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 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. 

Put it another way, we are all created from a part of genetic soup, every human is a bowl of soup taken from that 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. 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 of are more or less racist. Put these trades will vary, so most humans for example 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 liberalism depends on silence and critics who challenge the false notion of equality, then all systems are based on silencing critics. 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 enables 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 bull 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. This, conservatives also have self-deceptive tendencies.

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 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. Anti-racism is anti-farm, since herds of humans are most effectively domesticated when they are uniform in color I'm high trust societies are societies of uniform animals.

Land acknowledgments are not a trivial thing. 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.

Belief in the total malleability of humans is simultaneously the most socially maladaptive belief and also the most politically adaptive belief. 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 if humans have a nature 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 power. This is why fascist tendencies in a democracy can paradoxically lead to libertarian outcomes. 

Fascism according to Benito Mussolini in The Doctrine Of Fascism, is 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 and 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 polices 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, what they are not justified in doing is thinking that fascism is worse than what they're doing.

A thing can be tyrannical without being unified in the personality of the dictator. 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 the 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 to get your degree. 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 a cultural conquest whether it is 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. 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. 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. 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, hide 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, having your own secret opinions among your family and friends while swearing fealty to whatever the fuck you're supposed to believe. This skill 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?

9 points of clarity

The points:

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

1. All political principles are derived from appetite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The ideal level of racism is non-zero

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

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

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

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

4. Exit is ruinous in a genetic species

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

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

5. Every system that works is built on discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Everything of value is built in hell

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

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

To quote from the book Xenosystems by Nick Land :

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Eras:

Era 1: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 2: Is ⊃ Ought

Era 3: Ought ⊃ Is

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

"trans women ought to be women therefore they are"

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

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

"humans ought to be equal therefore they are." 

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

7. Practical consistency is better than moral consistency

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

Sounds great, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Today's morality is largely incompatible with survival

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

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

9. The popular perception of reality is never the actual

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

If you want to support this blog please consider linking to it on your website as Google ranks pages on the basis of the number of links to a page.

RIP Charlie Kirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief note on political design

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

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

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

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

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

And of course 

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

—————

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

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

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

Evil versus crazy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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