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.