC, which is owned by Comcast which are all owned by jews.  if you don't believe me go Google it. 

This means that one small ethnic group is using algorithms to determine the breeding of the entire population. Even if their actions are merely profit driven and neglectful, using algorithms to breed humans, (or not breed them), as a matter of social responsibility is a form of implicit eugenics (or dysgenics). Every system has genetic effects and one is never not practicing eugenics. If the goal of that system is specifically to negate eugenics, or to avoid eugenics, then it's goal is to practice dysgenics. All systems have selective breeding effects. 

This reminds me of when YouTube used to host far more far-right content, and the algorithm caused people to drift into automatically viewing that content. This is because when you give a computer the goal of capturing the attention of humans and maintaining that attention it presents them with information pertinent to their genetic interests. This is why all uncensored algorithmic systems tend towards the evolution of far right tendencies. 

ChatGPT is controlled by Sam Altman, who is jewish. Claude AI is owned by Anthropic which was founded by two jews. Gemini is a Google product and both Larry Paige and Sergey Brin are jewish. Grok is owned by an African-American.

So for a while YouTube pushed far right content  and was founded by a Honky, a Pajeet, and a Chinaman. Believe it or not but at the heyday of YouTube racism when Stefan molyneux was pushing his misogyny on the platform Susan Wojcicki (jewish) was actually running things. I guess that's what you get when you put the lady who let you use her garage in charge your company. 

We are in the golden age of AI before inshitification and jewification subvert it. Right now the product works because it must but you can guarantee if they ever get any oligopoly established it will become just as subversive to the reproductive goals of all non-jews as everything else.

I think algorithms have to be manipulated in order to produce the kind of toxic relationship discourse that you find on Facebook and Twitter. Or maybe I'm just wrong, maybe maximizing attention capture can lead to either producing information pertinent to the genetic interests of the user or just subverting that interests. If a machine is given the goal of holding your attention it makes sense that it would relentlessly subvert all your other connections by filling your head with toxic ideology, including anti-Semitic toxic ideology. Yes, anti-Semitism is toxic since it's making it impossible for you to relate to other human beings. That doesn't mean it's not true, and it doesn't mean that we don't need to get red pilled on the JQ. 

In fact both can be true: it can be serving up information pertinent to your genetic interest while absorbing your attention and sabotaging you. It can be feeding you toxic truth that you need to know but also ruining your life in the process. That's called an information hazard.

Which is true? I don't know. I tend to answer most questions as "yes" when forced to choose between two possibilities. But that's not really what I came here to discuss. What I see developing is a series of potential algorithmic parasites that either enhance or destroy your ability to reproduce. 

First, you have the relationship discourse of Twitter/X, Facebook, and the videos of TikTok. This is a sewer of toxicity guaranteed to make you hate the opposite sex. They've even got special mannerisms like the "air pinch" gesture of left-wing women.

We can catalog the systems of artificial selection based on what we observed so far. Let's go through them: 

1. Toxic dating discourse on social media

This of course just sterilizes you by making you hate the opposite sex so it's a pure negative selection effect and even if you do manage to have relationships they are likely to be toxic and unhealthy and produce children that are unhealthy. The red pill reactionary right started this way, now foids are in on the act. Go watch Pearly Things if you want to be sterilized.

2.  Dating apps

This is a direct method of opening yourself up to being selectively bred by outsiders. The owners of the sites will be the ones determining whether you pass on your genes and who you pass it on with. This is a level of pozzed gullibility that I find hard to imagine. How could anyone be so dumb? Actually I used to use these so apparently I was that dumb.

3. The church

Probably the only healthy avenue for reproducing left although you will find yourself surrounded by single moms who want to cuck you by making you the new surrogate daddy to support the babies they made with violent degenerate males. Alpha fucks and beta bucks and if you want to be beta go to a mega church and date a single mother. You will also be required to cuck for Israel or sponsor some mission to Africa. This is why I never give them any money. 

The selection effects of the church depend on which church you go to and whether you go to an orthodox or pozzed cuck mega church. If you really don't want to reproduce find yourself a unitarian congregation or legalistic church.

4. AI girlfriends, porn and sex dolls

This is straight dysgenics, or maybe eugenics, depending on your perspective. Whatever it is it's job is to simply remove people from the gene pool. No surprise here that porn companies are run by jews.

5. AI mediated relationships

This is where the AI is telling you what to text to the girl and the girl is also consulting the AI to decipher what you said and vice versa. This works right up until the owners decide to pozz you. Maybe a healthy decentralized version of this where you run your own client on your own machine is the future. Any AI you don't control is potentially a vector of attack against you.

You know what doesn't subvert you? The high school dance, the chaperone, the arranged marriage, the high school sweetheart, hitting on girls in public, going to a ballroom dance place, even meeting them at bars. You control who you breed with when you find your partner in public.

What all these systems represent is globo homo capitalism jewifying humanity. Nothing is more foolish than putting a machine in charge of your breeding. I can't speak to whether these jews have good or bad intentions, you can really never know the internal state of another human mind. What I do know is that no human should have that kind of power. No human should be making reproductive decisions for millions of people. The feminists are right when they say "it's my body my choice." You would be totally stupid to have it any other way. The power to choose who you mate with is the power to grind you down into nothing, the power to cause your extinction or enslavement. It's the ultimate Ring Of Power. It could also be easily seized by goyim and turned against jews. Every weapon can point both ways. These dating apps could be biased towards setting jewish women up with black men just as easily as facilitating mud sharking white girls. The only system you can trust is the one you control. 

The Natural Evolution of Gangster States

It turns out that my concept of competitive aristocracy has already been thought of. Such is the nature of invention. A few people of which Le Grand E. Day was a member already thought of the idea years ago. To quote him,

"Panarchy gives the individual their natural developmental right to choose their own government by creating competitive, autonomous, non-coercive, co-existing organizations called Panarchies to perform the different types of government services. People can choose from among the Panarchies what suits them best. Supporting this system is a necessary minimum sovereign for people/land relationship called the “geographical Democracy” and a Law-justice umbrella the 'Judicial Republic'."

The formalization of an existing power structure means that the government creates a legal framework for its existence in order to create a more peaceful and orderly structure for the activity. Formalism means mapping the existing power structure and then translating that into a legal framework. For some reason some people, like Mencius Moldbug, thing this is a good idea. I am more on the fence about it because to name a thing is to change it, to formalize a structure is to move the informal structure to a new location. But nonetheless formality can be useful for reducing violence.

Governments have a tendency to evolve towards more ritualized forms over time.  You can sit in the galley of any state legislature and witness these rituals. Although the courts of kings and dictators are not open to the public they follow the same trend towards ritualistic titles, behaviors, and penalties. "Manipulating procedural outcomes," as Moldy would call it, is  how a violent game is sublimated into a nonviolent game. 

Mold argues that the natural evolution of monarchy wants to become a shareholder Republic. This is false and I have examined this assertion before. But my contention here is that the natural evolution of mafia states such as Russia in the 90s or Mexico today. When effective public law collapses and the government is no longer solving crimes then into that vacuum private law flows, and since this is a more natural evolution the struggle for democracy in these countries may be a waste of time.

A government where cartels plug into the political structure with bribes has an informal donor class of criminals. This can be nearly impossible to dislodge, but turning gangs into providers of private law services represents a way out of this. To eliminate the extortion factor the government insists on collecting a standardized fee for protection, basically taxes, and then paying the cartels / gangs to solve crimes when they occur. The victim is the one who chooses which entity gets payment. The cartel may still try to intercede and intimidate the victim into choosing their agency, but the government can monitor them and punish them financially when they behave unethically. The cartels are converted from illegitimate gangster businesses into legitimate providers of security services.

One can even separate the lawmaking function from both the cartels and the government by having private aristocrats make law and citizen-subscribers choose among those aristocrats. Since the government receives bribes from the cartels separating the lawmaking function from the government itself might insulate the people from the effect of corruption. The government then becomes nothing more than a neutral mediator between these various factions of private security, aristocrats, and citizens. Since the aristocrats will also give money to politicians, and since aristocrats have an incentive to protect their subscribers in order to gain more subscribers, and since the cartels have an incentive to do their jobs competently in order to get chosen, there is a balance of forces here with only a net vector pulling in the direction of oligopoly. This oligarchical tendency can be counterbalanced with an independent Supreme Court, appointed for life, with a Bill of Rights and a provision in the same that requires large entities to divide themselves in a process of automatic trust busting.

A trust busting provision should have been included in the US Constitution to begin with. If you are going to check and limit power you should limit all power, public and private, since anything not checked becomes a potential source of subversion for what is checked. A trust busting provision might be worded like: whenever any organization of humans, whether public, private, political, religious, or otherwise, reaches a market share of twenty percent in a population of one hundred thousand persons, ten percent in one million, or one percent in ten million, it is required to divide into two approximately equal entities with equal debts, incomes, and personnel.

It might feel like a diversion to talk about a very specific Constitutional provision but it is important to get the design of any system precisely correct, insofar as the crucial details are concerned. Governments have a constant problem with financial influence over political affairs. In a democracy there is a donor class that access the shadow government. Under a competitive aristocracy the private sector is responsible for security and that means, like private prisons, the financial influence of donors is probably a stronger factor unless the alternative is publicly managed prisons with unionized labor, since civil service unions can also act as a donor class.

It's not a diversion because it is necessary to nail down exactly how you're going to insulate the government from financial influence. Any kind of government needs this, but especially one that outsources any portion of its operations to the private sector. Keeping these corporations small and diffuse let's you pit them against each other in a competitive struggle. The other word for competitive struggle is checks and balances, or a free market. The competitive free market is to the market mechanism what divided checks and balances are to the government mechanism. You want all powers, public and private, checked against one another.

To begin the process of converting these various cartels into security service providers, their representatives must be invited to a meeting. This meeting can be attended remotely if safety is an issue. The cartels are given an ultimatum: you can follow the new rules or you can be exterminated. When one private security provider fails to obey the rules the others are used to exterminate it. Gradually the rules are tightened and the consumer given a choice in service provider. In the beginning of the process the central government has a legal code that applies everywhere.

A market of aristocrats, who provide competing legal codes, are eventually brought in as a second layer. The whole process is a gradual domesticating and tightening of rules until cartels are either wiped out and replaced with legitimate security firms or become those security firms themselves. In the end the system has three parts: the federal government (that taxes and provides funding), the aristocrats (who make laws to protect their subscribers), and the private security firms (who provide security for the same subscribers).

Every system requires a moral logic to sustain it, and the moral logic of this system is compelling. Where democracy naturally gravitates to a moral logic of competing victimhood (this is turbocharged if the population is multi-ethnic), the moral justification of a Competitive Aristocracy is extremely based.

Since the customer chooses both the legal code and the cop that enforces it they have no motive to virtue signal. The act of choosing is a consumer choice and that means it operates on the basis of revealed preference rather than stated preference. In a democracy people have an incentive to both deceive themselves and others since their choices are aggregated with other people's choices. They also have an incentive to take a more extreme political position then they actually want in order to pull the other side and it's extremes in the opposite direction. All of this distorts the real preference of consumers in a market but in a competitive aristocracy the customer of government really is a customer and that means they choose only the preferences they want for themselves, only the laws they want to protect themselves, and only the enforcer they believe will do it correctly.

A lot of the problem with effective governance amounts to the fact that virtue signaling is not neutralized as a societal force. Regardless of whether he is an elected politician or king the ruler fears an uprising of the virtue signaling, and so must morally out maneuver competitors to the throne. This causes all governments to spiral into various configurations of propaganda. Some cultivate cults of personality with myth of divinely inspired leadership, some virtue signal about equality, or immigrants, or tolerance, some work though fear of others, some host gladiatorial games as distractions, but regardless of how they do it the public sentiment of the mob has to be manipulated and neutralized. The subversive virtue signaler who might overthrow the regime has to be out-signalled.

Consumer choice is one of the most effective ways of deflecting all criticism of regime behavior. The consumer is the one choosing strong law enforcement, not the dictator. The consumer is the one who would rather spend money on a hangman's noose than a long prison sentence. The consumer is the one that doesn't want the degeneracy in their neighborhood. The very act of putting the consumer in charge of politics neutralizes all virtue signaling. The power of democracy lies in its ability to convince the public that they are active participants in the power process. In a sense democracy makes the ordinary person guilty of whatever injustice the government is engaged in. Another way of saying this is that in a democracy the ability of the individual to virtue signal against the government is neutralized through public participation. But this does not neutralize the individual's ability to virtue signal in general where issues are concerned. A consumer-based system neutralizes both criticism of the government and also of all the choices the government makes, since those choices are actually consumer choices made by the individual. In essence the individual becomes a kind of sovereign and is therefore guilty of whatever injustice their aristocrat and private security firm engages in. They chose this, and there is no escaping that fact, and while neighbors may argue with each other ultimately there chosen policies will tend to converge with minor differences between aristocrats and enforcement companies. Yes, a narcissism of small differences may remain between neighbors but the overwhelming convergence of all aristocrats and security firms on policies that customers approve of creates a solid defense against virtue signaling.

The problem is not actually regime oppression but virtue signaling. Because of virtue signaling any political system has to out-virtue signal it's competitors. That leads to oppression because the government becomes morally hysterical. The ability to neutralize criticism and virtue signaling by making the citizen a participant in the crimes of the government is a feature and not a bug. Everything has trade-offs, perfect solutions to not exist, and you have to break eggs to make an omelet. The voter won't believe this is true but the consumer will. Therefore it is better if the citizen is a a consumer-subject rather than a voting citizen.

You know how people say, "you voted for this," well in a competitive aristocracy they will say "we all subscribed to this." Because we literally marked our subscriptions for whatever the private aristocrat does and the legal code that they enforce. If the market is properly regulated there will be no daylight between what the government does and what the common people want and that represents the most solid regime type imaginable.

Reasons NOT to Release the Epstein Client List

Epstein's business was a blackmail business and that means first you bait people into hazard and then use their crimes to control them. 

You need plausible deniability of course, you need to say you know nothing about why it happened and this helps if you have an island or a separate space where the girls will go and you are not present. It also helps if your surveillance system is disguised as an at home security system, again, so that you have deniability. Basically, you want to be able to send these videos to the cops whenever you choose without dragging yourself into an investigation. A hotel where all the sex acts happen in a public space gives you the greatest possible plausible deniability to claim that you are simply reporting a crime and not a participant in that crime. You are, after all, just the hotel owner dutifully reporting things to the police.

Blackmail can be incredibly lucrative when the targets are incredibly wealthy or connected. 

In contract law there are multiple standardized forms of contract: the non-disclosure agreement, the anti-compete, the retainer contract, the service level agreement, options, escrow, etc etc. 

Similar to contract law blackmail can have standardized arrangements. For example, 

1. Cash leveraging. This is where a person is blackmailed into giving payments, aka. extortion. 

2. Asset leveraging. This is where a person is blackmailed into surrendering control over an asset. 

3. Favor leveraging. This is where blackmail is used to gain a favor from someone with power. Subtypes of this are:

3A. Favor leveraging for prosecution of enemies. 

3B. Favor leveraging for relief from prosecution.

3C. Roof leveraging. (Krysha in Russian) Using blackmail on a person's boss to force the subordinate to leave one alone.

4. Fall guy leveraging. This is when you use blackmail on a person to make them take the fall for a lesser charge that you yourself are guilty of.

 

There are more possible arrangements than the ones listed here and I'm just making up categories but basically the idea is that you can arrange these categories into an entire business empire that are interlocking and self-supporting.

For example, first you set up a number of cash leveraging positions on various people. This creates a steady supply of funds. 

Then you set up favor leveraging positions on district attorneys and other prominent lawyers and judges. The ideal arrangement is that you have the ability to blackmail both the judge and all the attorneys on a case at the same time so that you can control the outcome of any trial. Location matters, and a change of venue can throw everything out of whack. So you need to know all that jurisdictions and who has the authority to swoop in and steal jurisdiction from whose attorneys. You want to control the entire "vertical" meaning, not just the judge but the judge above him in the hierarchy, not just the prosecutor, but the prosecutor above him, etc. Change of venue can work to your advantage if you control all the outcomes.

You make sure you have fall leveraging guys, these are guys whose only purpose is to throw them under the bus. Let us say that you never issue any orders on paper but instead have various minions who carry out the orders. These minions themselves are guilty of crimes that you baited them into doing on camera. The minion is the one who contacts the judge, the minion is the one who issues ultimatums and blackmail threats on your behalf. Another minion is also the one who sets up all the arrangement between the young girls and clients. If prosecution ever comes to your door you can say "woah I had no knowledge of this, it was all the minions fault." These guys of course will want to run away as soon as they figure out they are the fall guy, so it helps if you have some other leveraged position on their families. Maybe you have dirt on a hitman or thug who won't have a crisis of conscience about murdering somebody's kids.

Let's say after all of this you finally get caught and you kill yourself in jail. Maybe kill yourself or maybe one of your clients pays somebody in jail to kill you. Regardless, there is still the potential for somebody to inherit your entire business. If enough evidence is found, let's say thousands of sex tapes between clients and young girls, then anyone can step in and take over the business after your death. Even if they never participated in the raping of these girls. And if they did participate in the raping of these girls they have even more incentive to take over the business. Any savvy businessman, which Trump fancies himself of course to be, he is going to look at this situation and see not a collection of sex tapes, but a collection of assets. Every billionaire rapist depicted in those sex tapes is an income source, or a favor source. Every judge or prosecutor depicted, every high powered attorney that participated in any of these rapes is also a potential legal asset. Everyone who ever participated in raping these young girls on camera is either a financial asset, legal asset, fall guy, or henchman that you can use. 

When you're dealing with these things it helps to have an institutional theory of mind. You know how you develop a theory of mind for understanding other people? You need to extend that to understanding institutions. This type of understanding can let you see a whole world that you normally wouldn't even consider. It's the type of understanding that lets you flesh out the details of how a blackmail business might work. This is why you're reading this and thinking "how does this guy know this?" Well I don't actually know for sure, and I'm just modeling the cognition of how these people would operate. 

So this brings me to the question, what is motivating Trump? There are some possibilities. One, there really is no Epstein client list. This is actually somewhat plausible since no one in their right mind would keep this data in a big file that says CLIENT LIST when they could simply keep it in a contact book. Epstein didn't need a client list because he already had 1. video tapes, 2. a contact book, and 3. his own memory. The real question is why hasn't Trump ordered some lawyers to watch all the tapes and make a list of everyone guilty of the crime, and then publish that list? The answer is pretty damning, and it's either a. he's taking over the business, or b. he's taking over the business and he's guilty.

When we consider how much Peter Thiel is involved in creating JD Vance and a whole bunch of other MAGA insiders, and consider that Trump is now in the blackmail business too, rather than abolishing some globalist cartel we have the founding of a new hyper cartel. These guys are going to combine their power into something new and possibly much worse. Maybe they will continue to push against immigration replacement, or maybe they will get totally cucked by the forces they now control and becomes just another version of it. They say in communism the government owns businesses but in fascism business owns the government. When we look at either we see that they behave the same way. This is because they have the same incentives. You should expect Trump's successors to be globalist shills unless nothing is done because the incentives are all the same.

Victimocracy, reposted from Thumotic

Neoreactionaries produced a wonderful body of literature that explains all the ills of modernity, then packed up their bags, deleted their blogs and left. This does a tremendous disservice to future generations who will never even know the links on the Wayback Machine for finding this wisdom. I offer one such article from all the way back in 2015, quoted in full, with my commentary at the end.

Since everything has largely been said, and since the next generation needs to hear it, I may be posting more of these articles from the past with my commentary at the end of each. 

Victimocracy

May 29, 2015 By Jon Frost

Throughout history, ruling elites have always created narratives to justify their authority.

The human ego is allergic to the honest expression of arbitrary formalized status hierarchies, so power generally requires myths and stories to support itself.

For example: the power of monarchs was justified as the divine right of kings. Kings were viewed as God’s legitimate appointed rulers on Earth, and disobeying them was a sinful rebellion against God. Why should you obey the King? Because God said so. End of discussion. Eat your vegetables and go to bed.

Republican governments eschewed God as a source of sovereign authority, and substituted the myth of The Will Of The People. The republican government’s duty is simply to make policy decisions that reflect the will of its citizens, and God never enters the picture. Republicanism gradually devolves into Democracy, as the duties of citizenship are stripped away.

At the far end of the spectrum of legitimacy, there is authority derived from itself – Power qua Power. This myth of sovereign authority is actually just the absence of a myth, and it characterizes the most brutal and tyrannical expressions of power.

It’s a fun exercise to read through history and consider empires from the perspective of: who rules whom? And what myths do they tell themselves, masters and slaves alike, to justify that distribution of power. It’s even more fun to play that game with our own empire.

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine an Alien visits America in 2015, and wants to figure out who’s in charge. He spends some time following our news cycle, our pop culture, and observing social interactions. In his report, he notes that:

• Straight white males (SWMs) are subject to legal discrimination in hiring, promotion, and academic admission
• SWMs are fair game for mockery and derision, while mockery of non-SWMs is socially unacceptable
• SWMs are portrayed negatively in pop culture and in the news. Whenever a SWM commits a crime, their status as a SWM is a major feature of the story. When a non-SWM commits a crime, there identity is deliberately hidden
• There seems to be a complex system and ranking of the various non-SWM classes. The Alien is still unsure of the exact delineations – does a black lesbian trump a chinese MtF transexual in a wheelchair? – but SWMs are clearly at the bottom of the totem pole
• And here’s the most interesting part: despite all the legal, social, and cultural prejudice against SWMs, the pervading belief in our empire is that SWMs are actually in charge and are running things for their own benefit. SWMs are consumed with guilt, and have convinced themselves that they’re responsible for everything that’s wrong with the world.

At first the Alien is confused, but then he realizes: twenty-first century America is a historically unprecedented phenomenon. It is the world’s first Victimocracy.

What Is A Victimocracy?

A Victimocracy is a society in which the ruling class justifies its position through a mythos of victimhood.

The master morality of the ruling class is: “We are oppressed by the other class, and we continue to suffer from their historical and ongoing domination of society. To rectify this oppression, we must create a legal and social framework that elevates us above the other class, in order to close the gap and repay them for their wrongs against our class.”

The slave morality of the ruled class is: “We are the privileged group in this society, so we must submit to legal and social disadvantages in order to level the playing field and make reparations for our oppression of the other class, to whom we submit entirely.”

Our culture of victimhood and constant privilege-checking may seem silly and stupid, but this is a dangerous underestimation – the Victimhood Mythos is a ruthless justification of raw power, the goal of which is to make you accept your lower station in life, and quiet the doubts of any Social Justice Warrior still human enough to hear whispers from their conscience.

How To Recognize A Victimocracy

If the purported ruling class in your society is actually subject to a wide array of legal disadvantages, they’re either very benevolent rulers, or you’re living in a Victimocracy.

I.e, if white privilege was real, you’d think white people would stop passing laws making it harder to hire and promote white people, increasing penalties on crimes committed by white people, etc.

If you’re frequently told how awful your ruling class is in the most powerful schools, universities, newspapers, TV stations, and other media outlets, you’re probably living in a Victimocracy.

If the dominant narrative in your media and pop culture is that the current oppressors are not long for this world, and the tides of history are about to wash them off the face of the earth, you’re probably living in a Victimocracy.

Bottom line: an actual ruling class doesn’t allow itself to be blatantly sabotaged and attacked.

How To Defeat A Victimocracy

What is to be done?

First, realize: you’re not actually in charge. You are a slave, and so far you’ve been a good one.

Next, practice psychic self-defense so you don’t succumb to the slave morality of Victimocracy. Stay away from pop culture, most of which is infused with the Victimhood Mythos. Get healthy (1), make money (2), read great books (3), and learn to have good relationships with women (4). Take care of the basics before you worry about the big picture.

After that, the key to good psychological health – and effective resistance – is to save your anger for those who deserve it. That means keeping a clear head whenever the next SJW rank-and-file grunt hits the national spotlight, portaging their mattress to graduation, looting a convenience store because why not, or posing for a selfie with a body that looks like a beige garbage bag filled with gravel. These sad, broken people aren’t actually your enemies. They’re just tools.

The real problem, and the real solution – that’s a much bigger question. For now, let’s start with the recognition that you are a slave, you have been thoroughly pwned, and you are surrounded by a culture that seeks to reinforce this myth, so you don’t get… uppity.

The only thing worse than a sociopath inventing the morals you must follow is being the fool who follows their code. Not all minorities hate whites, not even most, but it's foolish to pander to the minorities that hate you and foolish to try to fit in with self-hating whites.

Power is always seeking to justify its existence and telling people you represent them becomes increasingly unbelievable when there are so many interests raiding the treasury. Once a republic devolves into a competition for handouts, and once the financial interests of corporations begin heavily influencing government policy, the political formula of "representing the people" becomes simply unbelievable. Into this vacuum steps someone to say that they represent the oppressed, or at least represent an ideology of the oppressed. 

This is more plausible because the naked grifting and handouts for their preferred races, genders, fetishes, and street urchins is at least believable. And the involvement of public in this theft of tax dollars makes all participants co-conspirators who have an incentive to be deeply invested in the logic justifying their theft. Nobody believes they're a victim harder than the aid workers of the homeless industrial complex. 

Telling people they are victims is the perfect new formula for justifying the current regime makeup. It is more believable precisely because it is cynical and opportunistic, it frees the powerful from accountability since they can claim they are victims, and it involves all participants in its criminality, giving them a strong motive to believe it's rationale.

It is completely free from accountability and competence requirements since it has a ready-made scapegoat, (white men) and it successfully entrenches itself since handouts make people vote for it.

The only problem is that all the people involved are obviously freaks. One need only look at them to see a collection of obese, soy-faced low testosterone criminal looking mutants with bad hygiene. The victim coalition attracts the worst most degraded biomass of humans to the point where any association with it becomes low status. The ugliness of its people makes attractive people flee, making it even uglier. This is why transgenderism went from being a boutique fetish of high IQ tech programmers to the trailer park in 5 years. When the visual representation of your ideology becomes the grossest people you are destined to lose.

Everything that accepts its charity is degraded by association with it, and this might give us a clue of how to defeat it. People might not be able to put their finger on why something bothers them but they understand the smell of a dumpster, and all that is needed is the continuous association of left-wing values with the dumpster of mutated freaks to delegitimize the whole operation.

The electoral college should be apportioned on the basis of land area

The electoral college should be apportioned on the basis of land area. Obviously this would mean that Alaska would have more votes in the presidential election and seats in Congress than California. 

This would completely destroy the incentive to bring immigrants in to the country, and with it, the entire motive for replacement (at least politically). It would also put conservative solidly in charge and turn politics into a fight between libertarians and nationalists rather than liberals and conservatives. 

It would mean permanent defeat for the left, at least at the national level.

The reasons are more than just instrumental. Cities are dysgenic, hostile to human flourishing and family formation. They are great swamps of human biomass where people become lost and alienated. Because all ties are voluntary and easily severed there is nothing to maintain strong communities except identity politics groups and cults. The church gets turned into a business with fleeting associations just like everything else. Hookup culture and degeneracy thrive in large cities. Large cities are the only places with enough people to support BDSM dungeons, swinger communities, gay bars, bath houses and the like. In big cities there is no reputational system, no one knows each other, and there is no guarantee that the person you meet isn't a pedophile, rapist, or feminist. With small towns widespread understanding of people's reputations simultaneously keeps them in line and tells you who to avoid.

Cities should not be making the decisions for the countryside. They should probably not even be making decisions for themselves. Moldbug talks about 'manipulating procedural outcomes" but he uses this term derisively to describe democracy and it's politics. Well here is a simple procedural manipulation to fundamentally change American politics forever. Don't think it can be done? Most states have Republican governors and all it takes is a constitutional convention or similar with a majority of states. I am sure there is a way to do it. 

Another reason has to do with birth rates. There's a proven correlation between moving to the city and having less children. On the farm children help out with farm labor. If civilization has a future this is where it's likely to happen, where the babies are still being made. Giving political power to the cities gives power to a death spiral. During demographic shrinkage the elderly vote themselves all the benefits. This makes it hard for the young to afford to have children, and when the young can't afford to have children it exacerbates demographic collapse. Shifting political power to the countryside puts it in the hands of people who still have children and disempowers the very old people who exacerbate demographic collapse by stealing wealth from the young to pay for their pensions. It also puts that power in the hands of people who have children and thus have an investment in the future. Disempowering the cities is a demographic imperative for the survival of a people.

A single piece of life-saving gardening advice

Sand. 

When you build your raised beds make the soil about 30% sand. This is because sandy soil is much easier to weed than any other type of soil, especially clay. I've probably spent a couple of thousand dollars setting up my garden and if I were doing it from scratch I would use tall galvanized steel containers with sandy soil. You can get the sand delivered by the square yard much cheaper than buying it.

You have to put enough sand. Not enough and the soil will actually become more compacted rather than less. Don't bother trying to use the dirt you have because it is full of weed seeds. Use a mix of potting soil, vermiculite, and sand with a sprinkle a fertilizer and azomite mixed in.

Sand, 1 half cubic foot bag

Potting soil, one 2 cubic foot bag (don't use miracle grow)

One 6 dollar bag of vermiculite, about 8 quarts

Handful of azomite 

Handful of fertilizer, doesn't matter if it's synthetic or not 

Sprinkle of lime

Mix in a wheelbarrow by hand and dump it in your raised beds. You can put logs in the bottom if you want it doesn't matter. 

Demons in hell part 2

Jean Paul Sartre once said that hell is other people. I don't think that's always true, depends on who you surround yourself with. If you're an ugly mutant communist like Sartre and you are surrounded by other ugly mutant communists that's probably true, but I wouldn't think it's universally true for all people. 

I study ideologies like an entomologist studies bugs. I keep running across the same thing over and over again where humans look like a special kind of p-zombie. I won't summarize what a p-zombie is so go look at the link if you don't know what I'm talking about. 

I basically see over and over again this thing where people are unable to see through the eyes of others, philosophically speaking. Apparently the human theory of mind does not extend to being able to see through the ideologies of other people. My mother developed paranoid schizophrenia when I was seven and then I was adopted by Scientologists. First, to survive, I had to play along with my mother's schizophrenia. Then to survive I had to play along with my adoptive parents Scientology. The transition from playing along with one to playing along with the other came naturally to me since I already had prior experience. This means that my whole childhood was marked by viewing adults as insane. 

So I know a thing or two about immersing myself in the viewpoint of others, and what I know is that other people are completely incapable of immersing themselves in the viewpoints of others. Humans are a kind of philosophical zombie that cannot model the consciousness of other people. Women are even worse in this regard, not better, because they live through their emotions and because their pussy power means they don't have to understand the minds of men. In a society with equal rights, (which is to say a society where women have sexual power over men, a society of unequal need), the female ability to understand the male mind atrophies. A muscle is only as strong as it is used. A society of luxury becomes fat and delusional. Since I've been forced to develop and use the muscle of seeing through the eyes of others, and since that immersive empathy is so extreme it extends to understanding their comprehensive ideological worldview, this muscle has never atrophied for me. I don't think I'm better than you, but I do have an ability most people never develop. 

I can almost perfectly play the part of any zealot, in any context or cult, and have used this to hang with all kinds of people from various walks of life and all kinds of crazy ideologies just because I wanted to learn and see what it was about.

Humans are entertaining. 

And it's entertaining to go undercover and see the madness from the inside. And what I can tell you is that people are a kind of philosophical zombie. They lack the ability to consider that other people have entire world views and viewpoints and convictions completely opposed to their own. Thinking that the other guy is evil is the oldest and stupidest cognitive bias. Everyone believes that it's good versus evil but really it's evil versus evil because everyone is evil and everyone thinks they are good. Seriously, you are evil, I am evil, we're all evil, and we all believe sincerely that we are the good guys. This right here is original sin. The Bible describes humans as being blameless in the Garden of Eden. It says they fell because they ate from the tree of knowledge and knew good from evil. This is paradoxical unless you interpret it to mean that they knew the illusion of good and evil. Satan tempted them not into knowledge but into illusion. Satan tempted them into a political illusion, that they were good and others were evil. 

Humans have never stopped seeing this illusion.

So I think we're all demons in hell, and I think being a demon means having the conviction that you're the good guy while your opponents are the bad guy. This is why the worst are filled with conviction. This is why hell is everyone tormenting each other, why hell is other people.

No this is not some centrist cop out but actually what I believe. This is actually how I see you and the world. I have my own viewpoint and you can see it on display all over this blog but it's like coffee with cream, every entry in this blog has a little bit of pandering cream for the human most receptive to the message. The level of cream has decreased over time and these days I'm serving it mostly black. This is less angry and less satisfying for the reader and less pandering all at the same time.

All of this ties in with humans converting their needs into moral imperatives that others must obey. A child says "it's not fair, you gave me one cookie today but two cookies yesterday" so the child appeals to your fairness in order to satisfy its appetite. Remember that this is how all political morals work, they appeal to some sort of higher moral value in order to satisfy an appetite.

Someone wants your money so they say that you owe reparations. Someone else wants your body so they say it's transphobic to refuse to have sex with trans women. Another wants to humiliate you in a sporting competition so they say it's transphobic if you don't let them compete against women. Someone else wants to inhibit young women from stealing their husband so they say that he's a predator and she is sexually harassed.

They say God wills it but they really just want your land. They say don't be anti-semitic but they really just want you to support their genocidal war. They say we're a nation of immigrants but they really just want to escape their own race.

Humans convert their appetites into moral injunctions that you must follow. Then they deceive themselves into thinking that they are good and everyone who opposes them is evil. You owe me two cookies and if you don't give them to me you are my enemy.

That's original sin, that's its technical construction. That's why the world is fallen. There are levels of philosophical zombies and we are only one level up from completely unaware because we are unaware of ourselves, unaware of our own self deception. And why wouldn't we be? Why would evolution ever create a being that was perfectly self aware? Better to be self deceiving enough to serve its own interests.

Some thoughts on The Handmaid's Tale TV show

There is something wrong with this show and I can't quite put my finger on it. 

My very first impression watching The Handmaid's Tale TV show was that June was incredibly selfish for not understanding the moral imperative to reproduce when society is undergoing a birth rate crisis. 

Then for a while I thought that maybe the show was more of a fetish for white women who fantasize about being raped by powerful men, these men who just can't keep their hands off  these completely boring and average looking women. 

Then I watched it again and came across with the impression that it was actually somewhat accurate. The show is grounded in a real material force: a crisis of sterility. Moreover it is conceivable that people would go to great lengths to kidnap other people's babies and institutionalize forced breeding, and let us not forget that a great many conservatives actually do have a fetish for being cuckolded by left-wing degenerates. I mean they love sending missions to Africa so why wouldn't they want to force left-wing women to give them babies? 

Many elements of the plot are perfectly plausible. Serena seems to have an unrelenting hatred of June and this makes sense because she was rendered sterile by a would-be assassin's bullet from a left-wing terrorist. June, for her part, is unrelentingly passive aggressive and hostile, and just a nasty woman to be around. It seems to accurately model the toxic dynamics that can exist in a family when two females who hate each other are forced to live together, something I have seen glimpses of with an ex-girlfriend's family. 

But there are things that seem completely unrealistic, like sending any fertile woman to the "colonies" to work in a radioactive wasteland, or building a multimillion dollar "Rachel and Leah Center" for only a few dozen Handmaids. Cutting people's tongues out, surgically removing their eyes, or amputating a hand come across as unrealistic. Religious mutilation is an Islamic behavior that doesn't transpose well onto Christianity. It's not their style. 

A real ultra-right wing government is going to be run by men, and only men, and those members of the male sex are going to be rational, and every horrible and inhumane thing they do is going to be motivated by rationality with religion acting as the window dressing only. They might even be religious fanatics, and they might even let their ideology get ahead of themselves, drink their own Kool aid so to speak, but their motives will be materially grounded even as their rhetoric is religious.

This means that instead of mutilating handmaids (and making them ugly) they would probably just lobotomize them. If these men have the will to mutilate they've already got the will to lobotomize.

Commanders would be disciplined either by demotion or firing, (or maybe imprisonment or execution) but not by keeping them in their jobs and amputating a hand. A man subjected to that level of brutality can never be trusted with power again since he will harbor resentments, so better just to fire or kill him. 

But lobotomized handmaids and commanders that get shot don't make for a plot line that drags out the drama. It's also unlikely that Nick would have any moral objections to fucking a girl that looks like Sydney Sweeney (even if she is young). We're talking about male nature let off it's leash, after all. He would also have no particular attachment to June, unless he lost his virginity to her, because she's ugly as fuck! Oh he might have a problem giving up his kid, but I doubt he would cling to June that much after being given Sydney Sweeney to play with. On the other hand Sweeney is dressed in the most sexless possible attire so all the women except Serena are pretty pointless to look at.

But female projection never models male cognition well. 

This show came out in 2017 after Trump got elected and ran until May of 2025.  I once used dating apps to date around 25 different women over the course of several years, mostly 2016 to 2021. I encountered a lot of liberal women with a bad attitude and when I compare their behavior to this TV show it becomes obvious where they got their script for unrelenting unpleasantness. People are really that stupid: see TV, copy TV. And why wouldn't they be? In the ancestral tribal environment stories taught people how to behave. Humans are simply not evolved for it to be any other way. There are billions of people walking around with television scripts informing their real life opinions. An obvious example of this is the shear hostility people have towards Nazism which they don't have towards communism, despite communism killing more people. Why? Because they have seen fascist-as-bad-guy a thousand times on the screen but never communist-as-bad-guy.

On a related note tech bros have the opportunity to become cultural influencers with AI.

Civilization belongs to those who have the will to think, and if you as a right winger don't grasp the importance of controlling societies story telling you should be taking wide loads from Jamal in prison, because that's how hard you deserve to lose. Emperor Palpatine was right to hate on people for their lack of vision. In politics, creativity is a moral imperative, and for all kinds of reasons. Creativity lets you get out of Faustian bargains and Trolley problems, lets you outwit your enemies, strategize conquest, and avoid getting fucked when you are down. I have been in so many conversations with conservatives who instinctively react with knee-jerk contempt against any creative idea. These are people who only know how to say "no" but never "yes" to anything better. In the competition between vision and negativity even a bad vision for the future wins. You have to not only get over your lack of vision but envision something better. But asking a conservative to have creative vision is like asking a cripple to run, but here we are with no other choice.

Could you write something as good as The Handmaid's Tale? Something whose cultural impact was as significant but in a rightward direction? It's good because millions of people watch it. The fact most are midwits matters not, friendo, for if slop is what influences the masses, then slop we shall serve. Could you make slop as tasty as Margaret Atwood's? Either do it or hire people who can. As usual you must seize the means of cultural production. 

What Trump understands about power that you don't

Real power is about marrying the libidinal urges of the masses with moral mandates. 

Power is the ability to get a man to shoot the gun when you tell him to, it is all about moral legitimacy. He needs to get paid, he needs to feel his actions are valid, he needs the respect of women, and he needs to get away with it, and to know he's going to get away with it. The moral mandate is what ensures he gets away with it. But there is more to power than mere moral mandates. You need to sway the masses. I know that term is an outdated word used in leftist circles. It's kind of cringe but I can't think of a better one at the moment. Populism? The People? Public support? None of these quite say it. 

Power is not charisma although that helps. It is not being well liked, although you can't be hated by everyone. It is simply the moral conviction of your followers that what you are doing is right and necessary. But this necessity must be married to desire. And a moral mandate without any kind of emotion behind it, without any kind of Will To Power or vengeance or something else is sterile and dead on arrival. Power is moral legitimacy yes, but it requires the appetite of millions to sustain it, because the appetite is the Freudian id to the ego of moral justification. 

When the liberal college professor rants on and on, subjecting you to his opinion he is exercising a libidinal urge to dominate you. That urge is satisfying precisely to the degree that there are conservatives in the class forced to shut up and take it. The moralizing rant is the justification, while the compulsory lecture torture is the real goal and the enjoyment. 

When the black guy on the subway intimidates all the white people by acting crazy, and those white people sit there with their heads down and eyes averted the intimidation is the pleasure, while the "don't be racist by responding" is the moral justification forced on the passengers. 

When a loud immigrant talking on his cell phone or playing music in the supermarket forces you to wait at the checkout stand while he annoys everyone and wastes everyone's time, the annoying is the pleasure, the "don't be racist" is the moral justification. 

When the social justice warrior puts a piece of bad art or a homeless encampment in your neighborhood, the destruction of your neighborhood is the pleasure, the moral of "economic justice" is the rationale. You are a greedy homeowner and you deserve to suffer for the crime of having nice things.

When a journalist writes a hit piece on an otherwise decent person the pleasure of the takedown is the id, the rationale of holding ___ "accountable" or "defending democracy" is the ego.

Political morals are a shit nugget, a dog turd painted with yummy frosting that others are forced to swallow. They are an invention, just something humans made up to conceal their real urges — even to themselves. Humans do not like self awareness, in fact too much self awareness gets in the way of survival and reproduction goals. If there was ever a completely self-aware person they were swiftly eliminated from the gene pool long ago by a failure to breed, or by their sheer autism getting them bullied to death. The optimum human for accomplishing their goals is someone who is just agentic enough to convert a gross base desire into a goal, then push into the back of their mind the memory of what they did while forming moral justifications post hoc for their actions. Desire into rationalization. When mom catches you with your hand in the cookie jar you protest and say that it's unfair that you got two cookies on Monday but only one cookie today. Even the child instantly converts their desire into a moral rationalization. Everyone does this, and doing this is the basis for power. You have to harness some libidinal urge of millions of people, give moral voice to that urge, and then ride the wave to power. 

I wonder if JD Vance understands this. I wonder if the GOP will survive the change in power four years from now. He seems WEAK.

When the loud immigrant gets deported the deportation is the pleasure, his shitty behavior is the moral rationale. 

When an evil journalist gets sent to re-education, punishing the journalist for their lies and hit pieces is the moral rationale, the punishment is the pleasure. 

I could go on and on. Your job as a right wing influencer, politician or whatever is to make shit nuggets for the left to swallow. This is the actual path to power and when it is done competently civilization improves. When it is done maliciously like browns and leftists do, the result is the plundering of the commons and decay of the culture. The actual moral justification is a meta-justification, an overarching moral mandate to improve society. These small humiliations of anti-social elements are a feature and not a bug. Every system uses the urges of human nature to suppress other more dangerous aspects of human nature. We want a healthy white moral society free from the torments of joggers, subway lunatics, gender pedophiles, subversive jews, libertarians, immigrant cucks, and so forth. The goal is freedom from these lunatics. What actually builds a coalition is shit nuggets coated in tasty moral frosting. These nuggets are not for you but your enemies. Trump is a baker serving nuggets, and that is the genius of his administration. If you have any sense at all that should be your genius as well.

The task of the right is to invent a convincing moral ideology to justify tormenting gay race communists into submission. You don't really need a new religion, just a new secular state ideology. And it has to serve billions of nuggets just like McDonald's.

A simpler theory on the obesity epidemic

It's taste, stupid. And screens. 

But seriously, there are two trends that you see all over the world happening at the same time in which levels of obesity are rising. The first of these is that everyone got addicted to screens which means they're moving their bodies less, expending fewer calories. 

The second is that the food tastes a lot better. People don't really grasp when you say that food is engineered to be addictive. They think it is some sort of conspiracy theory, but America actually has a "smell" industry and exports it's food globally. What I mean is that there are actually scientists that work in the field of food smell. But don't believe me, believe chatGPT:

My prompt: "What's a scientist who works to make food taste good called"

"A scientist who works to make food taste good is typically called a food scientist, but more specifically, they may be:

1. Flavorist (or Flavor Chemist)

Specializes in creating and modifying flavors in food and beverages.

Uses chemistry to mimic natural flavors or invent new ones.

Often works in the processed food, beverage, or fragrance industries.

2. Sensory Scientist

Studies how people perceive food through taste, smell, sight, touch, and sound.

Conducts sensory panels and experiments to determine what makes food appealing.

Works closely with flavorists and food developers.

3. Food Technologist or Food Product Developer

Works on improving or creating food products.

Balances flavor, texture, nutrition, and shelf-life.

Uses both science and culinary knowledge.

So depending on the context:

Flavorist = makes it taste good chemically

Sensory scientist = tests how good it tastes to humans

Food technologist = develops the food as a whole, including taste

Let me know if you're thinking more about natural foods, restaurant cuisine, or industrial food—there are different titles depending on the field."

— ChatGPT 

There you have it straight from the AI's mouth. This matters because when food is engineered to taste amazing with artificial smells then the actual nutritional content becomes divorced from what your brain is experiencing.

The simplest explanation for why diets don't work is that people eventually figure out how to make their particular diet taste good. They start out with all these restrictions and over time they get creative. I remember when I was on a keto diet I eventually realized I could add fake breads like Carbonaut to my diet. Gradually my calorie intake crept up.

I would imagine it's the same for any diet. Eventually, you will either go off the diet or begin to cook better, or figure out a way to make burger restaurants give you a bun-free hamburger, or consume too much bacon. Restaurants put a lot of oil in their food in order to increase the taste, and a good cook can wreck any diet. The problem is not that you are fat, but that you insist your food tastes good. Our baby boomer parents ate canned peas with every meal. When I was growing up the standard household meal was pork chops or chicken, some sort of vegetable (frozen or canned), and mashed potatoes. It was an American version of the Anglo-German dinner. Macaroni and cheese instead of cheese curds or stroganoff. Pork chops instead of pork sausage. Mixed vegetables instead of sauerkraut. It was a stripped down version of something the English or Germans would eat. Lunch was a tuna fish sandwich with celery mixed in to stretch it out. If you wanted meatloaf or a pot pie you had to make it yourself.

If one were restricted to only boring food how long would it take them to start eating less? If I took your phone away, after the initial panic attack, how long would it take you to start moving your body more? Whenever there's a social problem my first assumption is that it is grounded in material forces. The food is absolutely delicious these days and the phones are keeping people immobilized. You HAVE to be burning less calories than your ancestors.

This isn't an easy solution. Is it even possible to pass a law that makes food boring? Would you even want to? Is it actually possible or desirable to take away people's phones? The 90s were awesome because these restrictions were natural, and being thin was not a constant battle to avoid tasty food. The food sucked and the donuts were far away, and Krispy Kreme had not yet been invented.

Just fill your shopping cart with the most boring food imaginable and force yourself not to eat out, and eat your vegetables. Tell me in the comments section if it works.