Saturday, 30 November 2019

Thoughts on the system - 39

There’s no way to describe the system, the organism. Its vocabulary is grossly underwhelming. The following rough thoughts are an attempt to outline the unoutlineable:
  • Telling a girl she's pretty and watching her get slightly embarrassed is precious.
  • Many problems would be solved if men stop abdicating their decisions about aesthetics.
  • Tithing is sanctioned magic.
  • The biggest obstacle to raising children is that you shouldn't want them to be like you.
  • Cain's first sin was sorcery. Transactional religion operates with prayers that insist "I've held up my end" contain the same sin.
  • “But I’m not dressing this way for men, I’m doing it for myself.” Yes, that’s the entire problem of modern society in a nutshell.
  • Hate is not the opposite of love, hate is an emotion felt toward that which threatens what we love.
  • The emphasis on false progress like gay rights, race, tranny issues is a mask to hide the stagnation and decay in our lives like salary deflation, social isolation, globalisation, house prices and currency inflation.
  • Men go to war because women won’t have sex with them if they don’t. Tell me again who has power?
  • Freud incorrectly thought the primordial violent impulse is patricide, when in fact the bible clearly says it was fratricide.
  • They say power corrupts so you won't try to take it from them.
  • None has had a good idea while in traffic.
  • 60% of the variance in male sexuality is due to the environment, in contrast to 80% of the variance in female sexuality. But for some reason, you can't say this in public.
  • The wicked will be stunned the punishment took so long.
  • In the modern world, truth itself is presented as inaccessible to people who do not possess the right identity characteristics.
  • Warrior or priest - every society is ruled by one of those two.
  • Adam could have stayed in the garden - he wasn't out of ribs. It was for the love of a particular woman that he fell - the first act of heroism.
  • Women are naturally powerful if there is no organised effort to restrain them. They can endlessly play men off against each other. To create a civilization, men must cooperate which directly conflicts with the feminine imperative.
  • Clearing and taming wild places is what men are designed to do. Every video game has this premise. They are the pornographisation of adventure and exploration.
  • If girls are so innately appealing, why do we need hormones?
  • You wouldn't pay for a stranger to walk your daughter down the aisle, so why pay for someone else to bury a family member?
  • What would change if Jesus was bald?
  • You can't obey the commandment to love your enemies and pretend you don't have any.
  • We're encouraged to brag about demographic change, however, you aren't allowed to comment on it. And if the wrong person notices it, suddenly it no longer exists and that person is a conspiracy theorist. These are the rules of a strange time.
  • Freedom of religion requires a common religion or at least no mutually exclusive religious claims.
  • Motherhood isn't "the hardest job" - it isn't even a job. All jobs exist to sustain motherhood.
  • There are no laws in a progressive culture except remembered taboos, and even these are being forgotten.
  • Every time five people get together online, two of them are intelligence agents.
  • Kids aren't great at logic or rhetoric, but they're great at detecting who gives cares about them.
  • I'm not saying there is an enemy. I'm saying if the were the enemy, this is what they would do.
  • Men cheat. Women just trade the only thing they have - sex - in the hope it leads to what they want: love.
  • Perhaps the "satanic panic" wasn't Christians panicking about devil worshippers, it was the pedo-elite panicking because they were so close to being found out.
  • The sexual revolution was about protecting the ruling class when they engaged openly in lascivious sexual behaviour by removing scandal from all sexual acts.
  • Why hasn't the church put any money into developing online missionary work?
  • Most of what is called tolerance is just cowardice.
  • Women care about appearances, not people.
  • Everything wrong with the world is a male leadership failure. It's not necessarily your fault, but it's 100% your responsibility because women will never do it.
  • Just as sodomy is a sterile mockery of the relationship between man and woman, "dog mummies" and "fur babies" are a perversion of mother and child.
  • Failed fathers cause a lot of pain.
  • Porn is not free speech.
  • There is no such thing as a disinterested woman, so there can be no female scholars.
  • From 1455 to 2004, macro-inventions - those that changed the course of history - peaked in the nineteenth century and are now in on the slide.
  • The horror isn’t that a cartel runs the world. The horror is finding out the group of people are a bunch of idiots.
  • Men are corrupted by excessive insults, women are corrupted by excessive praise.
  • In any new law, ask who gets the job of defining terms.
  • If you erase all Europeans from literature to be "inclusive," what exactly are you trying to include people into?
  • I will never get over how easy it was for the media to convince women that prostitution is empowering while marriage is demeaning.
  • In progressivism, modern people are defined by nothing defining them.
  • All generations tell the same lie: "this time is different."
  • Takeaway of the Jeffrey Epstein story: there is no rule of law for the ruling class and society is far more corrupt and incompetent than you have been taught.
  • If you know where to look, the effort to mutilate and sterilise homosexuals is real, deliberate and has been happening for a while. It just looks like freedom and sexual licence.
  • If the US is a nation of ideas, not an actual place, then why don't "migrants" create an America back in their homelands rather than travel to Wisconson?
  • The Grace Millane trial shows that women unironically prefer to risk being killed by rough sex with an optimal man than give a sub-optimal man a chance.
  • Learning is good, but you must also comprehend the specifics of what is being learned.
  • The Saudi state is the vehicle Washington uses to impose its will on the Sunni Muslim world.
  • Questions about identity don’t start with what makes you different, they start with what makes you the same.
  • Why is the US the only country without revolutions? Because it doesn’t have a US Embassy.
  • If I’m not supposed to shame Grace Millane for her abuse kink, then I won’t shame the dude for killing her during sex since that was obviously his kink.
  • The only two solutions offered for “mental illness” are a) more power to the government to fix the problem or b) more psychiatry, which means more power to an unelected group to decide whether you’re a problem.
  • There is no government law that will make women as economically productive as men.
  • Men protect and provide, which are two of the things the government has taken away. Any wonder why there’s so much male suicide and depression?
  • Little victories add up to a rich and fulfilling life.
  • If the game is about eyeballs, then it is less relevant that the news gets the facts correct once you’re watching, only that you watch the news.
  • “The world is overpopulated” Well, it’s clearly not overpopulated by smart people.

The Founder, or McDonald's as the boss of the only cartel that matters

The simple fact of the modern world is that everything sold as freedom is actually a form of control. If you want to be free, avoid vice, even if it's on sale for $9.99.

Global consumer markets have turned each of us into the mob boss's wife who doesn't ask where the money comes from. You were never meant to be this safe or comfortable.


If you stand back and peer really hard, The Founder, a movie about the creation of McDonald’s restaurants, looks like it’s a criticism of the American dream. The dream of clawing to the top, crushing others on your way up. Or “belief that no idea is too big or too good to be stolen.”

Or perhaps the dream is mythology and revisionism about how American capitalism was built? A critique of capitalism? A “solid tale of greed,” according to one reviewer? A sacrifice of morality for dollars? What is this, 1974? It seems like director John Lee Hancock wanted to send the message about the rotten core of American capitalism, in much the same line of David Fincher in The Social Network. One scene, in particular, pitted the character Ray Kroc, with dollar-symbols-for-eyes, yelling down the phone at one of the McDonald brothers explaining how business works.

They’d already argued in person about the company direction earlier, but the final confrontation had to take place over the phone. It was the only way for the director to portray the juxtaposition of Kroc’s pretence of masculinity and control. Because in America, not only is every important social interaction mediated by technology, the phone allows speakers to maintain cognitive distance between who they really are, and how they wish to be seen. If you yell down the phone, the listener can’t see your body language and so some part of you is hidden from the sunlight.


The movie is simple: the two McDonald brothers are depicted as the “good guys” because all they want is to create burgers so people feel better. They say money is no object to them (although they happily negotiate for millions of dollars at the end, but whatever). Whereas Kroc is frustrated with the brothers' lack of fervour because according to the movie’s warped logic, wanting to be successful makes you the bad guy. Note that being successful isn’t a bad thing, it’s the wanting that corrupts. So Mr Kroc snaps and harshly outlines why the brothers are useless businesspeople. He says something to the effect of: “if you are a competitor and I saw you drowning, I’d walk up and shove a water hose in your face. Business is war.”

And I could hear the audience tsk tsk that line. After the film, the person I went to see the film with said sarcastically how much I would have appreciated the movie because it oozed capitalism and greed, and since I wear a suit to work somehow that makes me those things too. But this critique is wrong in a specific way.

McDonald’s doesn’t represent rampant capitalism, it represents consumerism. Those two dynamics are not the same thing, yet are sold to us as the same. That should be your first red flag. Kroc knew that welfare is a nothing but a wealth transfer. Nearly 100% of it goes to landlords and fast-food restaurants like McDonald's. The smart move is to position yourself on the lucrative end of the feeding tube.

Attacking capitalism is presented as equivalent to attacking consumerism, that's the trick. This conflation is dangerous but expected. Like I've said before, the framework of political criticism in Western democracies has orbited around the triplet ideals of fascism, socialism and capitalism. All of which relied on the approval of the masses to exist, but not all of them could survive in the same world. As the constitution of a society changes due to technology advances, systems of power change with it. Which group of people get to call the shots is always decided by a neat little dynamic called "world war."


In the 20th century, one of these emerging new models of power (European fascism) was crushed by the other two, which then proceeded to turn on each other and fight for world domination over the next few decades. We called this the Cold War. Since the US is associated with the capitalism model, it looks to many people alike that ideology was the victorious model.

We still have socialists and capitalists – and sometimes actual fascists pop their heads up too, although mostly playing adult dress-up – arguing with each other as if the question of "which version of democratic power will win" is still to be solved. It isn't. We dealt with that and the American version won. Get over it. You might not like it, but a global market, denominated in dollars and protected by the US Navy, is an American market in all but name.

But with the new form of technological society, with computers, automation, advanced medicine, containerisation and the internet, I think capitalism itself perished in those wars as well. Looking back, democracy was the default assumption. If any of the other powers had won ownership of the world, I think they would have had no problem transitioned seamlessly into the same but slightly different version of the consumer market we see today. Our prejudice says there's something about American arrogance or ignorance that led to consumer culture. But the Russians, Germans, Japanese, Italians and British would have succumbed to the quiet forces of consumerism too. It was inevitable because the underlying technology made it a foregone conclusion.

The Founder proves that no corner of that triangular framework was victorious in the Long War of Democracy. The process of turning people into batteries was so superbly successful, nothing was ever going to stand in its way. All the various players could hope was to win and act as stewards for consumerism. Here's an example. Analysts fret about the true goals of China's Belt and Road initiative, but one might say the global airline industry — with Boeing jets, USD-benchmarked fuel prices, English-language technical manuals — as America’s own accidental Belt and Road initiative.

In other words, this present set of technology makes all nations consider the only thing the populace is good for is cramming more hamburgers into your mouth. You couldn't get two more dissimilar countries than China and the US, and yet here both are clearly operating the same model.


The fundamental aspect of a digital-first consumer society like this is that human behaviour becomes easier to track and manipulate when it’s done in digital form, and digitising your life keeps getting cheaper. Everyone's jumping on board. Yet politicians still spend inordinate time complaining about low-income levels. The argument is never that prices should be controlled. Rather, it's that people need to be paid more money and should control their data. Why?

Because the only acceptable mode of living in this society is to give in it entirely and become consumers. If people can't buy McDonald’s food or Apple products, there will be nothing into which they can assimilate. Do you see? Some suspect the West is losing its culture by importing other types of ideas and traditions, but this is Western culture. The whole point of fighting a World War is to win ownership of the world. If you own the world, you will want to be the first culture to shed your traditions and become truly global. This can only be achieved by packaging pieces of own culture into consumer products and selling them in Walmart.

The "halal" signs you see on restaurants indicate Islam is going to be captured by consumerism just like Christmas was. I'm just waiting for Nike to put a swish on a hijab.

Oh, wait.

Consumer culture eats all. The Beast wins. It’s the perfect feedback loop. Of course, everyone knows being loyal to a corporation is like being in a committed relationship with a prostitute, but that's not why The Founder as a movie failed.

It failed because no robust critique of consumerism exists. In fact, consumerism is so pervasive that every argument, theory or movement arrayed against it is immediately swallowed up and spat out as a product. What side are you on? Are you going to the rally? Does this laptop reflect your disdain for the 9-5 working day? Consider that, after the tragic events of 9/11, the US has spent $32 million an hour on warfighting for the last 18 years. That money hasn't disappeared, it was spent on turning the very idea of war into a consumer product. How else would they sell video games, cars, Treasury bonds and petrol? In the larger scheme of things, it's actually a very cheap advertising campaign.

And precisely because of feminism, women have accumulated the lion’s share of all student debt - in the trillions. How long before the system gives in to this pressure and passes the debt on to taxpayers? Hint: very soon. "Business is war." If debt is an obstacle to spending money on new handbags or staying at a job until 9pm, then the debt has to go.

The Founder proves that a good history of the 21st century won’t be written for a long time because, at the moment, propaganda is more important than understanding. The game of spreading Big Macs, iPhones and pornography to turn everyone into a consumer battery is very young. Most of the system's energy is being spent on bringing people to developed countries because it's cheaper to send Amazon packages to Frankfurt than Lagos. It's not that people in Lagos don't want consumer goods, rather their presence in Lagos means they haven't been trained to want Amazon goods. Do you see?


Why do other countries join the cartel? It’s useful to look at consumerism as a geopolitical phenomenon. The "consumer cartel" is like an arms treaty in which participating states agree to limit their capabilities, but instead of limiting their military capabilities they limit their own ability to govern. Progressive democracy is quite specific about the limitations it sets: individual nation-states are not to seek a higher good, they must have a mechanism in place for a regular change of leadership and the legal and economic systems must dominate.

States in the "consumer cartel" deliberately adopt a set of conditions that restrict their capacity to form and pursue long-term goals and strategies. They also pressure other countries to join, especially countries that have reached a high level of development. The attractiveness to being part of the cartel shouldn’t be underestimated because progressivism gives countries a lazy way out because the deliberate restriction of ambition among the populace takes the pressure off the elites. Anyone in power would love a set of institutions that let them stop caring.

My point is that none of this implies that consumerism was an American conspiracy for world domination, just that when the US reacted to threats better than the others, it did so in a way that protected its own version of consumerism. Conspiracies are unnecessary when reactive behaviour predicts the same outcome. It’s not a conspiracy that the US is a dominant importer of goods and exporter of brand names, it’s just the inevitable result of a system in which it is in charge. The American peace is less classy than the Roman version, but good enough, as long as you believe that civis romanus sum can be roughly translated into “I said, ‘Where is the nearest McDonald’s?'”


Business is war. But history is inevitability plus random contingency. Kroc is that inevitability. Do you know how hard it is to get "political dissidents" to acknowledge they've been living under occupation for 75+ years, that their countries exist in name only, and their governments are nothing but inaccessible, puppet-filled front offices of the global consumer system? The technology that allowed Kroc to take McDonald's to the world is the result of of the true battle of the 20th century. To countries other than the US, “globalisation” is simply the story of increasing US consumerism.

Assume that, for the foreseeable future, the system will invest copious resources in providing things like free pornography above basic living requirements like food. It is inevitable. But go ahead and enjoy your "casual Friday" and new social media. Kroc knows that, regardless of its insane politics, progressive views and arguments perfectly align with those of the IMF and Walmart. Hyper-consumerism will keep this power structure on top for far longer than people expect.

The scam is simple. Like a drug dealer on the first encounter, once you're hooked, once you're reliant on government welfare, healthcare and everything else, you'll never revolt. They own you forever. The fundamental question in the consumer age is: how do you create the impression of a classless society so the proletariat doesn't rise up and beat you with their iPhones? You make sure everyone can buy everyone's products. You do this by importing cheap or illegal labour, fixing the laws to make prison labour legal or inventing robots. The plus side of mass immigration is those people become consumers too. Do you see?

Forget abortion and identity politics, the final culture battle will be with Coca Cola.

Friday, 15 November 2019

Don't fight the system, beat the system

"Freedom is a two-edged sword of which one edge is liberty and the other, responsibility. Both edges are exceedingly sharp and the weapon is not suited to casual, cowardly or treacherous hands." - Jack Parsons.
I briefly feel bad for the people in prison for selling drugs, but come on, it is against the law. There's a perfectly good reason not to sell drugs, and that's because you could end up in jail. Isn't that reason enough?

I see nothing wrong with that. Don't downward comparison me about how murders and rapists get less time. Those people should get harsher sentences, I agree. But a drug dealer is ruining his own life and that of his family because he didn't think things through. They get a handful of years behind bars to learn the difference between trying to fight the system and trying to beat the system. But, as usual, they tell you power corrupts so you won't try to take it from them.

Wake the hell up. Governments have chosen to make limiting drug use a top priority. They created an entire law enforcement apparatus for drug prohibition enforcement. They made special laws to keep it away from schools. They make the laws. You obey them. You can defy them, sure, but don't then bitch when they throw your ass in prison for breaking the law you were completely aware of and chose to defy.

Maybe prison sentences for drug use are disproportionate to the amount of "damage" a drug dealer can possibly do to society. That's a fine argument, but punishment guidelines are not set based on the damage a person did to society. Nothing is costless, everything touches everything else.

Oh, drug laws are stupid, I see. Well, I think the insider trading laws are stupid, should I get to break them? Will the internet come to my rescue if I do? Insider trading is a victimless crime except in the most abstract and hypothetical sense, and even if victims existed it would be irrelevant because laws don't need victims to be legitimate.

If you’re busted for selling marijuana, not for using it, it’s not an "assault on your lifestyle." Last time I checked, selling is commerce, and the government has the exclusive right to regulate domestic commerce. If you think the punishment is cruel and unusual, you can take it up with the courts. And if you want to argue this is undemocratic – my insider trading comment still stands. The same government that passed the laws about insider trading passed the drug laws too. They are democratically elected. So, if you say they aren't, then that would invalidate every law not just your pet issues about drugs.

I am NEVER going to prison for a drug offence, so I don't care what the punishment is. If you plan to sell drugs, you should plan to go to jail on the government’s terms. They have the power and the presumption of moral authority because they are our collective representatives, at least in theory. If you want to question that moral authority, fine, but at least try to maintain the moral high ground when you do it. Drug dealers aren’t fighting the system, they're earning money.

Also, do small-time drug dealers plan to pay sales tax on the transactions or income tax on the money they make? I guess not. So, in addition to breaking drug laws, they evade taxes. But when they get busted, people rush to their defence saying they’re “fighting the man,” or some bullshit. That’s not what drug dealers are doing. Again, they’re just trying to turn a quick buck.

Is the punishment of throwing someone in prison for selling drugs too severe? No, it isn't. Drugs are banned. Dealers shouldn't even have the substance, let alone be selling it. It's fine to argue against mandatory sentencing, but again, if you attack the concept, then all the guidelines come out. Do you really think a few years behind bars for selling drugs is cruel and sadistic?

Tough. DONT SELL DRUGS. It's not like official drug policy is a secret. At some point, an instinct for self-preservation must kick in. It's basically an extension of the Darwin Awards. People stupid enough to sell drugs to adults who they don't know in a society that has made drug enforcement a top priority are too stupid for their own good.

And for the umpteenth time, drug use is not like being gay or black or any of the other dozen things people want to equate it with. It fascinates me that people consider drug use to be an identity-defining characteristic equivalent with race or sexual orientation. Imagine making a fetish your identity? Drugs are a product people use because they enjoy it. Don't elevate it to the status of a revolutionary act.

Personally, I'm not against legalising marijuana. It's not a big deal for me one way or the other because unlike juvenile arguments about gender and race, drug use is indisputably a choice. But I would want to legalise all drugs and tax them to an insane degree. People are going to get the stuff anyway, even if it means putting themselves in danger of a crime or going to prison. At least with legalisation, they get their stupid drug in a safe way, the quality can be controlled and the state drug interdiction agencies can be dismantled and the money spent on something else, like rehab.

"So, you're saying I should obey every law because it's the law?" Look, if you don’t like it, you can fight the law in three ways: 1) violence; 2) non-violent disobedience; 3) change the law within the system. There is no rule of law, there is only rule by lawyers and judges. So get in there and persuade them.

Drug dealers do none of the above. Want to fight the system violently? You’ll lose. How about civil disobedience? That's a stretch. Possession and use of drugs is one matter, trafficking is another matter altogether. But if you want to argue for the legalisation of marijuana, you need to be prepared to parse out how it is different than any other illegal drug. Because failing to do so means you are advocating the legalisation of cocaine and heroin. And again, you'll lose. You need to be able to accept that if it's illegal for tobacco companies to sell cigarettes to minors, it should also be illegal for drug dealers to do the same.

Drug laws are primarily the result of corporations such as Dow lobbying (amongst other vested interests that have bought and sold our governments over and over again). Dow would much rather sell the world its synthetic ropes than use hemp fibres. There is no sophistication in arguing insane conspiracy theories. And please don't mention how racist the people in corporations are. Plenty of drug dealers are racists, homophobes and misogynists too. Some of them even bribe cops and officials. But they collectively have no clout in government because they pay no taxes.

You shouldn’t obey unjust laws, but you should expect to be punished for acts of civil disobedience. That's why the civil rights movements were examples of courage. They knew they were going to jail and would be attacked by cops, but they did it anyway. It's the punishment for a non-violent protest of the law that draws attention to the injustice of the law.

But a lot of people argue that civil disobedience is some kind of profound affirmative defence. They think if you break the law in protest, you shouldn't be punished in the same way as if you broke the law out of self-interest. That's completely wrong. If you want to highlight the absurdity and injustice of drug laws, then walk into a police station with a single marijuana seedling in a little plastic jar and be personally prepared to suffer whatever consequences may come. And remember, just because someone is protesting doesn’t mean they’re right. Their victory may not be in your best interest.

But even then you’d still have to argue that a) the previous reasons for banning a drug are factually and morally wrong, and b) there would be some benefit to legalising it while not legalising the other drugs. Keep in mind that if you only legalise marijuana, for instance, you do nothing about the “drug war.” The entire apparatus stays in place to restrict the flow of the other drugs.

Drugs are no better or worse than a million other illegal things. Again, my insider trading example stands. If I have information about a company that was a result of my own work and effort, why shouldn't I be able to profit from that? There is no victim because the amount I would trade would be inconsequential. Why is that illegal? Why do so many people think it's immoral?

But somehow drugs are special, presumably because they involve the illusion of rebellion. I've got news for you: doing drugs is not an act of defiance, it's an act of indulgence. We were raised to celebrate rebellion in principle, but then our parents had no values to reject.

Drug use isn't a moral choice, or a fight for rights or justice. It's a consumption choice. You don't get to define who you are. What you do defines who you are. You get to decide what you do. But really, why would you waste your finite energy on worrying about what you cannot change (the system) when you could be using it on what you 100% can change…yourself.

Wednesday, 13 November 2019

Thoughts on the system - 38

There’s no way to describe the system, the organism. Its vocabulary is grossly underwhelming. The following rough thoughts are an attempt to outline the unoutlineable:
  • According to progressives, it’s either them or Hitler, and you know what they say about false choices.
  • In all my conversations with girls, they’ve never told me an original idea.
  • If humans are all equal, then in this age of multicultural societies and full gender equity, where are all the inventions?
  • People blame the boomers because they can’t remember the name of the previous generation. The smart thing would be to reject the very idea that advertising has the authority to apply names to entire groups of people.
  • “Ok boomer” is just a shorthand for “don’t confuse this issue by adding facts and logic.”
  • Political correctness is a manifestation of a lack of self-worth.
  • People who disparage honour cultures should consider a society that values the opposite of honour.
  • Fredrick Maitland once wrote that all systems of law resolve into two commandments: keep your promises and tell the truth.
  • In both German wars, Berlin made peace proposals while the Allies rejected them, which means the Allies were the predators.
  • The majority of Zionists are Christians, not Jews.
  • There is no such thing as an objective news story. All media is towards a goal.
  • You don’t get to tell me what my experience was.
  • If you deny reality, it will automatically work against you.
  • A girl will bond to you after the third time you have sex because she becomes the chaser rather than the chased.
  • As long as men follow the advice of social scientists they will never unlock the mystery of what attracts women to men, and will suffer the consequences.
  • So much of what you think you know - what you think is fact - is established not by evidence but by the absence of resources for the opposition.
  • “Why didn’t you publish this article earlier when the story first came out?” You mean the further away we get from the hot news cycle, the less you’re interested in the truth?
  • Is there a way to test for intelligence? Probably. Does the IQ test do this? Probably not. But you must be particularly obtuse not to notice that some people are smarter and these people have other patterns about them as well.
  • “Tax the rich” is just punishing the successful.
  • To be a good leader, you don’t need to be the smartest guy in the room, you just need to know what’s important.
  • To understand good you first must understand evil.
  • There must be a deeper level of motivation than profit.
  • When men who do the right thing get no reward, that society is finished.
  • Radio’s main social purpose is so people who are driving in traffic can forget they’re driving in traffic.
  • If everything is recorded, nothing is remembered.
  • Saying “racism” is a 21st-century magic spell.
  • They can’t enslave you directly because you’ll rise up. The key is to convince you to enslave yourself.
  • Bad people don’t do good things.
  • It’s not the porn, it’s the apathy.
  • Climate change is about controlling you not the climate.
  • What if the pharaoh couldn’t see his pyramid because he had myopia?
  • Women are motivated by feeling oppressed. Think about that.
  • To see those in power, start from the premise that they want to stay in power, and ask how might they do it. Work backwards.
  • If you measure your currency in USD, then you don't have an independent currency.
  • Bitcoin is stupid. Why would you put your capital online if you don’t own the online?
  • Why are people so scared to tell other people that they’re being lied to?
  • The Devil’s favourite word is “more.”
  • Entertainment makes you think of the past or future so you don’t think of the present.
  • The sole purpose of modern psychology is to help you alleviate guilt.
  • If you are holding a powerful man to account, then either he is not a powerful man or there is a more powerful man allowing you to act.
  • Just because you call it a fetus doesn’t make it not a baby.
  • In America, if you don’t have a religion you are nothing.
  • Business is hard. If you are having an easy time, it is because you don’t fully own your business.
  • Fighting climate change by not having kids is taking the system’s perspective that a human's worth only for consuming, rather than for their intelligence, cooperation, muscle power or anything else.
  • It is suspiciously difficult to name a machine invention that isn't about making a woman's life easier as its primary function.
  • It is terrible logic to say that since you fought Hitler and Hitler was bad, then that makes you good.
  • The real punishment is not prison but the prison rape.
  • Wanting to block hate speech, or even saying hate speech exists, proves you don’t know how to think. To come up with original ideas, you must first have a lot of crazy ideas.
  • Women are called “bossy” because no one expects girls to be leaders and leadership is performative for females.
  • Proxy forces are the modern privateers
  • Family is the only defence a person has against predatory economic systems.
  • The things you know are worth something, but why does it have to be measured in dollar form?
  • Systems naturally attract certain kinds of people. Change the system and you attract a different kind of person.
  • If people demand to be paid for data, we will suddenly be told how useless data is.
  • If what you did was embarrassing, you would have done something to change it.
  • Most protesters are only doing what they think people ought to do when protesting.
  • Self-pity is one of the very few emotions that is sustainable, never lets you down and is understandable by everyone.
  • Why do the good guys always win? Because the winners get to define themselves as the good guys after killing off all those who could possibly offer a counter-narrative.
  • Saying “lol” without actually laughing is a lie.
  • There is no need to look for large conspiracies. All that’s required is to find the close-knit fraternities of men with shared goals.
  • Women don’t care who a man is, they only care what a man is because, even to a hardened feminist, a man’s status reflects on her.
  • In the game of power, persuasion is the younger brother of performance.
  • If a change in art leads to a change in the regime as it attracts a new elite, then memes are the beginning of a cultural revolution.
  • Progressivism sees sexuality as the most important freedom. Reaction knows that many other things matter more.
  • For working people, utopia is nostalgia. They feel safer in the past.
  • If the US wanted to stop Chinese espionage, it has all the power to do so. The only question is why it doesn’t.
  • You never hear the phrase: “he made love to me in my ass.”
  • If free implies no barrier, and cost is a barrier, then isn’t the idea of digital money anathema to a free internet?
  • Immutability on the blockchain lasts only as long as the Big Boys can get their money.

The law of equivalent exchange in marijuana

I'm going to write a children's book called "It's Just an Escape," in which Emily learns that her parents stay up late to smoke marijuana instead of learning a new trade or going to night school. Emily asked them where they got the drug, and they said they bought it from Farmer Joe.

Emily then learns her parents spend almost $100 per month on marijuana, but they only spend $10 per month on new science books for her. Emily wanted to get piano lessons, but her parents said those were too expensive.

She wondered how many piano lessons she could have taken by now and decided to ask her maths teacher the next day. He told her that Mrs Melison offered piano lessons once a week for $10 which only cost $40 a month! That would still leave enough for new science books and to save for a holiday. She wondered why her mum and dad hadn't figured that out.

Then the maths teacher said smoking marijuana was against the law and if the police catch you with marijuana you can go to jail for a long time. Emily said, "that's silly, it's just a plant! You can't go to jail for having a plant, can you?"

Her maths teacher explained that sometimes the laws don't always make sense, but you obey them because the most valuable things we have are our time and our freedom. Mrs Melison said if Emily kept being a good student and stayed away from marijuana, she had a good chance of being accepted to the Science Magnet school downtown. The kids who graduate there go to university and Emily knew she had to get a degree before becoming a doctor.

Emily worried about her parents. What if they were put in jail for having marijuana? Would they be homeless? Would she have to quit school? This scared her.

That night at dinner, Emily told her parents what she learned from the teacher. "If you keep smoking marijuana, you might get arrested. Then we could be homeless, and I would have to quit school. Plus, if you stop buying marijuana, you can save a lot of money." Her parents blushed. What Emily said made sense.

Her parents looked at each other. They thought they were cool for smoking marijuana, but they were really just being self-indulgent douchebags.

"We won't be selfish douchebags any more, sweetie. We love you," her parents said. And Emily smiled.


Emily knew that everything a parent does that is "conspicuous consumption" is money and time wasted that could have been spent on their children. Marijuana smoking isn't conspicuous consumption because you generally don't do it conspicuously. It's not like driving a Porsche or carrying an iPhone. Pot-smoking can and often does land people in prison. I think Emily has a point: any parent who does illegal drugs is reckless and negligent based solely on their willingness to accept the risk of going to prison.

But I also understand that both nicotine and alcohol are legal, addictive and cause financial strain on people who can't really afford it. Marijuana is not addictive and it is easier for people to stop using if they choose to, so why should it be illegal? Making cigarettes legal but marijuana illegal is a bizarre contradiction. What is even more bizarre is that the tobacco companies were fined billions for selling a legal product everyone knew was addictive and that carried a label from the government warning the user against using the product.

What I am suggesting with the story is that, right or wrong, a law must be enforced in order for any other law to have merit. You can still go to prison for breaking a law you think is stupid. In the interest of preserving things that are more valuable, e.g. freedom to go anywhere, say anything, do with your time what you will, etc., it may be worth sacrificing something of minor value, such as smoking marijuana.

My position is that people try these exotic substances because they are stupid. And I mean that literally. They suspend the normal functioning of their brain.

Would they buy a hamburger from a guy selling them in an alley? No. But they would buy a chemical that alters their brain chemistry. A drug commercial spends 25% of the advertisement time telling the audience all the horrible things that could happen upon taking the drug. Everyone knows that using any drug other than marijuana can result in a fatal overdose, but they do it anyway. Every legitimate drug carriers the warning not to mix the drug with alcohol and to check with doctors about interactions if a person is on other medication. And yet street drugs are routinely consumed along with unhealthy quantities of alcohol.

As long as the public has to pay to clean up your fucking filthy corpse when you OD, it isn't just about personal rights. When your OD lands you in the hospital, our collective money is going to pay for the treatment. And when your addictive behaviour ruins the lives of everyone around you because there is no such thing as a "normal" dose, that isn't just about you. It affects other people as well, and the government has a legitimate interest in maintaining a civil society in which the people act like humans instead of animals.

If something is legal you can assume all sorts of things, like it's clean, unadulterated and is actually what it says on the label. You can also assume people have done studies to show it does what it is supposed to without the side effect of death. You can also assume the amount and frequency with which you take it won't kill you and assume a doctor will monitor how that drug affects you. Baby aspirin even comes in a package that is pretty much impossible for even adults to open.

Illegal street drugs isn't the maaaann harshing your buzz. Has anyone ever sued a drug dealer for product liability because their cocaine was cut with borax? Or because the heroin wasn't heroin but was actually detergent? And are those little sandwich bags childproof? Are the needles clean?

Do you really need to get high that badly? Do you so desperately need to alter your state of mind that you'll buy an unknown chemical from some shitdick in a club and shoot it into your veins? If the answer is yes, then it should be perfectly acceptable for the government to agree with your own assessment that your brain is defective and to separate you from the rest of us.

You know why we have a war on drugs? This is why: everyone who is under the age of 40 who smokes cigarettes knew that smoking causes fatal lung cancer when they lit up their first one. That lesson was drilled into us at school. And yet they did it anyway. Why did they smoke? For all the reasons people do other dumb shit. They want attention, they want to be rebellious or cool, etc. But hey, that's your choice, it should be your right, right?

Wrong. You don't have the right to make your own pizza and sell it on the street to the public without the government crawling up your ass about the cleanliness of the kitchen and the ingredients. We regulate restaurants precisely because we don't trust people not to screw over their customers in the pursuit of a dollar and also because we don't trust customers to be able to determine for themselves what is safe or not.

Fundamentally, these drugs aren't safe precisely because of their intended effect. Paracetamol is not safe because it reduces your body's ability to feel pain. So it is regulated, not just a little bit, but an incredible amount. Drugs that get you high are dangerous precisely because of that - they make your brain operate abnormally.

And again, it isn't just about what you want. You live in a country with other people, just like Emily's parents weren't living alone. The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring those other people interact only with sober, non-high people.

That's precisely why the government regulates the selling of all food. Because sometimes you have a craving. Likewise, the government doesn't ban all drugs because the government understands that sometimes the pain or sickness interferes with your life and the drug, if delivered in a safe way, can mitigate that. There is no safe way to deliver heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana and other street drugs.

I accept that drug laws are clearly retarded in more ways than anyone can summarise. In the end, it's probably better to legalise everything and tax the hell out of it. Yet if that happens, you will still get situations where user's lives and the lives of their families are ruined.

But let's think this through with another story.

Suppose you legalise weed. Who wins? The backyard pot grower? No way. Companies that grow it industrially with resources for mass marketing will win. Those that wield power pick the battleground. But that's okay, because it's legal. Those companies will go public and make stockholders lots of money, but that's okay too.

And maybe these companies, owned like anything else by wealthy men, will advertise their products in poor neighbourhoods and to the less wealthy, but hey, it's legal and that's business. They will use their wealth and influence to elect politicians and pass laws to protect their wealth and block too much spending on the uppity riff-raff, who incidentally happen to be their customers.

And maybe thirty years after marijuana is legalised someone will find an internal PotCo memorandum about a private study showing that promoting marijuana use in economically depressed areas creates an emotional, but non-chemical, dependence on the chemical high that, in turn, guarantees a steady customer base and flow of income.

Of course, people will be outraged and wonder how marijuana became legalised in the first place and some clever lawyer will spin a story about how the very people who run the companies today were pushing for its legalisation years ago although they knew it was "bad." The public will believe this line because people will never accept they made a dumb decision, preferring instead to retire to the comfort zone of "they lied to us." Someone will also eventually realise the people making money in the marijuana industry don't themselves use it all.

Both of my stories are about the law of equivalent exchange, and that's the only law that matters. Every choice is perfectly weighted against the things you could have done, but didn't. The universe may operate like clockwork, but no one escapes transactional choices.

All the little brat in my dumb story wanted was books and piano lessons. That most people will immediately say "well, banning marijuana is a silly idea and it should be legalised anyway," rather than suggesting parents act a little less selfishly, might actually be precisely the problem in this country.