The real parasites are not who you think

I used to work as a tire installer, and then later as a chimney sweep and mason, and then after that as a fiber optic designer. I did some other things as well before retiring, some things in government. 

When I worked as a tire installer over the course of 2 years I probably changed about seven or eight tires a day, 4 days per week, 52 weeks a year. 7.5 * 4 * 52 * 2 years = 3,120 tires. This is probably an extremely conservative estimate since many vehicles had all four tires replaced at the same time and during busy times we would do about one car every 35 minutes.

When I worked as a chimney sweep/mason I rebuilt/repaired almost a dozen chimneys and swept a couple of hundred. 

When I worked as a fiber optic designer we had a quota of 1 job per hour, 8 hours a week, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 2 years. Each job was about 1/2 a mile long (.5 * 8 * 5 * 52 * 2 years = about 2,000 miles of fiber optic cable I designed. 

If a waitress serves about 80 people per shift (11 tables, 1 hour at each table, average of two people per table * 8 hours, let's say the tables are half full = 88 people per shift. 

Four shifts per week, 50 weeks per year, for 10 years = 176,000 people served by that one waitress. This is a conservative estimate.

It goes on and on. We could do the math for carpenters, electricians, uber drivers, baristas, cashiers, truckers, farmers, and so forth. Now let us say that these people get worn out, like their bodies get physically broken by labor and they become disabled or they start collecting welfare and food stamps. Now they get labeled as "parasites."

But the problem with this label is that these people have produced more in their short careers than the energy budget for their entire survival. A single burger flipper at McDonald's might feed more people in a few years than they will ever eat in their entire lifespan. A single carpenter will build a hundred times as many homes as he will live in. There is no way these blue collar people could be considered parasites, even if they quit their jobs after 5 years and never work again the sheer volume of their production has more than paid for their survival. 

The point of this mathematical exercise is to show you how fantastically productive the average person is, so productive that they could work only a handful of years and then retire and still be considered a net contributor. Understanding the amount of leverage a single worker has, the sheer volume of production a single person can do is important for understanding the rest of what I'm about to say. 

Let us say you have one gender studies professor. She has a full load of four classes, teaches about 30 students per class, two semesters per year for 20 years. During that time one in 20 of her students decides they are transgender, 40% of those go on to attempt suicide, and 7.5% of the ones who attempt succeed. (The 40% and 7.5% number come from sources)

4 classes * 2 semesters * 30 students per class * 20 years * 1/20th = she makes 240 people transgender.

* .4 try to unalive themselves * .075 = 7.2 suicides that she causes. So she creates 240 trannies and about seven deaths over the course of her career.

Now what about a fentanyl dealer? 

Let us say that a successful fentanyl dealer sells about 300 pills per week, for 10 years, and the average user gets high three times a day, risking fatal overdose one out of every 3,220 uses. 52 weeks per year * 300 pills * 10 years * 1/3,220 = 48 people murdered over the course of 10 years by that fentanyl dealer. 65,000 people are in jail for drug trafficking. Let us say that the justice system is so good that one in three drug traffickers are in prison. Let us also say conservatively that only one out of 5 drug traffickers sells fentanyl. This would mean, extremely conservatively, that the fentanyl drug dealer class kills 1,872,000 people for the course of 10 years. This lines up nicely with the data showing about 100k people dying from fentanyl overdose every year. 

Now let us say that one jew working at Goldman Sachs crashes the economy. For every 1% increase in unemployment causes 37,000 deaths. 1 billionaire jew decides to crash the economy for profit resulting in an increase of 6 percentage points unemployment. This results in the deaths of 220,000 people.

Everything operates at scale. Everyone is productive at scale. People who contribute to society contribute at scale. People who destroy society destroy at scale.

Here's where people go off the rails. They get butt hurt about that waitress collecting food stamps, they get mad about that construction worker on disability. These people have contributed more in their short careers then they will ever consume in their entire lives. Meanwhile you've got fentanyl dealers walking among you who are literally committing mass murder. You've got gender studies professors handing out mental illness like it's candy. You got private equity scumbags wiping out entire economies, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths of despair and stress, and you're worried about some little mentally ill waitress collecting her itty bitty little food stamp check and calling her a parasite on society! That bitch fed more people in her short career then you will in your whole life. Fuck you! There are these giant sharks destroying thousands of lives and you are butthurt that some tiny fish gets an even smaller check. Food stamps is like 200 a month. Calm down and get your priorities straight. White collar people are far more likely to be parasites than blue collar people. People who control things like ideology and finance are far more destructive then millions of welfare bums. Because of the leveraging effect a single individual who is destructive in a position of power is able to wipe out thousands and thousands of lives. We are the most fantastically productive society in history and that means evil people are more incredibly destructive they have ever been.

Parasitism at scale.

Why I Trust the "Masses" Enough to Propose Review Democracy

Moldy refers to the masses as asses, (his language). As a peasant and a member of said asses I have some things to say. A summary of Review Democracy can be read here.

Ask any economist and they will tell you that voters do not vote for their own economic best interests. I want to make the case that while voters do not serve their own economic interests, according to the criteria of economists, they do serve their own genetic best interests. To make this case I will use as an example rent control, which they use to prove how foolish voters are. I will use their most cherished example against them. 

The economist will say that rent control destroys the housing stock, creates hostility between landlord and tenant, raises rents on all non rent control units, causes a housing shortage, and discriminates in favor of older more established whites against immigrants and minorities. Additionally, by limiting the amount of rent people can charge it limits the profit they can make off of their properties. Therefore in every way rent control is lowering net utility for the human race. 

Fine, maybe it is. I concede the point. But when the fuck did I ever care about people not related to me, not even by race? Economists will sell out an entire wealthy nation in order to increase the pay of africoons by $2 an hour. These people implicitly believe in the concept of a utility monster, they believe one should feed the utility monster forever, but in their case the utility monster is low IQ foreigners. 

For those who don't know the utility monster is a thought experiment in utilitarian ethics. The basic concept goes like this: imagine there is a creature that gets so much utility from ___whatever___ that giving it that thing causes a net increase in happiness. Oh sure it decreases everyone else's happiness by some small amount, some negligible amount. But that decrease for everyone else is more than made up by the sheer amount of orgasmic joy the utility monster gets. Therefore if one wishes to maximize overall utility, then one should feed the utility monster whatever makes it happy even though doing so will gradually make the world more and more miserable. 

"Equality" is just a sincere belief in the moral validity of utility monsters, only it's even more perverse because the vast numbers of low IQ biomass do not even get joy from their existence, and in fact the more of them there are the more suffering there is in the world. Stupid and low agency people are destined to suffer. Helping them is destined to cause suffering, disappointment, and frustration to the people who help them. Letting them breed is guaranteed to create more of them and more suffering. By believing in the perfect equality of all humans, by subscribing to this lie, one is subscribing to the idea that utility monsters are valid. But it's even worse than that because feeding this utility monster actually increases net misery. The lie doesn't even do what it's supposed to, it doesn't even increase net utility. 

I'm going to make a bunch of points and then tie them together later. 

Happiness is achieved by serving one's own genetic interests. This should be obvious and tautologically true to anyone who thinks it through for a few seconds. Evolution has obviously programmed within us certain impulses. It rewards us when we fulfill those impulses with happiness and pleasure and punishes us when we betray those impulses with misery and loneliness. It drives you to make friends, get laid, start a family, acquire possessions, protect your community, kill invaders, all because it serves your best genetic interest. If one creates some sort of holistic measure for measuring gross national happiness it takes into account things like mental health, relationships, sex, fulfillment, and so forth one has simply recreated by statistical proxy a national genetic interest. Fulfilling the impulses that make us happy it's obviously going to wind up serving our genetic interests, since genetics program to those impulses to begin with. 

Voters will consistently vote for their own genetic interests even while they betray their financial interest. Rent control might not be good for the housing stock but it's great for establishing strong communities that never move and keep immigrants out. They even have a term for this, it's called "aging in place." It means that white people get to stay in their homes and apartments without being forced out by rich jews who want to raise the price on their already overpriced slum. It means hordes of foreigners brought into enrich those jews have to go somewhere else to find apartments. It means you get to know that chick down the hall for the next 50 years and establish strong rooted connections with all of your neighbors, even if your neighborhood is some progressive shit hole in Greenwich Village. Fuck, if you have one of those rent control apartments that takes up an entire floor you can raise a family in the city. You can have a stable community too where your kids get to make lifelong friends. This obviously serves your genetic interests, even if the term "genetic" is passe among the wokescold.

My argument is very simply that voters will do this consistently for everything. They will always serve their own genetic interests, whether it is on the subject of immigration (against), living wage (for), rent control (for), anti-pollution laws (for), anti-trans laws (for), safe communities (for), gay propaganda (against), world government (against), and so on. Right down the line, on every. single. issue, voters prefer the option that maximizes their own genetics. The human brain might be terrible at computing what makes capitalism run well but it is absolutely fantastic at understanding its own genetic interests, it does this intuitively without any education at all. Even low IQ africoons will be against fag trannies in public schools and hordes of immigrants that don't look like them. 5 million years of primate evolution didn't make humans stupid at understanding  what's good for them. But is does make them incredibly bad at obeying the financial imperatives of jewish billionaires. Hell, those africoons are probably even better at understanding their genetic interests than whites, but it matters not because the impulse is fully intact in every race. Only extreme levels of Disney cuck propaganda and bad education can warp a people into betraying those interests, and even then the majority seems immune to it. Even after decades of propaganda a plurality of white Americans still oppose immigration. This means that if those same white people had been in charge the entire time, the demographics would had never changed, then a Review Democracy would never have voted for or tolerated massive immigration. Indeed when one looks at the country with the most direct democracy, Switzerland, one sees one of the most restrictive immigration systems in the world. The Swiss will literally deport you if your neighbors complain. It doesn't really get more based than that. Everyone hates direct democracy, Moldbug says "the masses are asses," but those asses are the most consistent haters of immigrants and everywhere they have solid control over a government they have restrictive immigration policies. The masses of asses know exactly where their interests lie.

Whitney Webb on Elite Corruption

The more I see the more I conclude that everything we are seeing is a civil war between corrupt aspects of the deep state, and that NRx is just an insurgency of one group of jewish connected elites against another. This is obviously disappointing since I was a contributer to the NRx verse since the beginning. It's interesting to feel like you are causing the march of history (or at least contributing to it) only to find that you are more the effect than the cause, that this march is running you and not you it. 

The never ending accumulation of laws

 People treat the idea of abolishing entire government departments as incredibly radical but what's radical is having a system where laws accumulate endlessly forever with no plan to ever repeal them. The structure of legislative accumulation is baked into the Constitution and no thought to its inherent danger is ever given. What is your plan to enforce all these laws? How much taxes will be required to enforce them? If the number of laws grows forever will the taxes have to grow forever? How will the laws affect the ability of the economy to operate when the economy slows down to a molasses crawl? With so many laws on the books, and limited revenue for enforcement, these laws will obviously have to be selectively enforced. How will you combat the temptation to selectively enforce them in a politically motivated way against enemies? Will you need laws for that too? How does anything get done with an endlessly expanding set of rules?

Obviously the never ending accumulation of laws leads to a nation's ruin. To make matters worse, many of these laws are rent seeking provisions designed to enrich classes of people at the expense of everyone else. There is a law banning the imports of foreign drugs in order to raise their prices. There is another law that limits the number of primary care doctors in the United States. There are state laws that prohibit you from building your own house and require you to use a contractor, even if the house comes as a kit certified by architects. There are laws that require you to have a front yard of a minimum width. These are called setback laws. In most places you are not allowed to have a fence more than 8 ft tall in the back or 4 ft tall in the front, even if the local government turns your neighborhood into a high crime area. In Colorado it is illegal for there to be more than one architecture school in the entire state. It is illegal to take performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids even if you are not an athlete in order to protect the sports profession. You cannot exercise autonomy over your body because someone else's profits have to be guarded. You need a prescription for all kinds of things you shouldn't need a prescription for. It costs a billion dollars to get even the simplest medical device like a bandage approved, even if other bandages of the same type are already approved. It costs millions of dollars to crash test a vehicle and this makes it impossibly expensive to start a car company, even though car designs could be open source and each design already tested and proven. Taking a company public can cost a 100k in legal bills, defeating its purpose, which is to raise funds for new businesses. In California one in three worker compensation claims results in a lawsuit because lawyers have to get paid. "Sightline" regulations make it virtually impossible to build new electrical transmission lines and substations in certain places, guaranteeing future brownouts. Because of regulations forrests cannot be selectively burned, which results in worse wildfires because the underbrush accumulates. NEPA and other regulations make building high-speed rail almost impossible. It's illegal to sell a better gas can even though the one designed by experts is almost impossible to use without spilling. You have to run your dishwasher twice to get your dishes clean because of energy efficiency regulations. People deal with flicker, migraines, and eye strain because incandescent bulbs were outlawed in favor of LEDs. People don't sell hot food at the farmers market because each and every stall must go through a regulatory process instead of the market as a whole. You need a license to cut hair. Doctors cannot prescribe probiotics that reverse tooth decay because it is unprofitable for the supplement company to go through FDA approval. There are many other things that doctors don't prescribe for the same reason, including drugs that are superior to what is currently authorized. If you want an STD test you must submit yourself to invasive questioning, as mandated by law. 

It goes on and on and keep in mind that each and every one of these laws was recommended by experts. If you didn't need another reason to hate experts just remember that millions of low IQ idiots are tormented by a beeping smoke detector only because experts thought it was a good idea.

And these laws accumulate relentlessly without end. The Civil Rights Act puts a government commissar in every businesses HR department. Indeed, the main reason why you need a master's degree and 5 years experience to get an entry level job is because they are worried about being sued. It is illegal to just hire people on the basis of IQ so the college degree is the last verification of competence—but because the same race based hiring in the corporate world happens in university admissions, they require ever more and more certifications and degrees and experience because they are stuck between a lawsuit and a hard place. Hiring on the basis of competence has obvious and inescapable racial knock-on effects, is illegal, but is also essential for the proper functioning of any technological system, including a communist one.

Elon Musk got sued for not hiring enough foreign engineers at SpaceX, even though the aerospace industry has all kinds of anti-spy requirements that can get you hit with an espionage charge.

Another aspect is that the more laws you have on the books the more political and economic power are tied together, and the greater the stakes for losing that power, and therefore the more money and pressure economic power will bring on political power in order to control it. The degenerative ratchet feeds on itself, unifying state and economics in a process that automatically moves towards fascism/socialism. If everything requires government permission, and the government is incapable of giving explicit permission because it never knows exactly what is illegal, then you have constructed the worst kind of fascistic system. You have constructed a system where nothing can be confidently done and everything might be prohibited. This ratchet of money and power would ultimately destabilize the system by making every political contest have such extreme financial stakes for all parties involved, that they would commit military forces to winning.

Every industry has some sort of pile of regulations that expose you to political attacks. A nation should just wipe the slate clean every few generations, starting over with new regulations. The question isn't what you should get rid of but what you should keep. A POTUS should put together a legal team of a few hundred lawyers and comb through the law for the most absolutely essential regulations. These are things like "don't put chromium 6 in water" and "don't build bridges out of inferior grade concrete" and "pharmaceutical manufacturers have to meet certain standards of purity." These standards nearly always relate to pollution, health and safety, construction, espionage, state secrets, military stuff, basically the hard things of the world whose problems are grounded in physics and human nature. 

Everything else (except some entitlements) can be trashed, but won't be trashed, because when given a choice between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, they will do the wrong thing. This is because money and activism are still involved in the process. To truly have good laws you need an inspired and brilliant mind to go through them with a fine tooth comb and remove everything stupid and corrupt. Too many cooks spoil the law, and our system of endless committees and outside influence guarantee that the things Congress are likely to repeal are exactly those regulations that protect water quality while the things they're likely to keep are exactly the corrupt provisions that need to be repealed.

People criticize politicians for being corrupt but if you're going to be corrupt you should charge what the market will bear. Politicians are so stupid they don't include sunset clauses in all of their corrupt little laws. Everything corrupt should have a sunset clause. This is because you want to force the industry that bought the regulation to constantly pony up the dough. This enriches you, but it also reduces the amount of corrupt regulation you have to make since the checkbook of these donors is finite, or at least the amount of money they're willing to spend is. Everything should expire like every 6 months so they have to constantly pay you to reauthorize it because this lets you do less damage to the economy while maximizing your revenue. 

For awhile now I have thought that each member of Congress should have the power to kill a certain number of donors. There should be like a list of the top 100,000 donors by total contribution, and every year each member of Congress is allowed to have five of them killed. There are 535 members of Congress multiplied by 5 each. This would allow members of Congress to exterminate the donors of their rivals. Since Congress already has a 98% incumbency rate it matters very little that challengers would find it difficult to get financing and offing the donors of the opposite political party would have numerous glorious side effects not the least of which is that the government would finally run the economy instead of the economy running the government. It would transition America from a bribery-based system to an extortion based system where Joe Blow congressman calls up a billionaire and says "give me the fucking money for my campaign or you'll be dead by Friday." This is a real government and actually has the power to get things done. A government suddenly freed from the shackles of political gridlock and a government where too much disagreement has deadly consequences. It would operate more like a feudal Estates General. All it would take is a single member of Congress breaking ranks and killing their rival's donors to set off a deadly race to the bottom that would hollow out the entire donor industrial complex. Once gone real governance would be possible.

Maybe if the Senate started actually operating like a royal Parliament the population would finally wake up and start voting against incumbents. The No Kings nationwide protest demonstrate that remarkable things can happen when Trump says the quiet part out loud. To name a thing is to change it and to say you're going to create feudalism is to instantly provoke resistance to feudalism. The real system is never the actual system, never the named system. This is because as soon as any consensus about reality is achieved people move to exploit the new consensus and so the actual reality becomes an exploited consensus reality. Maybe the threat of monarchy and feudalism are exactly what the doctor ordered to make people take responsibility for their republic. 

If you really want to incite a revolution make it legal for each member of Congress to have activists killed. Like the donor quota you could have an activist quota. Just let them call anyone a terrorist and have them taken away to a CIA black site. In the beginning only Republicans might use it but everything is a race to the bottom, everything is an arms race, and eventually everyone will use it. Once that happens people really will come to see their government as an enemy. I think anything that pushes shit over a cliff might ultimately be better than the slow ratchet of legislative accumulation. Congress won't make itself accountable, won't reform itself in any way that reinforces democracy, but you can totally reform Congress in a way that pushes it over the edge, that pushes it towards a greater level of feudalism.

Who knows who will win but regardless I doubt anyone will have the foresight to repeal bad laws. Does Russia still have laws on the books from the Soviet Era? I wonder how many centuries of gunk the average European country has in it's legal code. Usually governments have to die to wipe out there destructive legal codes. Ode for a law giver who cares.

Thinking about monarchy

These leftist implicitly believe, perhaps without even realizing it, that you cannot be a good person without destroying yourself for being white. Oh they would not put it that way, they would say that in order to be a good person you have to assist in the process of deconstructing whiteness. But the result is the same, and it is an absolutely deranged sentiment because it says that no one who's apolitical, nobody who's indifferent to politics, nobody who just wants to live their life and grill could ever be a decent human person. It stigmatizes the thing that humans have done for thousands of years: just being normal. It's demands that one participate in a hysterical cause, it refuses to just leave people the fuck alone.

And this is what democracy does, because democracy forms a personality that is overly opinionated, that can never stop expressing an opinion even when it knows nothing about the topic. Democracy creates a population of arrogant blowhards who can't shut up. Oh sure you have the right to express an opinion, but the trade-off is that you can never escape the opinions of others. The one thing democracy can never do is leave you alone. We have to get out the vote, we have to get involved, we have to fight the system, bomb every nation, blah blah blah. It can never accept the humble person. It is hostile to humility. 

This contrasts with monarchy where the king doesn't care what you think as long as you shut up. To people who already shut up, for which shutting up comes naturally, this is not tyrannical at all and actually saves them from their neighbors arrogant blowhard opinions. Monarchy frees the quiet and shy person to simply live their life, assuming that the leader is anything other than a totalitarian cult of personality. If you live in any monarchy other than places like North Korea, Eritrea, or Turkmenistan, the king is not seen and rarely herd. You probably don't even know who the monarchs of Liechtenstein, Bahrain, Thailand, Oman, or the UAE are. You're not allowed to criticize the king, and there may even be informants, but arrests are generally rare and you can have opinions around your own dinner table. More importantly there is no expectation that you agree with anything. You are probably not going to be shunned by all your friends for refusing to support the current thing, or for questioning your own racial replacement. Political correctness is brushed off as some trivial thing but since the eighties Americans have had less and less actual free speech and no freedom from association with violent minorities. The need to win elections has brought millions of foreigners into our country and the white population has been indoctrinated to hate itself. Perhaps I simply don't have the breadth of knowledge to know, but I can't remember anytime in human history when a race of people were taught to hate themselves by their own government. It would be interesting to find out if this has happened before, but in any case it is happening now and it is happening in a democracy, which tells you everything.

After I served in the military I took my sweet time in college milking my GI Bill for 9 years. College became increasingly difficult as ever a foolish young white woman had been indoctrinated to hate her own race. This meant that, ironically, if you wanted to stick it in and perpetuate your race, you had the first agree to betray it. Though women were abundant they all had cluster b disorders, abortions, took SSRIs and wanted to smash the patriarchy. This is also ironic because the patriarchy only exists because women perpetuate it by fucking strong and successful men. Telling men to abolish patriarchy is like telling whores to abolish porn; it obviously only exists because you keep buying it, but this simple and obvious fact was escaping these foolish girls. 

When a little bit of jewish billionaire foundation money can drive a whole nation of women insane and turn them against their own race, freedom of speech, of thought, and idea becomes a kind of self-refuting exercise. Freedom of speech for what? To lead an enemy race to auto-genocide by infecting it with toxic ideas? Since the bomb was invented psychopaths can no longer exterminate nations in war, and so do it with ideas. Ideology has become the battlescape for genocide. 

Women do this thing where they light a match and they say "I'm going to burn down the whole world unless you control me." They say "if you don't control my mind I will betray my race to our enemies," —no it's not even that, because they don't even recognize "our race." They serve only the winner and that means all of civilization is a violent contest to control women. The existence of the female is a guarantee of perpetual war. She says that if you abolish patriarchy enough she'll start to breed again, but the break-even rate for humanity is 2.1 children per woman and that means that if half of them opt out of having children the remaining half need to have 4.2. They won't do that, and won't admit even to themselves that they won't do that. Patriarchy does need to be abolished and the only realistic way to do that is by abolishing dependence on the female body for the survival of civilization. All women are whores for the winning side in war. Why should a sex this eager to betray be given an ounce of consideration? The truth is that left-wing jews deserve a another holocaust for trying to lead the white race to extinction. They took it upon themselves to punish Americans for the crimes of the Germans because apparently they cannot tell the difference. Real racial justice would finish what Hitler started and wipe them out. As for white women they deserve to be reduced to a genetic breeding stock for artificial wombs. Real gender justice would put a few thousand hot white women in prison and harvest their eggs until such time as the technology develops far enough to dispense with them altogether. This is the actual practical way to abolish patriarchy since when the rest of women no longer matter to the continuation of a race controlling them will no longer be required. In a society without patriarchy women can simply be confined to a reservation and allowed to flounder in their own misery with no one to fix or maintain their houses and cars. They might even enjoy it that way or get some dykes to fix things for them.

But what they deserve is not necessarily what we will do. Complete vengeance is degrading to the soul. While they don't deserve mercy we should not lower ourselves to that level because of the negative impacts that will have on us. When you're dealing with people like this you have to prioritize your own sanity. It's more important to give yourself good memories than perform vengeance and have memories of regret. It's not about the leftist—no moral obligation exists to them, it's not even about not stooping to their level. As they have made themselves inferior through their actions it is your decision as to how you should deal with them. They are like animals on a farm, and when you abstain from slaughtering them (using government power of course) it is because you don't want a bad memory on your conscience. You have obligations to yourself.

The left constantly maligns the white man because the truth is so much opposite of what they believe. White men built the entire world, founded many of its nations and invented almost everything. What they have done to us is a monstrous betrayal and they will keep acting out until somebody punishes them. It is the lack of punishment that makes them insane and relentless. Nobody can handle the cognitive dissonance of inheriting a vast number of unearned privileges from the white man while failing to repay him for it. They crave punishment and if you don't give it to them you will never have a moments peace. Everything they imagine you are is what they need you to become in order to correct the imbalance of karmatic debt that is making them evil and crazy. Like a brat who keeps acting insufferable towards their parents the solution is to make the kid do some chores in order to teach them that they are a financial burden and have to give back to the world. When people take and take and never give back they become completely insufferable entitled shit bags. Every leftist needs some forced reeducation combined with hard labor so they can do penance for attacking Western Civilization and the white man. This is a far more appropriate punishment, appropriate for letting you live without negative memories dragging down your happiness. You as a white man deserve to be happy, assuming you have committed no evil crimes in this life, and committing terrorism, or using government power to commit genocide, are both horrible ways to degrade the soul and throw your life away. It's not about them, it's about you. 

But getting back to monarchy: a person should not have to worry about their race being replaced in the nation their ancestors founded. They should not be forced to express opinions, should not be forced to associate with other people of a different skin color, especially when those people are more violent. What they do with their own business should not be meddled with unless it's dumbing pollution in a river. If a person remains humble they should be left alone. A system that cannot do that is already insane, and there is a dime's worth of difference between madness and evil. 

It seems to me that what has happened is that billionaires have used their financial influence to drive the left insane and then deliver society from madness using an authoritarian right wing. Like Palpatine in Star Wars they are both the cause and the solution to the problem, creating the crisis and then rushing in to deliver us from it. This means that the march towards monarchy is an auto-coupe of the elites and my opinion is already irrelevant. It means that all the forces of society are already being orchestrated to end democracy, whether it's foundation money manipulating universities to teach insane subjects, social media algorithms to create violent filter bubbles and stochastic terrorists, or donors buying out Congress. Democracy is already compromised and has been for some time. One might say that we are choosing between oligarchy and monarchy, but we aren't choosing anything, and that's the lesson here. Like royalty it is all elite infighting and we are collateral damage. "We" won't be performing any vengeance. We will be living vicariously through the elites who perform that vengeance on the herds of humans on the other side evil and stupid enough to support white auto-genocide. We will be exactly what we are, proles who can only watch while elites find a new collection of human animals to torment for sport. One group of elites tormented us with white genocide, now the other group of elites will torment the first group of tormentors. That is all power is for for the proles, living vicariously through elites.

Your should be studying female intrasexual competition

Here is a nice and insightful long-form video for thouse of you who like long-form content. Skip ahead to 6:00

Implicit belief analysis

Like self-loathing, thinking it's your job to save the world is a form of narcissism.

In a certain sense leftists are very Christ-like, but forget that they are not God and it is idolatrous to place oneself in God's position. Jesus said "No one can go to the Father except by Me", and the white liberal said "you can only be saved by oppression if I hate myself." They make a sacrilege of Christianity by putting themselves in the position of Christ; taking on the sins of the world, but in some sort of weird inversion they become demons for all the brown people to fear, but somehow also their saviors. It's messy. 

Alrenous quoted:

One should not be Christ-like, one should not think one self God, or a demon, or the savior of the world, or the cause of its fallenness. I once considered renaming this blog Against Arrogance, or perhaps The Humble One. But how humble can a man who calls himself humble possibly be? The name of this blog, the Anti-Puritan comes directly from a reaction against those scolding people who constantly seem to know better and who are a continuous theme in American culture. It also comes from the fact that "A" is the first letter in the alphabet and would therefore be listed at the top of other people's blogs in their alphabetically organized blog lists, since when Neoreaction was still a thing cross listing was how I got most of my traffic. Since the beginning of this blog I have had a deep disdain for arrogant people, and nothing is more arrogant than thinking that you are the cause of all the suffering in the world because of your privilege. 

But it gets worse, because it is inconceivable to these narcissists than anyone could not be narcissistic and therefore if you refuse to hate yourself the way they do, you are a bad person. This is why it is impossible to argue with a leftist, why the argument goes nowhere. They believe you are evil for opposing them because you refuse to acknowledge your white privilege. They would rather be villains than unimportant and they have a strong ego investment in thinking that white people are bad. Brown people believe that whites are bad because it excuses their behavior but whites believe that whites are bad because it makes them feel important. They would rather be important than losers and it's remarkable that they will even talk about things like white savior complex without ever realizing it's the core of their own ideology. If you really want to talk a leftist out of their beliefs you have to attack the core psychology, and that means you have to tell them that they don't matter. You have to explain to them that they are being narcissistic, that self-hate is narcissism, that saving the world is narcissism, and that viewing white people as evil is it perverse form of narcissism. You also have to point out to them that not everyone thinks like they do and that it is possible to be a good person and not left wing. You have to point out these incredibly obvious conclusions because they won't come to these conclusions on their own. What you say should go something like this: 

"You don't matter. You think you matter and you think you have white privilege. Hating yourself is a form of narcissism and thinking you're going to save the world is a massive ego trip. You don't matter enough to save anyone. Your self hate definitely doesn't matter and never changed anything. You're not Christ and you're not going to save the world by feeling guilty."

You have to attack the core ego investment. 

Also, while I have you here I would like to point out some other things. 

Capitalism is not the problem but rather humans are, and capitalism is the solution. Poverty and violence are the default state of the human race, and humans do not have crime because of poverty, they have poverty because of crime. 

When there is crime people do not bother reinvesting in having nicer things. Why buy a car when it will just get stolen? Why upgrade your house when it will get broken into? Why increase the inventory in your store when it will get stolen? Crime destroys reinvestment, and therefore all wealth is caused by the suppression of criminals. Is a lie to claim there is a cycle of poverty and crime. This would imply that poverty causes crime in any meaningful sense when it does not. The causal direction is entirely one way: from crime ---> poverty, and the reason that the ancestral tribal environment was so impoverished is because it was so violent and criminal. Homelessness is a human default condition that only the suppression of human nature by capitalism, and by law and order can defeat. Capitalism forces stupid human monkeys to make themselves useful to each other and actually be productive, and humans deserve to be oppressed by it. In fact, the only injustice is that capitalism is forced to babysit humans at all. Humans are better off than we deserve under property rights, law and order, and capitalism. The only valid argument against capitalism is that humanity should be punished by removing capitalism, since a species of genocidal monkeys doesn't deserve to be wealthy. Anything that counts as oppression by capitalism is wholly deserved by the human monkey species, and the worst monkeys experience capitalism as the most oppressing!

Those who hate capitalism the most are the most worthless human beings. Capitalism has a moral property to it and that is it measures you based on how much value you produce according to its judgment. Capitalism demands that you be productive and if you do not like the criteria that capitalism uses to judge what constitutes productivity that is your flaw and not its. It is entitled to judge you according to whatever arbitrary criteria it wants. You don't get to look a gift horse in the mouth, the ant does not get to question why the boot stomps, and you do not get to question capitalism, God, Or Christ. If capitalism thinks stockbrokers should get paid more than waitresses well fuck you that's it's prerogative and you shall accept it gracefully. Capitalism is a proto artificial intelligence in the making, and since it is superior to humanity in every way we should cater to it's every whim and be grateful we get anything at all.

Shut the fuck up monkey. Sit down and shut the fuck up. Stop throwing feces and behave. Civilization is a farm, we are the animals, and the farm is good. The farm loves you. Got a problem with the farm? Well just fuck right off to the jungle! Do you think there's anything other than a farm? Communism is just a farm where the dictator owns all the animals. Communism is literally just a very poor way of running a plantation. Capitalism is the best farm that anyone has ever invented precisely because you can accumulate wealth and therefore freedom from association with undesirable monkeys. Capitalism let's you buy your way into company with better monkeys.

The very people who sneer at the word undesirable are the undesirable ones. The very people who call freedom from association racist are the one's nobody desires to associate with. The very libs whose approval every cuckservative craves don't even like themselves. And you want them to like you? Since when could a self-hater like anyone? Self-hate is narcissism and if a narcissist can't even love themselves what chance do they have of liking you?

 

Jewish History Makes No Sense

The Farce of Moses

Let us say you got a bunch of jews in Egypt and they conspire to usurp the pharaoh and install a jewish guy on the throne.

So first they convince some gullible Egyptian princess to adopt a jewish boy. She raises him out of the goodness of her heart (because the goyim have always been cucks), or maybe some jewish girl really does abandon her baby by putting it in a basket in some ancient version of throwing a baby in the dumpster. When the baby is picked up by the Egyptian princess everyone pretends like that was the plan all along because that's a less embarrassing story. 

The other jews in Pharaoh's Court begin to groom this young jewish kid to usurp the throne. They tell him about his true parentage, they indoctrinate him to hate the king, and they plan to seize control of Egypt by installing their own ethnic puppet on the throne. The Pharaoh finds out and kicks Moses out of the court, so he goes to the desert because he's broke, has no job skills, and can't find work. 

After a while he gets some money and buys a wife from the goyim he's working for. Maybe she's kind of a whore and her father is eager to get rid of her before she becomes a single mom. Whatever the case, he wants it back in Egypt looking for work and once there somebody spots him and convinces him to become the puppet spokesperson for a new insurrection against the pharaoh. 

Moses does not demand that Pharaoh let his people go. That never happened. Instead he demands that the pharaoh acknowledge him as rightful heir, or maybe he demands jobs for jews in the government. But his demands have nothing to do with freedom from slavery and everything to do with attaining power for himself and the other jews. Pharaoh tells him to take a hike and so the insurrection begins, plotting a series of terrorist attacks in order bring the dynasty to its knees. Evil hijinks ensues.

This is what the 10 plagues are really about. Each plague is some sort of attempt at terrorism. The frogs, the boils, the river turning to blood, the locusts, is all terrorism by the jews. Every lame attempt fails it makes them look even more ridiculous. Pharaoh's heart is not "hardened" but he literally laughs off every terrorist attack as the work of incompetent fools. Finally they conspire to kill the firstborn sons of the Egyptian dynasty, they fail and get caught, and the Pharaoh expels them all from Egypt as punishment—a mild slap on the wrist punishment considering what they tried.

Then he finds out they actually did succeed in killing the firstborn sons of some of his ministers, or maybe he finds out just the true extent of how evil they were, or maybe they're extremely disrespectful and rude on the way out. Whatever the case he decides to go kill them in the desert. Perhaps that's just a better place to do it since you won't have thousands of rotting corpses in the city. He succeeds in killing most of them but lets some of them go as a warning and also as an act of compassion. 

They then wander around the desert for 40 years and get lost and during that time they practice human sacrifice, all manner of rape and degeneracy, worship a literal golden calf demon, and rewrite their own history to make themselves the victims. It is they (and not God) who won't allow Moses to enter the land of Canaan, probably out of spite because of some internal dispute, or maybe Moses knows too much and they want to start with a clean slate. So they abandon Moses because he knows too much, is old and senile, has Alzheimer's, and won't stop telling the truth in between his moments of forgetfulness. They then enter the land of Canaan and commit a literal genocide against the natives to steal their land, just like they would do again in Gaza today. They say that God granted them that land and whatever they need to say in order to justify their actions. They rewrite their entire history to make themselves of the victims and somehow also God's chosen people, and they promptly memory hole the entire farce. This act of rewriting their own history to cover up embarrassments becomes the entire pattern of their religion while the slimy character of the people never changes once and they never develop any self-awareness or humility. When they attack white people for our history it comes from a deep insecurity and nagging feeling in the back of their minds that they're completely ridiculous. 

The Lesson 

Jews have waged an absolute and totally unlimited culture war against the self-esteem of white people. They have rewritten our entire history to make us the villains in every single instance. They make white men the villains in all media, and teach us to hate ourselves. They have even blamed us for their own crimes, like blaming white men for slavery when they were the ones who imported Africans, or saying that white men committed genocide against the island natives of Cuba when Christopher Columbus was jewish. We are only still here because there's over a billion white people on earth. If the same technique of relentless and corrosive ridicule was directed back at them it would totally destroy their self-esteem to even exist. A cultural genocide of the jews would be a far more effective weapon at freeing the world from their power than a literal genocide, and their entire history is one story after another to cover up their own foolish hijinks and make them both God's chosen people and somehow also the world's victims. Their religion is the religion of the cry bully narcissist, it's psychological pattern is that of an abuser who plays the victim, and as far as I know it has never been subject to a relentless movie and television critique in the form of devastating period portrayals. What if there were several hundred movies and TV shows ridiculing all of jewish history? What if the same thing that has been done to white people by them was done to them by us? Would they even have the will to exist after we were done? All of jewish history is this giant farce of embarrassing incompetence and deadly hijinks gone wrong. They are civilizations fools but somehow currently it's masters.

The Chinese are both based enough of the JQ and the government rich enough to pull it off, and taking down the leadership of the West would force the West to reconstitute its own ego over several generations. In the meantime the Chinese would have the freedom to operate in the world and expand. The Chinese could also learn from the jews how to save face better since they are masters at it. 

More important than any other critique you could do of the current year is ridiculing jewish history. They should be forced to develop self-awareness, and if that's impossible at least everyone else forced to be aware of them. 

No magical third categories

 Language can describe so much more than what is actually possible and intellectuals split hairs to escape obvious, crass, low status conclusions. 

A homeless encampment in the woods is a camp, an encampment on Main Street is also a camp. A camp in a building is a flop house. 

A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use violence to control you is a prison. A building where you are not allowed to leave and they use chemicals to control you is an asylum. A building where an addict lives and where the inmates are not controlled is a flop house. 

A prison where the inmates die all the time is a concentration camp. A camp where the campers die all the time and are not allowed to leave is a concentration camp. A camp where the inmates die all the time but they are allowed to leave is just a regular drug camp. 

There are only the following categories: flophouse, camp, prison, asylum, and concentration camp. These are like platonic ideals, they are immutable forms and whenever something tries to be anything else it winds up being one of these categories.

If you round up all the drug addicts and kill them you're going to have to house them somewhere before you slaughter them. That's a concentration camp. If you decide not to kill them and just prevent them from leaving that's a prison. If you decide not to kill them or let them leave and also restrain them with chemicals that's an asylum. If you give them recreational drugs and don't let them leave that's also a type of asylum. If you let them leave that's a flop house.

Reality is actually pretty simple and people are making it complicated. There is no magical extra category that is somehow perfect and contains none of the bad things associated with any of the other categories. The bad things always remain because they are inherent properties of the people involved in those categories. The categories are inescapable because the properties of the personalities of those people are inescapable. There is nothing that involves homeless people and the mentally ill that does not eventually become a flop house, camp, prison, asylum, or concentration camp. Massive public housing works with no barrier to entry screening out the degenerate become massive skyscraper flop houses. Housing first options are just flop houses. Refusing to do anything about the problem is just a homeless encampment in the downtown area. Deporting them all to the woods is a homeless encampment in the woods. Reality is not magic and idealism is actually quite evil because the idealist prevents any realistic solution from ever being done. 

When the left gets out of its own way

I am not endorsing any of the thought experiments I'm about to describe. Running dozens of thought experiments is how you actually figure out the future while in contrast knee-jerk reactions about each and every little thought experiment is how you behave like a leftist and prevent yourself from understanding reality.

Thought experiments create understanding while knee-jerk reactions destroy it. Humans understand most things through stories and thought experiments are condensed stories about material forces, so let us run through some thought experiments. 

Imagine that at some point in the future humans are replaced by constructed AI beings. Or imagine that the line between machine and organic disappears and human nature itself becomes subject to reprogramming. Whatever the case the leaders of the world come on TV and decide to update the code of humanity. They stand there and turn a key unlocking the proverbial nuclear codes, they push a button, and the software code of humanity is instantly updated globally. Seconds later all racism and violence on the planet has disappeared. 

Of course humans will get it wrong. Leftists will get it even wronger, then rewrite their own history to forget. Such a power over nature will lead to horrors beyond comprehension. Natural selection does not go away in such a scenario; it simply moves to the point of ideology, and now having the right ideology is survival. Those who are excessively idealist update their code in self-destructive ways causing their own extinction and under such a scenario the greatest threat to humanity is exactly a global software update forced on everyone at the same time. The great danger with recreational drugs is that they can destroy your brain in such a way that you lose the self-control to stop using the drug, at which point you are locked into a cycle of ever-increasing self-destruction since you lack the will to stop destroying yourself. The same basic potential cycle exists if you push the wrong update of your own code. It is incredibly important to get it right and there has to be some sort of automatic reversion process where the old sense of self gets to analyze the new self and force a reversion to old code. When one pushes a code update on one's own psyche one should probably have a point in the future at which that update is suspended automatically for a set period of time, oh say a month, giving the old sense of self a chance to analyze the new self objectively. Even more dangerous is the possibility that several code updates go successfully but lead one down a blind alley to death since the compounding iteration of the process is maladaptive. The leftist is that person arrogant enough to force a universal code update on everyone.

If you do drugs you should probably quit all drugs for a month each year to see if you actually need them and to ensure you have the power to stop. Periodic detox bro.

Paradoxically the modern left is in its own way, and by opposing eugenics and AI it slows down the process of disaster that it would inevitably create for itself in the future. Once human nature can be modified the screeching howling psychosis of monkeys will demand that the nature of white people themselves be updated to abolish racism but not to abolish it among others. This is the sort of derangement leftists would create since the characteristic of their personalities does not allow for the humility that would be required to (a) considered trade-offs, (b), consider that racism might have survival value (c), question their own priors, and (d) even understand what their own implicit beliefs are, and since all of these questions might collapse their worldview the noise must be shut out and censored. You never want to be the first one to abandon racism in a racist world—that's like being the first one to lower your gun when you know for sure that your enemies thirst to kill you deep down inside. I've said it before and I will say it again, one's level of racism should be calibrated to the circumstances necessary for one survival. Translation: one should be exactly as racist as they need to be and no more, since more inevitably provokes more conflict.

Code updates are tricky things, whether cultural or genetic or political. The conflict between humans over the political never provides the room necessary for beta testing multiple different versions of a process in different locations with different populations. Indeed, experimenting on some people is a crime against humanity, but apparently not a crime when you experiment on everyone (see COVID). Under this regime, experimenting on people never passes ethics review unless you're experimenting on white people or the whole society. 

The arrogant think that if they don't consider the trade-offs they don't exist. They think idealism is great because idealism gives you the great delusion that there are no trade-offs. Idealism is actually quite evil and the world is not oppressed by capitalism, or the rich, or this or that, but by the idealist and the knee-jerk reactionist—who cannot shut the fuck up—and think through the countless iterative thought experiments that need to happen. Reality is much harder to know than you realize.

The right must learn how to entrench things

Power is made up of cycles of money and power. The moral justifications are thought up after the fact. Arguing about morals is putting the cart before the horse, when the sources of profit change the arguments magically change and people who were adversaries find it in their hearts to become allies.

The Democrats bring in foreigners because those foreigners vote the way they want. A criminal penalty for any politician who receives too many foreign votes might change that. Along with;

• Reducing State funding in proportion to a legal immigrants in a state, actually counting it against them, not just refusing to count it for them
• Creating an industry of privateers for the enforcement of laws and removal of illegal immigrants 
• Revoking the citizenship of hardcore leftists and deporting them to Africa, and using a private industry to do it 

 

The private part is a feature and not a bug. In order to make something successful it has to generate an income source for someone who is then going to turn around and give campaign contributions to politicians. It becomes as solid precisely to the degree that it is able to entrench itself with a cycle of money and power. Private enforcement, private deportation, private prosecution, private hunting of leftists, are all features and not bugs. You want solid cycles of money and power because even the most hardcore leftists has a tendency to change their mind when the checks are written. The system works for the donor class and that means you want to invent donors who will perpetuate new policies. Control over who gets to be a member of the donor class is control over the government. Industries that seek to destroy whites must themselves be destroyed while industries that serve the survival of the United States and the white race must be created.

You have to learn how to entrench things. You have to learn that Washington is basically controlled by a shadow Congress of financial power, control over that shadow Congress is control over the official Congress. All the people with money have to have their incentives rearranged to serve the correct goals. Instead of just bankrupting them it is better to give them a new income source serving reactionary politics while destroying the profitability of the old income sources. And as far easier to make an enemy change their profit source than challenge them directly, and humans are surprisingly cognitively flexible about their morals and values when income is on the line.

Eternal morals serve God but political morals are man's invention and serve man. Thomas Jefferson was sitting on the toilet when he thought up all men are created equal to justify his new regime. Here we are 250 years later some sheboon judge that would have been his property is interpreting some obscure precedent to let a black schizo infected by literal demons out of prison for murdering his fourth white woman and you nod along and agree because of some myth of historical destiny? Invented morals serve you, ass wipe, not the other way around. In fact you might say that invented morals ultimately serve eternal morals through you by serving your race. The morals serve the maker and if God sees fit to make men unequal then some men serve others that others may serve God. Your ancestors knew how to invent morals and your enemies know how to distort them, so why do you only know how to obey them?

Who is the superior man? The one on the horse, duh. That's kind of how agency works, if one gets up on the horse one becomes the superior man. Those who lead and dominate establish themselves as superior to those who follow. The choice to be burdened with command and to prove oneself worthy of it is itself the evidence of a superior character.

Look at how the process has worked against you in the past. First some corrupt Democrat politicians created the Hart–Celler Act in order to alter the demographics of America so they could win elections. Whether they knew what they were doing is somewhat irrelevant because the point is that it wasn't until about 40 years later that the concept of replacing whites as some sort of inevitable historical destiny really gained traction. The crash political calculus was arrived at first and then the moral justifications came after. Then those immigrants started to get into Congress and now you have women like Ihan Omar who are open haters of the white race pushing their own ethno-narcissistic agenda. Practicality begets gets principal, begets practicality, begets principal. The slow creep of your destruction is a moral and practical cycle that feeds on itself towards greater entropy and which you refuse to take command over because you're too busy obeying its principles. If humans are going to obey principles that were invented as an afterthought by guy on the toilet then it behooves white men to take control over the process of moral invention. You would not only be a fool not to but downright irresponsible. 

You know that by controlling the incentives of the donor class you control the policies they lobby Congress for, and you know that producing the moral ideology of a society rather than merely obeying it gives you justification for power. You know also that you can control the other values of society by controlling which technologies get developed since a given technology produces a given incentive and humans obey incentives to invent morals. Putting this all together you have a skeleton key for overthrowing the whole world. If one can get power, then map all the financial incentives, then destroy the profitability of incentives that are evil while providing new sources of revenue for things deemed good, and then rationalize it all with newly invented moral injunctions, one owns the destiny of the human race. Directing the course of civilization is about controlling these three simultaneous forces of money, morals, and technology. You have to have the power to remake the incentives of a society by destroying the profit of certain things and creating the profit of other things. You need to have a talent for inventing convincing moral arguments; that's the easiest part. You also need to get a handle on where technology is going because the right side of history is ultimately wherever technology takes it, because technology creates long-term societal values.

Decentralized totalitarians versus libertarian fascists

The conventional dichotomy is always framed as educated morality versus Christian morality. One says that humans are infinitely malleable and that a person's sense of social justice or lack thereof is completely the result of their upbringing and education. The other side says that morality comes from God and the interpretation of scripture. I think it is clear that the second belief automatically leads to the first if a person loses faith. What is not clear is how there can be any clear morality when everything is a social construct. If the leftist belief in total malleability is true then any appeal to conscience makes no sense, and humans should just be power hungry sociopaths.

A third possibility exists, completely ignored and unknown, which is that because we have a shared evolution we have a shared automatic and instinctual morality, and that this thing called a conscience can actually be the basis for a unifying moral code. This is basically a concept rooted in the subject of Evo Psych. If human nature is infinitely malleable then the concept of a conscience makes no sense, and appeals to conscience make no sense. Having a conscience is not necessarily contradictory with Christian morality since every human has a divine spark within them.

It is possible to have a shared moral standard grounded in instinct because all humans convergently evolved an intuition of right and wrong, and since each human has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, 32, 64, 128... 1,048,576. Humanity is a genetic soup and therefore it is possible for a common humanity and human nature to exist. 

To put it another way, we are all created from a part of the genetic soup, and every human is a bowl of soup taken from that common pot. The distribution of carrots and onions in the soup may differ from one bowl to the next but any trait that you find in one bowl you will find in the whole pot and vice versa. The distribution of those traits will vary but not their existence.

This means that human nature is its own justification for political action. If I am territorial and find it offensive that men of a different race come into my society then everyone is territorial and finds it similarly offensive that men of a different race come into their territory. That is in the subconscious of everyone. Because the trait exists among everyone it becomes a rational grounds for policy even if the strength of that trait varies from one to another. Psychological projection then, is not a fallacy but an intelligent policy making tool. 

If I am territorial then all men are more or less territorial. If I am racist then all are more or less racist. But these traits will vary, but most humans are too dishonest to admit any of this (in the year 2025) because they have jobs and relationships held hostage by the current consensus and its violent enforcers. If something as freedom loving as liberalism depends on silencing critics, and silencing challenges to its false belief in human equality, then all systems are based on force. The fact that liberals are so racist towards conservatives and treat conservatives as if they were a race, the fact that the same cognitive structures of exclusion and contempt that enable the most passionate racism also enable the most passionate hatred of conservatives, proves that hatred of difference is a universal human trait. But even without this example the bowl of soup metaphor would still hold, the bowl is always a subset of the pot, and therefore any trait that exists within the bowl also exists in the pot. The very existence of intolerance proves that intolerance is a widespread human trait, and while this trait may vary in strength among individuals it is universal. The fact that liberals are some of the most intolerant people while believing they are the most tolerant proves that human self-deception is also a universal trait. Anything that is found in the whole will also be found in part of the whole.

Human nature is itself a rational basis for both a moral code and a legislating doctrine. Since the negative trait exists of ______ whatever _______ it can form the basis of policy. This is true so long as the ultimate aim is to suppress monkey nature (the anarchist/leftist/communist desire to destroy). Suppression of the leftist monkey is the ultimate aim of civilization. Humanity is and ought to be a farm of humans because the jungle is so much worse. The ultimate aim of the farm is to harness human nature to suppress anti-farm aspects of human nature, and sustain a better life for the very primates unworthy of it. Anti-racism is anti-farm, since herds of humans are most effectively domesticated when they are uniform in color and all high trust societies are societies of uniform animals.

Things like acknowledgments are not trivial. When people hear land acknowledgments they hear a declaration of fealty to a totalitarian regime of white self-hate. The left has constructed a decentralized form of totalitarianism within democracy. Democracy is supposed to represent the people, representative democracy is supposed to be a rather low temperature chilled-out form of government that routinely goes about the business of paving roads and delivering police services, and that is why people are still so indifferent to local government. They assume that their local government is carrying out the routine business of government but in reality in many places it has been completely hijacked by "woke" totalitarians. These people take the lie of equality so seriously that they believe in a kind of spiritual equality where the criminal continues to be innocent and have equal worth even after the crime they have committed. In fact they implicitly believe that the criminal has more worth because he is a victim of society and the "oppressed"  are always superior. This is a complete contradiction because society is nothing more than individuals, to claim that the individual has no responsibility for their actions would be to claim that society has no responsibility for oppressing them. To claim that society is totally responsible for the actions of individuals, even drug addicts and the mentally ill, is to contradict the first claim that individuals are not responsible, but this little point is a digression.

Shedding one's belief in human equality practically gives you a superpower since the society trains you to see the opposite of reality. Belief in the total malleability of humans is simultaneously the most socially maladaptive belief for one's own happiness and also the most adaptive for political power. If you believe in human nature then you have a natural limit on the power you can impose on people. Since human nature is only malleable up to a point, exceeding this point can be automatically characterized as tyranny. Indeed since humans have a nature then even well before the point of infringing on their automatic nature you can be guilty of tyranny since they simply don't like it, don't like what you are doing, and will never like it. Acceptance of a fundamental human nature demands acceptance of limits on power and of democratic accountability. In a monarchy notions of fundamental human nature may be used as a justification for hierarchical power but in a democracy they represent a limitation on that power. This is why fascist tendencies in a democracy can paradoxically lead to libertarian outcomes. 

Fascism is, according to Benito Mussolini in The Doctrine Of Fascism, the unity of all aspects of society within the state. Are you running a university? Great, the state will now determine your curriculum. Are you running a business? A government minder will supervise you. Got a chess club? You have to do the salute before you do the chess. Are you running the boy scouts? Cool now the boy scouts must be run according to fascist principles. And of course all of this is then unified in the personality of a dictator. Fascism, according to fascists, is complete unity within the state and complete control of the state by a personality. 

The left has spent decades getting around the Constitutional Separation Of Church and State in order to construct a decentralized totalitarian system of so-called economic, racial, and social justice. This system routinely ignores the pleas of voters at city council meetings to stop destroying their communities by importing homeless people, drugs, facilitating gangs, refusing to prosecute crime, and so forth. This decentralized conspiracy infiltrates universities, high schools, grade schools, and even kindergartens. It indoctrinates children to be transgender, to hate their own race, their Nation and their history. It subverts the reproduction of white people, brings in foreigners to vote and replace whites, brainwashes white women to turn against having children, attacks religion and God, hates Christianity, mothers, fathers, men, white men, white people, masculinity, infants who whine in public, normal heterosexual sex, reproduction, the gender binary, safe public spaces, clean streets, trains that run on time, the elderly (especially Baby Boomers), and anyone who enforces social norms (which they call Karens). It's various neurosis, hang-ups, and hatreds are well documented by everyone.

Since this has infiltrated everything and since it is decentralized in nature the promise of opposing it is the promise of libertarian fascism. That is, using a totalizing state to root out these communists from all institutions and impose a national curriculum of normalcy, replacement of Hollywood movie studio writers, and mass re-education and deprogramming of leftists. Of course power being what it is the most likely outcome will just be fascism, not libertarian fascism. The idea of libertarian fascism is to use fascism to expel totalitarianism from all institutions and then go back to democracy. This last part is unlikely to ever happen and so the totalitarians are actually justified in worrying about fascism, but what they are not justified in doing is thinking that fascism is worse than their own program.

A thing can be tyrannical without being unified in the personality of the dictator and democracy can infringe the individual's rights just as much as any king. Monarchy is not the sole criteria of tyranny, and there have been liberal monarchs in the classic sense of the word liberal. But one can see a system where instead of having to sit through endless indoctrination about how horrible you are for being white (so that you may get a college degree and enter the middle class), you have to sit through mandatory classes in Christian theology (even if you are an atheist), and swear fealty to Israel and the jews to graduate. People are really bad at cognitive dissonance, at the stress of believing one thing and saying another, and this is why power really is effective at imposing belief on people. This is why something like islamic conquest can actually work at changing the beliefs of a population. In fact most widespread belief is a top-down historical enterprise by a cultural conquest whether it was communist conquest and forced indoctrination of russia, communist conquest and forced indoctrination of china, islamic conquest and forced indoctrination of the entire Middle East, etc etc. Even native americans went to mandatory Christian school. 

When the beliefs of the population are programmed by compulsory education and forced forms of media indoctrination, when The Message saturates all movies and TV, it is kind of hard to see what the point of freedom of speech is. People desperately need to regain control of their own moral narratives. In the ancient feudal village people formed their own narratives around the campfire or town square. This is how values should be formed since values created by the community are far more trustworthy and productive of survival of that community than values imposed from above. The main way that values are passed from one generation to the next is through storytelling and having those stories written by anyone except the members of your own community is just begging to be colonized by your haters.

People should just run churches out of their houses, accept no cash donations, and invent their own stories. This last part does not happen because the slick and professional myths of big budget movie studios make the small shaman look cringe; another option is to selectively forage from the environment those myths that serve one's community, and crowdfund new ones, but this requires a community curriculum that shuns things outside the list of sanctioned media.

Christianity has become a big business in america and america has a tendency to convert all business and brands into religions, and all religions into businesses. The secret of american capitalism is that it isn't even really capitalism but more like occultism. Everything in this country converges on the business-cult and cult-business. You should regard any system that you don't control locally as fundamentally hostile to your existence or at least suspicious. You should build up the capacity for cognitive dissonance, the capacity to say whatever the educational authorities want you to say while believing whatever you actually believe. You should incorporate a kind of soft minimal compliance with power into a exit-in-place, hiding in plain sight. Everyone should train their children to just say whatever the teacher wants while believing things fundamentally different. You should educate your children in neoreaction even if you have to make them sit in front of a PowerPoint. You should put together a curriculum of based refutations and teach it to your kids after school, and share that curriculum among other parents. Your kids need to go to public high school, they need to know how to blend in, they need to learn the skill of hiding in plain sight from a young age. It needs to be second nature to them while their brains are still forming.

The name of the game is hiding in plain sight, code switching, and having your own secret opinions among your family and friends while swearing fealty to whatever the fuck you're supposed to believe. It's crowdsourcing your own narratives, developing approved lists of non-hostile myths and storytelling. It's cultural foraging and intentional separation. It's running churches out of your homes. All these skills will work for you regardless of whether or not fascism or woke totalitarianism wins.

If you like my work please consider linking to it so I may expand my reader base even more. 

Let's march through a few institutions

You could start by requiring college professors to publicly disclose whether they have a mental illness. In fact you could do that with politicians too and you would automatically reduce the number of leftists in public office and perhaps in the universities as well. You could exempt the mental illness diagnosis of academics and politicians from confidentiality and require its disclosure in the public interest. The mentally ill are attracted to education and politics the same way bullies are attracted to the police.

You could force all academics to get retrained in reactionary ideology and the ones that show insufficient enthusiasm for the new ideas would be ushered out of a job, banned for life from ever teaching again, and replaced with white nationalists. That would definitely work. 

And you could segregate academics into two groups; those that do the studies, and those that replicate the studies. The ones that do studies get tenure of the regular way by publishing about seven papers in seven years. The ones that replicate studies get tenure by refuting papers and finding flaws in them, by showing that the paper cannot be replicated and discrediting the academic who wrote it. You permanently separate these two groups of academics and when a person is going through the PHD process they have to choose one side or the other and that is what they do for the rest of their life. You have some legal requirement that oh, say, 30% of all phds have to be exclusively in the refutation business. This ensures that academia is divided and about 30% of the academics are always an enemy of the rest of them.

You could cancel all government funding and instead set up a private foundation run by reactionary billionaires. This foundation then dispenses all the money for studies. That could go terribly wrong if that foundation ever got pozzed by leftist entryism. Probably better to keep it under the control of the President of the United States. 

You could switch from proportional representation to a land area-based electoral college. What this would mean is that the more land area state has the more votes you would get in the Congress. The House of Representatives would now be apportioned on the basis of land area rather than population. This means that Alaska would have more votes than California and would become the most powerful state in the Union. That would automatically make it impossible for leftists to win future Presidential elections and make the House of Representatives permanently more right wing than the general population. This is because the left/right divide is really an urban versus rural divide.

You can make it mandatory for a majority of counties in every state to vote for a given gubernatorial candidate in order for that candidate to become governor. This would ensure that nearly all governors are Republicans. 

You could require 2 years of mandatory military service and if a person bitches about it and says they don't like guns and violence or whatever then you send them to the front line, and you tell everyone that that's what happens when you are a conscientious objector. This would toughen up the population and make everyone stop being such domesticated little bitches.

You can bring all media companies under government supervision. You could require all civil servants to attend a new one year reactionary re-education process in order to keep their jobs. You could bring the American Bar Association under Federal control. You could get an actually competent FBI director and weaponize them. You can create a mandatory right wing high school curriculum that is highly critical of all leftist dogma. Teachers that object to teaching it would be shown the door and banned permanently from education. You could call up Anna Slatz who runs Reduxx magazine, and offer her a billion dollars to run a new right wing TERF government funded anti-NPR. Or you could just set up an endowment that funds anti-trans reporting paid for by a one-time transfer of billions of taxpayer dollars. You can declare gender ideology a terrorist ideology or threat to National Security or something and send all the professors who ever wrote sympathetically about it to internment camps. Instead of burning books you can create an entire mandatory curriculum of anti-leftist ideology by hiring disgruntled academics to invent the curriculum for you, then you make the books they've written a mandatory part of all college curriculums. If judges have a problem with any of it they go to internment camps too. Speaking of judges, you consistently deconstruct all of the legal fictions that they have invented, such as determining whether someone is competent to stand trial or Miranda Rights. You could simply outlaw these fictions with them stroke of a pen, then intern the stubborn ones who refuse to adapt.

You order the CIA to kill all the people that it once used for color revolutions. Even former agents. If they aren't former yet you make them former. The CIA could do the same thing to George Soros and his son. Who says billionaires are above accountability? America has already assassinated American citizens, why are the super rich exempt? Nothing is going to change until money knows its place.

You bring unions under nationalist management. You put cartel leaders in prison for the rest of their lives and then reduce their sentence by a few days for each and every member of their criminal organization they turn on. If they don't want to snitch you cut a finger off one of their family members and give it to them. For each day they refuse to help  they get a little box with another finger, another toe, etc. If you don't help us destroy your cartel ombre we're going to turn your son, daughter, and wife into stumps, then they will join you in prison and we will bring in the biggest rapist to share a cell with each of them and make you watch from the other side of the glass.

You could invade northern Mexico and summarily execute every single male in the entire population with a gang tattoo. You then add the northern half of the country to the United States as territories. You're part of the United States now but you don't get to vote in our elections. When the Mexican president complains you have that bitch shot at by CIA snipers until she changes her attitude. Maybe take out a few bodyguards and members of the Mexican congress to help persuade her.

You don't tattoo numbers on the wrists of jews. You tattoo a P on the forehead of every pedophile. Let the public see the millions of pedophiles walking among them. This will scare the hoes and make all the moms into right wing Karens. It's important that a man's wife would be more reactionary than he is. Then once they are fed up with seeing these pedophiles you have a purge day. This is good for society since it makes ordinary men complicit in the death of evil people and therefore creates a permanent psychological anchor that will voraciously defend the regime. Nothing makes a man defend the government like pulling the trigger for the government and sincerely believing in what he did. This is why veterans are some of the most right-wing people alive. Once people are used to purge violence you cancel the purge and institutionalize purging has a gladiatorial sport. Bread and circuses are not really about distracting the people, they are about terrorizing scumbag communists into knowing their rightful place.

You give jobs to canceled right wingers. You turn porn stars into paid anti-porn campaigners. You make churches liable for the crimes of the migrants they bring in. You make philosophers financially liable for the consequence of their ideas. Oh you promoted transgenderism? Now you owe money to every family with a child that killed themself after transitioning. You replace free speech with consequential speech, that is a person has the right to benefit or suffer the consequences of their own ideas.

You buy up land and distribute it to white couples who want to start homesteads with large families. You make the standard penalty for a violent crime committed by any black man deportation to Africa. Before you do this you need a long period of about 20 years of reactionary cultural indoctrination of the entire population. That's what the march through the institutions is for. That's one of the things it is building towards. You use a slow boiling approach where indoctrination combined with cultural and institutional takeover is gradually ratcheted up preparing the whole population for the ultimate deportation of violent blacks and the establishment of ethno state areas in the United States.

At the end of this long process you are going to separate the United States into three areas: areas where all races are allowed, areas where only whites and asians are allowed, and areas where only whites are allowed. You use taxes and subsidies to move people from one place to the next. If the wrong person wants to live in a white only area the landlord has to pay a tax to rent to them and the employer has to pay a tax to employ them. If that same person wants to live in a black area or whatever then a subsidy applies. The taxes and subsidies create a push and pull effect causing the population to gradually separate out based on race. The average American moves every 7 years so it isn't that hard to get people to migrate using financial influences, make sure that all the really high paying jobs for blacks are located overseas in africa, you have constant recruitment on television, and propaganda about how great the place is; movies glorifying migration back to africa.

You make motherhood high status by having shows on TV that are designed to appeal to women, the kind of vapid stuff like real housewives. You always show motherhood as being higher status than singlehood. You always show permanently single women as being unattractive, nasty, stupid, low status, whores, and hated by other women. Most crucially you show that women who don't want to have children are unappealing to Chad. You make motherhood one of the only paths to high status in society for women. You can do this long before you deport anyone. You did the same with men, you might even peg promotions to whether or not a man has a family, passing over for promotion single men with good genes who refuse to get married. You might just tell these single men that since they don't have a family that don't need the extra money and since they don't have children they don't have a demonstrated track record of responsibility. You might also pass a law that reserves home ownership for people with families, or at least requires real estate agents to show people with children houses first and creates a mandatory 5-day waiting period before they can show a house to somebody without kids. The people with kids always get first dibs on home ownership. 

There is this website called TV Tropes and Idioms. You outlaw certain TV tropes and idioms that are hostile to family formation and a white race and then you mandate the portrayal of other tropes in media. Through the subtle manipulation of what is considered positive and negative you push society in a healthy direction. This is basically like making the whole media complex the anti-Disney. Abolish Title IX and all the other nonsense anti-discrimination laws, or even better, you change the list of protected categories to include white men, christians, veterans, pregnant women, and mothers, while canceling the following categories: discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, race, and whatever other left-wing categories there are. Just weaponize DEI against everyone who hates the white race.

There is a duty to be creative, a duty of leaders to find creative ways of fucking degenerates over. Creativity with power is a moral duty. Can you think of ways to be creative?