Sunday, 22 September 2019

Notes on the system - 22

Saying what the eye sees – rather than what the brain sees – is like a camera shutter. Long exposures soak in more light. Short exposures are for speed. The following rough notes are about light:

Become better, fight the power

Journalists want to pretend everything is on the upswing when wages have been flat for 40+ years, liberalism is dying, Big Cricket is trying to make you eat bugs and our standard of living will be lower than our grandparents'. Who is more evil? The one that points these problems out, or the one insisting more of the same will, somehow, eventually make your life better if only we do even more of what got us into this mess? "Make yourself better" + "Here are the ways society is failing us" is not a call for terrorism. It's a way to call people away from the abyss and back towards what is true and beautiful. That journalists treat these efforts as violence is only because they see becoming a better person as a threat to their power. I want you to become great to undermine everyone and everything telling you to be weak. That the system wants the opposite tells you everything you need to know.

Ban all Zippos

We need more common sense arson laws! Ban high capacity matchbooks! We need to throw due process out the window and seize the lighters of anyone posting anything about campfires on the internet. Anyone who complains they are cold is a potential arsonist. Take the Zippos first, go through due process second. There is simply no reason for civilians to have highly combustible fuels. You cannot tell me that anyone should just be able to walk into a store and buy a can of kerosene! Nobody really needs a 10 litre can of petrol to light a fire.

Why men and women are different

Pickup artists went outside and did systematic investigations about attraction triggers in women who had been freed from any restraint. They discovered that - big surprise - women are attracted to shitty men who lack the traits that have been selected for over the last 7000 years. That's the difference between the sexes. Women were selected for their willingness to adapt to being paired off with whomever powerful men chose for her. Men, on the other hand, were under brutal selection by other men and any dude who looked like a challenger had 100% of his Y-chromosomes cancelled out. Today women have a new mating ruleset: cooperate in a marriage and find a high-status man, which is a feedback loop, not a goal. It's not correct to say women didn't exercise choice in the past and therefore they don't have preferences back then. They just couldn't act on those preferences and now they can. Evolutionary psychology says men and women are attracted to certain things based on their past environments but genomic history disproves that - almost all women reproduced but most men were replaced by few men. So, the pickup artists stumbled onto a truth no one yet has accepted: women are remarkably mentally primitive. We've only recently found the genetic evidence as to why: they weren't subject to the same selection pressures as men.

The pressure is too much

Take away boy's summer jobs, subject them to sexual and racial abuse in the media and schools carried out by teachers and every other authority figure, take away their hobbies, edit their favourite video games, pathologise or homosexualise male friendship, then if men become withdrawn, ransack their room, destroy all their privacy, put them on counselling and meds. No wonder young men are breaking.

Minority privilege

What about minority privilege? This is the asset giving someone an irrebuttable presumption of offence which can be converted to cash in a discrimination arbitration. Put another way, it's the ability to obtain all of the benefits of society while simultaneously scorning it and taking none of the burden or obligation to maintain it.


White is not a race. Caucasian, Mongoloid or Negroid are races. And no world history course starts with Greece and Rome, it starts with Egypt, or even earlier with Mesopotamia. Western history doesn't discuss what was going on in subSaharan Africa for the same reason it doesn't focus on the Aztecs or Incas. They were culturally separate and distinct from the history that ultimately gave rise to Western European culture, out of which emerged the United States. But if racism isn't directed at white people, and I'm white, how can my worrying about it possibly be self-interested? It's a meaningless tautology. In Mugabe's Africa, is there a Black Privilege List? Maybe that's the point of the whole list. Great. How about a Thin Privilege list, or a Perfect Smile Privilege List? Maybe a Blonde Privilege List? Big Breasts Privilege list? Come on. 1989 called, it wants its nonsense back.

I hate bad car parkers

Why bother with a passive-aggressive note? It takes a human touch to get the point across. That's why when I leave a note I just scrawl the following across their windshield in lipstick:
"You have shown that while you understand the laws of humanity and parking, you do not feel yourself bound by them. For this reason, I levy the following Curse upon you. For the rest of your life, whenever you close your eyes to drift off to sleep, the following vision shall plague you - a mother giving birth, sweaty and straining - you zoom in to the baby crowning and there, fully formed and ringed by a dilated birth canal, is Nicolas Cage's face. He sees you, his blue eyes burning into your own, and smiles. 'Conception is the metal of the universe!' he shouts. Your eyes shoot open, fully awake. You have an erection. 
Please be more considerate when parking in the future, or it will only get worse.
Sure, it takes time to write out, and the finishing touches such as chicken feathers or chalk pentagrams makes the process even longer, but the results speak for themselves.

Bitcoin as a lever of power

Most of the power in a democracy comes from taking money from one person and giving it to another person. Those who push money to people hold the keys to power. Bitcoin is not currency, therefore its largest threat might be to splinter money into two realms, one belonging to progressive democracies and the other to the interconnected, disintermediated internet. If bitcoin is the model for the second realm, it will no longer matter if progressives hand out fiat currency to entice voters.a

Jewish genius?

We always hear about Jewish "genius" and Jewish "talent" and how they have had total control over almost every form of entertainment, education, politics, architecture, music, visual art, movies and plays in the West for 70 years. And in many instances, this is true, especially in the US. But something's not right. Does the West look like it was designed by geniuses? We are the scourge of the world, we invented screeching music, consumerism, endless wars, childish art and architecture, our educational system is a joke with millions unable to read or write and our internal relations are at the worst since WWII. Look at Western culture from 1775-1910 and then from 1910 onward. They couldn't be more different. If Jews are in control, then they fall far short of being geniuses.

Ethics training

The point of ethics training isn't to teach ethics, it is to teach people to make decisions in the required direction. It also broadcasts that people should distrust their internal conscience. After all, if it doesn't come from an institution, then it's not true. That's the real meaning behind the phrase "the medium is the message." See also: media, universities, social networks, etc.


Isn't the #MeToo panic a repudiation of feminism? Are women badass Diana Princesses, capable of joining SEAL Team 6 and running the world? Or are they fragile lillies unable to handle the fumbling advances of chubby 70-year-olds? They can't be both. Ultimatum time, girls. I will gladly provide, protect and punch perverts for you, but I damn well better find dinner on the table when I walk in at night. The other option is that I treat you as my equal in all things. Just don't expect me to come running whenever some old, fat guy gives you an icky feeling. It must suck to be attractive. To have suitors pay for things you cannot afford, feed you, entertain you, offer to provide for you. How terrible it must be to be desirable. Women are alleged to control 3/4 of global wealth not because they created it but because the men gave it to them.


Arguably the world’s most notable screenwriter, Robert McKee, wrote this:
"Story begins when an event, either by human decision or accident in the universe, radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist's life, arousing in that character the need to restore the balance of life. To do so, that character will conceive of an "Object of Desire," that which they [believe] they need to put life back into balance. They will then go off into their world, into themselves, in the various dimensions of their existence, seeking that Object of Desire, trying to restore the balance of life, and they will struggle against forces of antagonism that will come from their own inner natures as human beings, their relationships with other human beings, their personal and/or social life, and the physical environment itself. They may or may not achieve that Object of Desire; they may or may not finally be able to restore their life to a satisfying balance. That, in the simplest possible way, defines the elements of story."
Everything that happens in your life is digested by you through this process, so it would be worth your time to memorise it.

"Science" vs engineering

When a scientist gets something wrong, the worst consequence is a retraction of the paper... or not. In contrast, when an engineer screws up, the consequences begin with property loss and may include the loss of life for others. This is why the best scientists are engineers because they won't stand behind results that are anything less than reliably replicable.

Everyone gets taxed

The reason parents don't tell their children to be careful with alcohol and sex is precisely because the consequences still haven't caught up to the parents from when they screwed around and took drugs. There are many kinds of debt: money, self-esteem, love, effort, etc. One day the taxman will come to collect from our mutual illusions.

Musical narcissism

The guitar is popular today because it is an instrument you can play effectively by oneself. Who wants to learn to play the viola when you need an orchestra to complete a song, especially when that would require becoming close to a group of strangers?

Don't be a bore

Being a truthful person is not the same as always taking the opportunity to say what you think. As Voltaire said, the way to be a bore is to say everything. The metric should be: will these words increase my happiness or not?


If a product talks about how you won’t feel any guilt by drinking or eating it, then through accepting the form of the question, it is also teaching you that guilt comes via products, not actions and that your transgressions are absolved via products not actions. It is the inverse of the natural world in the only way that matters: pro-status quo.

Sexual freedom is social control

#MeToo is stupid. Feminism removed traditional morality and constraints on human urges, and now they complain about sex getting out of control. But it's also very clever. First, you break all sexual morality and “chains” then you send out the commissars to punish the sexual impropriety because the sexual revolution never really got rid of morality, it just changed who controlled it.

Global government

In 1920, there were three competing forms of global governance. In 1990 there was one. In 2019, there still is only one but now there is an online and offline world and they do not completely overlap. The online world is a bit of a mishmash of all ideas and forms of governance, without any real cohesion. However, just the fact that the online world offers different information from the offline makes it a competing form of government. It is unclear how far apart the Venn circles are today, but over the years 2009-19 they have significantly slipped apart.

Thoughts on the system - 35

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:
  • Where you stand depends on where you sit.
  • The alternative to hitting yourself in the head with a hammer isn’t to hit yourself a bit less in the head with a hammer.
  • I became a journalist so I didn’t have to rely on the press for my information.
  • Casual sex is fun until it isn’t.
  • Validate the complaint but don’t validate the narrative.
  • Dictators arise in times of crisis, not times of gloriousness.
  • In a feminine imperative society, consumerism is the default.
  • The hardest thing for an interracial family is that the kids will never look like their parents.
  • Bleeding hearts have a peculiar aversion to the sight of their own blood.
  • Proximity to power deludes some into believing they have it.
  • Almost no one says they’re unhappy, instead, they call themselves depressed.
  • Expanding tertiary education should be the consequence of economic development, not as a means of economic development.
  • A man’s power is the function of his environment, not an absolute value. The opposite is true for women.
  • It may be unfair, but it is the most important fact of human existence is that people exist independently of you.
  • Emotional tyranny is normal for any Puritan.
  • You can’t have multiculturalism without cultural appropriation.
  • Social scientists are religious moralists in camouflage.
  • Never be surprised by what actions a woman can justify doing.
  • Everyone alive today could fit into some diagnosis in the latest edition of the DSM.
  • Migration policy has never been subjected to a democratic vote in any western country.
  • The question for modern people is, what do we do now that our existence is assured for 80-90 years? How do we deal with the terror of too much freedom?
  • It’s almost impossible not to survive in modern society, the system does everything to keep you alive and eating.
  • The calculation of charisma is power + empathy.
  • Power is the measurement of how much control one has over other people. The more power you get, the less other people know you are controlling them.
  • Far too often justice is a dishonest word for revenge.
  • Generosity is its own form of power.
  • A woman out of love is no fun to make love to.
  • Nothing can screw up your life faster than sexual liberation.
  • Nobody should be allowed to go to university until they are 21, but high-school graduation should remain at 18.
  • The enemy always gets a vote.
  • Women are mostly boring. Once you strip away all the packaging and fluff, they are essentially interchangeable.
  • Never ask someone to join a club if you aren’t certain they’d say yes. Once they’re in, they will be stuck.
  • Jews appear to be attracted to revolutionary messianic movements because they don’t have a messiah.
  • Credibility is the most important thing a great power or person can have.
  • The most likely region for a nuclear war is in East Asia.
  • If people move from Country A to Country B, that means Country B is better than Country A.
  • Only China, Japan and the US see the One Belt, One Road Initiative as competition. Everyone else sees it as free money.
  • People are so proud of avoiding a major war since 1949. But if war is just a continuation of politics by other means, we have been fighting online instead. And it's just as hot.
  • Mass migration is Jihad 4.0.
  • The simplest way to drive wages down is to double the workforce by bringing the women in.
  • A family is the social manifestation of the dialectic. The thesis, antithesis and synthesis, or the father, mother and child.
  • If sovereignty is defined as the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence to enforce laws in a certain territory, I’m not sure why open borders would lead to a loss of sovereignty. That situation is more accurately called empire. If you can measure world GDP, doesn’t that indicate that you, in some way, own the world?
  • The difference between the 1940s and today is that the internet will make it impossible for "historians" to hide why the Jews will be used as a scapegoat again.
  • If you don’t want to do something I want, that just means I failed to persuade you, not that you made a choice.
  • Things that require the labour of other people cannot be rights. A right is inherent to your person.
  • Forget all the money, multiple women chasing you is the ultimate social status. After all, what’s the money for?
  • The existence of fringe groups are a test for whether there is freedom of speech.
  • Just because you lost a war doesn’t mean your ideas were wrong, just that your military was weaker or made strategic mistakes.
  • Zionism is Jewish nationalism and communism is Jewish internationalism, just as national socialism is Catholic nationalism and progressivism is Protestant internationalism.
  • Porn is the one thing the system gives out for free, which should tell you everything you need to know about it.
  • Sigmund Freud changed reason, will and passion to superego, ego and id.
  • The whole university game is a carny act that only works because we agree to pretend it does.
  • Humans are so narcissistic that we think we are living in a simulation just because we can invent the concept of a simulation.
  • The crazier this world gets the less I worry about tyranny.
  • A high-value man does not find other’s lives very interesting in comparison to his own.
  • If you have to ask who she’s wearing it for, it isn’t you.
  • Culture wars are about imposing your morality on other people, no matter what it takes.
  • All terrorism is progressivism.
  • The predator who will kill your daughter isn’t who you think: it is your girl’s own id.
  • Given the ease of deleting information today, even about recent events, it really makes you question the stories we’re told about history.
  • The same people in the US who say they can’t just round up 12m illegal people are the same who think they can confiscate 400m guns from 80m Americans.
  • A church is an organisation or movement which tells people how to think. The modern university fits this definition.
  • Only the US can defeat the US. But, equally, only China can defeat China.
  • If you want to protect your daughter from being ruined by “bad boys,” you must ritualistically humiliate him in front of her to diminish his status. Works every time.
  • The correct mindset is approval giver, not approval seeker.
  • Women cannot do anything anonymously.
  • Political correctness is more effective at achieving social control than threats because people cannot speak about what they cannot think.
  • Women dress up for work because they think looking good makes them important.
  • Subtitles in a movie distract you from how bad the acting is.
  • The modern progressive state has three prongs: 18th-century democracy, apolitical scientific bureaucracy and ecumenical mainline Protestantism.
  • Actual political power is influence over official action.
  • When you see something on the media, do not ask why - ask why now?
  • A journalist “holding power to account” simply means that no one can hold power unless it is conferred to them by journalists.
  • Economics is divided between those giving a good description of human behaviour in markets and an entire field that fails under Goodhart’s Law. Economics is a pseudoscience.
  • Jacinda Ardern doesn’t understand that she has boob privilege and men tolerate her because she’s vaguely cute.
  • If a man is replaced by a woman in a job under “diversity” he can only blame himself for being so inessential to the company.
  • Religion is something the other guy believes. You just have a true worldview.
  • Wealthy people had to commit felonies to buy their dumb kids a good SAT score precisely because the test is an objective measure of intelligence not of a privileged upbringing.
  • Christianity succeeded over pagan Hellenism because pagan women were sluts and made for worthless wives.
  • A more appropriate metaphor for progressives is not the NPCs, but the Sentinals from the Matrix movies.
  • The lie that wealth is only ever stolen, never created, is destroying the world.
  • It’s not hard, it’s just new. Once you’ve done something a few times it’s not hard anymore. All it requires is discipline.
  • The New York Times is a narrative organisation, not a news organisation.
  • The "culture war" is simply the set of all things where progressive orthodoxy conflicts with reality resulting in a function known as "controversy."
  • Anti-vaxxers are an epiphenomenon of the complete loss of trust in progressive institutions just as the ice cream lickers are the inevitable result of progressive power over institutions.
  • The correct way to run politics is to apply best-practice business organisation to it. However, Google is applying worst-practice political organisation to business.
  • Fake news is less damaging than journalists choosing not to report on certain things.
  • Some people say women lie, the more correct assessment is that women have no conscious idea of what they prefer and simply react to their circumstances with no higher brain input.
  • Social networks and big tech companies aren’t censoring content, curation and control are precisely what those systems were built to do.
  • If there really was a "rape culture" then calling it a rape culture would have no effect because no one would be ashamed of it.

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

The lesson of 9/11 is to pay attention to the story

The world is a much different place 18 years after September 11. We've all learned a lot.

After working in journalism for an unhealthy length of time, I've learned the best way to watch the news is to view it as one single, very long, continuous meta-narrative that extends over months and years. What comes packed as "a story" is best thought of as a chapter of that much longer story, where a subplot or supporting character is developed. Looked at this way, you can actually see the underlying motives and tensions causing events to unfold the way they do. I guess it depends on when you start the clock.

Want to hear something funny? I watched the 1975 movie Three Days of the Condor again the other day. The movie was dull, but at the end, the bad guy CIA officer reveals that the clandestine plot which was based out of the Middle East, the Netherlands and Venezuela was all about seizing oil assets. Everything you read and hear is just stories.

And here we are. While the movie was crap, it painted an interesting what-if scenario. What if everything in the last 18 years not directly about Muslims was actually about resources? That would suggest certain outcomes were inevitable - like the invasion of Iraq and a possible invasion of Iran, as well as sky-high oil prices, a "refugee" crisis and a collapsed Syria.

The thing about Bush 43 is that he was very aware of his father's legacy, and if you recall, his father took the US into Somalia right before the election in the early 1990s, leaving a giant foreign policy mess for Clinton to deal with. And with many of the officials in government back then still serving today, it's entirely possible there has been a continuation of events holding to the "go get the resources" story.

I have to wonder if what is going on is historic on a multi-century scale. Rising oil prices, for instance, amount to a massive redistribution of wealth from the people back into the hands of the ruling class. Maybe the Cold War was really about this too. As long as there was a competitive ideology like communism or progressivism that suggested everyone could be equal in outcome (even if it failed in practice - a failure that wasn't fully appreciated in the West until after the fall of the Berlin Wall) the dominant ideology of getting the resources couldn't run wild. It had to build in some safety nets and welfare systems to prevent people from getting so desperate that they ask the other ideology for help. But once communism fell, there was no competing ideology. Consumerism rules and progressivism is just the American's attempt at communism. (By the way, neither capitalism nor consumerism is the same thing as a free market).

So the moment communism fell, the US immediately dismantled its welfare system. Europe is taking longer to move in that direction only because its welfare systems are so entrenched, but don't be surprised if "Muslim overpopulation" is the excuse used to disassemble the system.

In other words, over the last two centuries, there was a trend was towards greater democratisation of assets and power through technology, education and everything else, but that trend is now reversing. The peasants who were once between two warring castles now serve only one, and that king gets to confiscate assets as much as he wants and there's no one to complain to.

The people have had too much ability to resist the control from above with things like easy credit, a free internet, cheap aeroplane travel and weakly regulated business laws so the people need to be impoverished a bit. This doesn't mean nations will be impoverished, because that will lead to the opposite result - revolution - than what is desired. As long as everyone is struggling, the system is safe.

Consider what's going on in Hong Kong at the moment. About two weeks ago, the Chinese media started reporting that the government had deployed its army to quell the unrest. It seems grossly “unfair” and asymmetric to our Western sensibilities for a government to use its colossal military apparatus to put down some angry rioters

But if Beijing were to act, would this constitute a violation of international law, which typically governs relations between sovereign nations? Why don’t people think all the other acts of force Beijing has already taken to squash the protesters, like beating protesters, raiding homes and kidnapping organisers, did not also constitute a violation of that same international law. And why aren't the acts of the secret police apparatuses, along with the general lack of political freedom for decades that gave rise to the protests in the first place, not also violations of international laws?

Acts of sovereign nations to enforce their civil order sometimes become violations of international law. But not always. Why? Such violations allow the outside powers to intervene. But their intervention is discretionary. After 9/11, there was an intervention in Iraq, but none in Iran, for example. So what triggers action? The media packages all these stories separately so you think about them separately. Look at them together and a clearer picture emerges. When does domestic unrest become a civil war? When does police reaction to civil unrest become a violation of international law, allowing foreign intervention? There are accepted rules for all this, but again, they are enacted with arbitrary discretion.

Here’s one way of seeing the complete picture: it doesn’t matter how a resource is threatened, it only matters that it is. It barely matters which resource is threatened - from oil to uranium and soybeans to people. All that matters is that enough of it continues to flow that the status quo is maintained. All manner of excuses can be dreamed up to ensure this happens.

Perhaps Chinese adventures in the South and East China Seas reflect China's need to guarantee it's own sources of energy, rather than relying on the Americans. That would be entirely rational. But now oil becomes even more important than it already was. Which means the US and other advanced economies under its umbrella must intervene in oil-producing countries. And because a barrel of oil burned cannot be burned anywhere else, it's also a good idea to slow down China's strategy in any way possible short of war. Like encouraging protests. It's what adult nations do to each other. You'd be an idiot to think China isn't sending a few Antifa or alt-right memes out from time to time.

But to intervene correctly, Western powers always need a story people won’t object to. Enter human rights or a War on Terror. The guys controlling the oil wells and pipelines or the low-cost factories can run a secret police force and oppress and kill his own people to his heart’s content. The moment they risk accidentally blowing up some oil facilities or switching the direction of plastic consumer goods to their domestic market in the process of keeping control of the country, it becomes a "violation of human rights" and we send in the carrier battle fleet or the CIA.

Domestic scale events achieve an international scale not because of their size or social implications, but when it threatens the supply of an important resource to international markets. All wars in the post-Soviet era are fought over scarce resources. They are about ensuring the flow of those resources to the markets. Water rights, arable land, pipeline routes, oil, energy.

There is no clash of civilizations or war of ideologies. There is only the market. If your political action anywhere in the world disrupts markets in a resource which is vital to the West or its allies, you will see fighter planes and the CIA. If your political action does not disturb the markets, you will see CNN’s B-team and Doctors Without Borders. But the story is the same either way.

So, yeah, we're probably going to war in Iran. If not this year, then next or the year after that. They waited 13 years to go back and topple Saddam, they can even wait out a Trump presidential term if need be. But the war is probably inevitable. Israel wants it, the Saudis want it. The oil companies want it. Who are we to refuse it?

US President Donald Trump does not "guide economic policy." That is your TV speaking. Do you know what would happen if the White House called Jerome Powell and told him to raise or lower interest rates? It’s about what would happen if Buckingham Palace called the MOD and told it to send the Black Watch to Afghanistan. People need to stop thinking in terms of left or right on the issue of resources. On other issues, like healthcare, unions, minimum wage or education, there are two distinctly different major factions in a modern Western society (fast and slow progressives, there is no such thing as "the right" in terms of reationaries) and within each of these there are many smaller factions that fight to dominate over a given issue.

But on oil policy, for instance, there can only be one position: make sure it arrives.

A modern economy depends on oil - for fuel, for raw materials, for energy. An economy needs oil like humans need blood. Oil exchange creates a huge supply of dollars in the hands of a few relatively tiny countries with little use for them other than to buy US assets or US government debt, hence a Saudi prince own 5% of Disney. This petrodollar recycling returns US dollars spent on oil back to the US economy.

The second major source of US dollar demand is commodity exchanges, particularly the oil market. Because all the major oil markets price in dollars, there is a demand for dollars built into the global economy. If Denmark needs a barrel of oil, they exchange euros for dollars first, then use those dollars to buy oil. If commodity exchanges began pricing things in a denomination other than US dollars, like Euros or yen, one of the primary sources of dollar demand would evaporate and the dollar would crash. A crashing dollar would create stunning inflation in the US, which would slow the economy down drastically.

And outside of defence spending, job growth might be negative across many nations. Defence spending creates good paying jobs (in government and in the private sector) that make up for contractions in manufacturing and other sectors. Defence spending requires deficit spending. So, it becomes necessary to engage oil-rich nations aggressively to maintain the petrodollar recycling system. If this also involves excess defence spending the whole process is essentially free from the perspective of the government that would not be able to deficit spend if the dollar crashed.

The analysis you want isn't oil vs. political party. You want a chart of oil prices vs annual deficit. The charts don't move in lockstep, obviously, but significant events in both correlate together quite well. The largest surplus in memory was 1999, the same year oil prices bottomed. The surge in prices from 1999-2001 (pre-9/11) correlates to the massive spending increase. The fun really comes when you chart dollar flows and China's resource consumption growth. Put all these charts together and you get a flipbook animating every news story you'll read. It's good fun

The problem is, 18 years after 9/11 and unlike the mid to late 90s, there is no Dot-Com boom to swell portfolio sizes. In fact, we are moving into a boom-free cycle right now and the world still hasn't recovered from the 2008 collapse of housing. The next leaders will operate without an economic safety net. If Trump wants to end the War on Terror, he must cut spending. Yet, how do you spend $US800 billion in one year on defence if you don't have a war? If he cuts defence spending, the economy will lose precisely those jobs that have kept it out of recession. This is why not even Trump is serious anymore about ending the war. I haven't seen the books, but he must have.

No one in the world looks at what happened to the US after 9/11 and says, "See the US can be beaten, we can beat them too!" because that isn't the lesson. The lesson of 9/11 is that defiance of the US could result in the defiant country being cast into the abyss of anarchy and civil war. The US may not win, but no one else will either. I wonder if China has been taking notes.

We're about to find out.

Saturday, 7 September 2019

Thoughts on the system - 34

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:
  • American politicians are the only people on earth who don't understand the basic principle that waving a foreign flag in one's country is the definition of treason.
  • When the gun seizures start it will be done by United Nation troops who will be well-armed and backed up by armoured cars.
  • The US has been in a civil war since Vietnam, it's just been fought in other people's countries. The factions are those aligned with the State Department (diplomats, blue states, protestants/progressives) and the Pentagon (generals, red states, Catholics). Pray that it continues to be fought in other people's lands.
  • The advocates of the "automation apocalypse" theory have the burden of proof. They must explain why this time is different, why this automation will have labour effects previous automation did not.
  • Power is the accumulation of data.
  • The root cause of depression is a lack of meaningful work, not of a meaningful job.
  • "Women need role models" should tell you everything about the capability of women to compete in a man's world.
  • Facebook's "Libra" might simply be Mark Zuckerberg reacting to the Winklevoss twins, blockchain and cryptocurrencies that will likely crush social networks.
  • Progressivism is an all-out, whole-of-society assault on the question, "why are we here?"
  • Polyamory a great way for lots of unattractive men to give attention to one unattractive woman. She doesn't get a desirable man - but she does get the next best thing - attention. Men surrender dignity in exchange for occasional sex with a disgusting woman.
  • It will be hilarious if the only meaningful result of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism is that, a generation later, normal Americans are stripped of their right to self-defence for believing in "red flags" like "Islam is incompatible with the West."
  • People should stop referring to the Chinese government as communist. It's really not. Since the 1980's it has steadily replaced communist ideology with nationalism. It's more fascist now with the welding or state and corporate power. Think Huawei.
  • Never, ever, ever apologise. Once the sharks smell blood, they attack more viciously. The one thing bullies can’t stand is a self-confident person who won’t pander to their nonsense.
  • The tech giants are almost entirely built on the failures of others. Google became big not due to its search function, but because every competing option died. Netflix is big, but only by destroying a plethora of other options.
  • Mergers are often an unhealthy sign. It means the firms' best shot for profitability it is to reduce competition and unify decision making. It's less costly, but also less flexible.
  • Large cities were only meant for times when manufacturing jobs were the norm. That age has long gone, yet the cities remain. Perhaps the problem is the concept of cities itself, especially now all those jobs have been taken overseas.
  • Females want certainty plus control. For this reason, women and their allies invade and erode male spaces to control the narrative and supervise male behaviour. The objective is to build subservient men to the female imperative.
  • Those who claim to be anti-fascists, but act like fascists, have no sense of irony. These people never change, down the generations, down the centuries, bullies are bullies of whatever type. Communists, Brownshirts - we will always have them with us. Civilization has no choice but to resist them, mightily.
  • "Diversity" is simply a bait-and-switch to collect more labour effort from the untapped resources of women, blacks and [insert religion here]. Don't believe me? Well, let's see how much your "civil rights" and "quotas" get airplay when the robots take our jobs.
  • The idea that women would walk away from an organisation and create their own version of it is absurd.
  • Russia is a threat to the West for the same reason why the West was a threat to the USSR. The West was never going to roll tanks into Moscow but it provided an alternative model. Today, Russia's potential for sovereignty in the meme world is the "threat."
  • The elites who own mass media were scared senseless when they saw Trump was elected despite their unanimous opposition. Grassroots campaigns and memes stopped their plans. So they started calling the internet #FakeNews.
  • If you can't speak forbidden thoughts it isolates you by making you think you're the only one who sees these things and blocks a preference cascade where almost everyone realizes that they don't believe the lie.
  • A woman wants to be comfortable with who you are but not to be at peace with who you are. Every woman will create drama to reassure herself you’re worthy. A man's job is to not give a fuck about the drama and to tell her to shut up.
  • Women say they want a "kind, tall, man," but she doesn't want that. She wants an evil man who is kind to her. A man capable of evil, but who chooses not to exercise it on her. "Burn the world, except for me and my offspring."
  • The progressive elite is skilled at creating propaganda because attaining power in the West is (presently) the result of winning a competition in propaganda. The problem is, this skill is negatively correlated with skill at good governance.
  • I heard a customer service exploit where a person called up multiple times to correct a single letter "misspelling" until the entire account was in his name.
  • The ice-cream licking episode is a good summary of progressivism. Progressives import and create people who lick ice cream for Facebook "likes." The ice-cream is then locked up as a workaround so Steven Pinker can say "ice-cream licking is down."
  • Founder of the Church of Satan Anton LaVey once quipped that a Satanist is a liberal with a Halloween costume. For the Satanist, the highest holy day is one's own birthday. How much more narcissistic could a religion get?
  • Non-elite whites are what Joseph Stalin called former persons or people that just don't matter.
  • Honesty is a terrible strategy for getting girls. Women say they want men to be honest, but they can't deal with rejection. If a woman asks "did you miss me" and a man responds, "not really" she will kill the relationship.
  • Suppressing guerrilla insurrection is not difficult, so long as you have one crucial ingredient: the will to win.
  • You don't have freedom of expression, the man who owns the newspaper has freedom of expression. Make your own media.
  • H. L. Mencken defined Puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy. This is why all Puritans are democrats and all democrats are Puritans.” According to R. Emmett Tyrell, their countenance always exhibits a “fevered brow.”
  • The problem is not competing groups...competing. That's just what humans do. The problem is the idea only some groups are allowed to compete, to defend themselves or even acknowledge membership in a group. This can be combatted by simply speaking the truth.
  • As China democratises and plugs itself more deeply into global consumerism, classical music will die there too. Democracy and progressivism are the enemies of culture.
  • One of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make "anti-Semitism" a capital crime, probably because Jews allegedly made up nearly 80% of the rank-and-file Cheka agents.
  • Truth and lies are arbitrary. The power of an idea is in its inspirational value. Whether something is true or not is irrelevant to persuasion.
  • Either you think civil servants should follow the law or you don’t.
  • The “cultural terrorism” once used by Marxism now drives consumerism. After all, if people can't control their sexual urges, how can they control their consumer urges? The pièce de résistance has been the dating app, which consumerises sex itself.
  • The greatest strength of feminism is that it gives unattractive women an edge over their attractive sisters in getting into good executive positions.
  • I recently watched an executive meeting of six women and one man speak about the need for more diversity. I guess they were upset the one man snuck his way in there.
  • The internet enables immigrants to remain part of their nation's diaspora, rather than integrating into a new society. Instead of forming bonds with neighbours, they can keep relationships with like-minded people on the other side of the globe.
  • “The Jews own the media!” Well, who sold it to them?
  • Any time a church gains control of the government, the people suffer.
  • Kings exist for the benefit of the priestly caste because the king is just a delayed scapegoat, a systematised sacrifice.
  • A clever person understands that political effectiveness doesn’t necessarily mean getting elected or even being in government.
  • Really guys? You do all that work to become a billionaire just to marry one girl? One?
  • In a universal-suffrage democracy, the voter is a government employee, although unpaid, untrained and unmanaged.
  • Collective leadership is an illusion, there is always a leader.
  • Indigenous people have cultural privilege. Every time Europeans try to create their own cultural space they are forced by other Europeans to open it under "diversity."
  • It is not absolute, but partial authority not formally matched with a responsibility that corrupts.
  • Democracy is simply an attempt to delay the inevitable tragedy of the commons.
  • Women don’t want a boyfriend anymore, they want a photographer so they can get attention from thousands of other men online.
  • Irrational people are far more persuasive because their threats are more convincing.
  • Of all the male traits, intelligence is the least sexy.
  • Protest is a defence against impotence: far better to believe you are being persecuted than to know you are being ignored.
  • It is strange how people can say conspiracy theories don’t exist but also say governments construct foreign policies or that 99% of climate scientists agree with the climate change thesis.
  • The only reason democratic government appears to work is due to the fast-disappearing remnants of non-democratic governance.
  • The partner with the upper hand is the one who controls the direction of the relationship. There is no such thing as an even hand in a relationship.
  • Without some scale of values, the bad will always drive out the good.
  • There are two kinds of censorship: positive and negative. The positive proscribes and the negative prescribes.
  • These days, satire tends to turn into prophecy.
  • How long before we have new political parties called the Google Party, Tencent Party or the Amazon Party?
  • The nonacceptance of risk and the rejection of personal responsibility in Western society is astonishing.
  • This world is divided into parents and children, and there are a lot more of the latter.

Thursday, 5 September 2019

Notes on the system - 21

Saying what the eye sees – rather than what the brain sees – is like a camera shutter. Long exposures soak in more light. Short exposures are for speed. The following rough notes are about light:

Emperor of earth

In the next twenty years, there is a good chance that intelligent robots may take over. Humans now alive may be the last of our species or the first of something really different. Act I was Life on Earth. Act 2 was the emergence of humans. Act 3 is just about to begin. It took about 2 billion years or more for the first creature to evolve that could play chess. It took about sixty years for the second. No human has ever run the whole world. The first Emperor of Earth is likely to be a machine.

Civil War 2.0

There will be no civil war 2.0. Politics in the US is an extension of consumerism. Everyone has adopted a brand, no one actually believes in the ideologies. All the matters to an American is that other people see you for how you wish to be seen. Narcissism is not a team sport, but it does make you highly targetable for advertisers who will do anything to keep the money flowing. Welcome to the safest time in human history.

Tucker Carlson: King of the New Media

One of the most clever features of Tucker Carlson’s show is that he packages it into portions that fit well into YouTube videos. Bill O’Reilly had longer segments. But Tucker has a lot of short seven to ten-minute interviews which are stored and viewed the next day on YouTube. O’Reilly may have gotten higher ratings but half of Tucker’s viewership is later in the week online. Carlson has a bigger impact than his ratings. He’s seeding social networks with short pithy discussions of popular topics. He’s the King of the New Media.

American Empire

The difference between the progressive establishment and the "conservative" faction (for want of a better phrase) is that the former represents the American Empire while the latter represents the Amerikan country. Open borders are part of a goal to incorporate every person on the planet into the American Empire and activate them in voting to keep the progressives in power forever. The allergic reaction to Trump's suggestion that US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar goes home to Somalia to build her country is a reflection of the American Empire faction which believes Somalia is a legitimate extension of Washington's influence and protection already and Omar is just the first of many imperial subjects of the American progressive ownership.

Never stood a chance

If the parents are home at 5:30pm taking responsibility for their kids, who will clear the office email inbox at 7pm or fill the restaurant reservation at 9pm? The EAT/SLEEP/CONSUME cycle must continue. It's easy to point the finger at politics for delinquency, but it's more enlightening to see bad parenting as just another consequence of consumerism. The frantic activity desperately defending against impotence plaguing inner cities is a necessary result of the system working perfectly. Everyone - from the parents to the children to the police - are acting in the required direction. They are all consuming/producing as much as their tired bodies can. There is absolutely no point, no purpose to their consumption other than to consume, and this is a sufficient reason for the status quo to continue indefinitely. People have no identity outside their consumption/production effort. And now they're told to construct a new identity around their children that the system says are a barrier to their own consumption/production?

The time of politics is over. In 2018, the only power process in society is the machinery of tearing down barriers to consumption. Immigration, environmentalism, anti-sexism, feminism, human rights, offensive speech codes. Each is a lever in the machine. Consider the form of the question: since all people are equal (useful), then why aren't they being used? Do you see? Inclusion and diversity are but the natural goals of a system that treats all humans as batteries. Good parenting never stood a chance against Apple's blinking blue light.

Scapegoat and choices

The scapegoat operates outside of time. This universe we live in, today, is the universe every single one of us has created. Pick a moment, 5 years ago, 15, 50, 500, it doesn't matter. Where you stand right now is a single defined position, but one second from now is entirely undecided. One second from now exists only as a set of quantum eigenstates. It is an infinite set of paths stretching out in all directions away from your feet. As soon as the clock hand ticks over and you make a decision, all of those eigenstates collapse down to a single position, which we call "the present." It's not so much that we create the path with our decisions. It's better to think about it as destroying every single path except one. Each one of us is powerful beyond measure. Do you see? We are the destroyers of worlds.

The question is, if terrible things still happen, have we been destroying the correct worlds? Scandals are proof we haven't. This universe is the result of a failure to create the best of all possible worlds. This responsibility overwhelms mere mortals, so we look for a scapegoat. "He is the problem, not I." But we don't see "he" is a problem because each of us failed to build a world where the scandal is impossible. The true warrior never has to fight, his actions destroy the universes where the need for a fight exists. Instead, we look for a scapegoat. But do you see? Another infinite set of universes stretches out before you now. Which worlds will you destroy? All that exists is your choice. Choose wisely. Destroy the right worlds.

More than human

Narcissism is the natural end-point of Christianity. The West didn't kill god, it enslaved him. Now the great cosmic judge always rules in your favour. "murder is bad...except in this case." Maybe the core of Christianity - that every person is the centre of the universe and all humans are equal - could be a good idea. Nietzsche was correct when he said this is morality precisely backwards. Christianity emerges dripping in resentment from the swamp of slave morality. The idea of victimhood status could never, even for a second, be contemplated by those with a master morality. Victim morality is resentment and envy disguised as humility. We need a new morality truly allows us to become more-than-human so we can reach for the stars. But we are plagued by the desert religions. They make us more-human, rather than more-than-human.

Gandhi was a Christian

Gandhi's pacifism was entirely Christian in origin. His real success was in constructing an alliance with the British Labor Party, which was and is to progressivism basically as Hezbollah is to the Shiites. The whole Gandhian movement was designed as the ideal ally for anticolonialists in Britain, who wanted to crush their high-Anglican imperialist foes but would have baulked at supporting an actual violent war against their countrymen. Was this what Gandhi was thinking? I don't know. But it is why his movement succeeded. If he personally hadn't seized this opportunity, someone else would have. Anyone who thinks India has been better governed in the second half of the 20th century than the first is in need of serious brain surgery. If nothing else it would have taken an enormous amount of "enlightened prosperity" to make up for the massacres of Partition.

Build that wall, or not

The US border wall is the test for whether the American democratic republic is broken. Trump's supporters want him to build it ASAP (plenty say they're "off the Trump train" because he hasn't yet). But they forget how the US was constructed. The founders didn't trust government, so they included hurdles to slow down decision making. So if Trump were to take immediate action on a border wall, it should be a red flag that the original conception of the US government is no longer. Trump's supporters should consider that the longer it takes to get a wall, the healthier the US actually is. You can decide if the status quo constitution (small c) of the US is worth saving.

Consumption of the Second Amendment

I've heard there are too many guns in the US. Ok, but why? How did it get this way? It might be due to the idea of a "well-regulated militia" but it sounds a lot more like consumerism. Look at all the guns people collect. There haven't been any significant improvements in the firearm for a long time, so there's no need to upgrade your gun to a better version. This is all about consuming more, spending more, to own more.

Bad parenting is just being a good worker

I've never met a parent who said they wanted to have a child to ensure the continuation of a larger social project like an artisan skill or a family tradition. They always, without fail, describe it like the child is an extension of themselves. Is there any wonder why productivity is falling if no kid has any buy-in to the future? Aside from having a child, how would we know people care about what happens in 2100? There is no "balance" between a parent's life and the child's. In my mind, the moment you have a baby, your life no longer matters because the future is demonstrably more important than the past. Concentrate on building a better human. No one in 2100 will care about your job. Each minute you spend at work is a minute you aren't spending developing a child. Paid parental leave is great, but the message is that the State is responsible for parenting after that and prison exists for the backup. Get back to work, whore. From the system's perspective, work is the point of life. Children in a postmodern world are simply the system's insurance policy to keep the cycle of consumption/production going.

On porn

Porn has changed over the years. Back in the day, the girl was the star. But the moment it went on the internet and men figured they could make a ton of money, the male actor became the porn star. Hot women who want to have sex in exchange for attention are dime a dozen. Plus, if the women are important, then today it's the category of porn that makes them important. Like point-of-view. Doing porn for women back in the 1980s made her a renegade. It was a big deal. Now it's just something women do as an experience, as a way to "explore themselves." At no point over the years have women even come close to owning the porn industry, which is weird when you think about it.

The civil (dis)service

The nature of bureaucracy is to grow larger, to control more resources and power to control and regulate. More regulation and power leads to more growth and the cycle continues. Government bureaucracies produce nothing; they only consume. Since they have no competition for services, there is no feedback for evaluating efficiency or effectiveness. And because civil servants can't be fired this all creates a lumbering behemoth which can neither adapt nor innovate. It exists solely due to its monopoly and does nothing well.

Monday, 2 September 2019

Against the progressive cartel, anonymity is king

As Dijkstra said: the purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. So bear with me as I say that, somewhere around 2015, there was a slippage in reality and the biggest conspiracy theory became the most obvious of all.


In 2015, things started going really weird – as if an everyday sort of dream had suddenly wandered off into the surreal. We all noticed it. The world’s craziness just exploded. Everything was getting jacked up. It seemed like there were protests everywhere, the general attitude was of division and chaos, and then people began being bullied online and labelled as racists, nativists, xenophobes or worse. People were crawling up each others' backsides and tearing them a new one for something as innocuous as discussing a holiday.

Like it or not, the key location for everything in the modern world is the US. At about the same time, ultra progressives began accusing the Obama administration of failure and calling for more street and online activism to push their agenda. They said progressives had bitten their tongues for years out of misguided loyalty and didn’t want a black fella to fail, so they had pulled their punches. But enough was enough. One of the first to defect was Cornell West who called Obama a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface.” West wrote in his book Black Prophetic Fire that Obama “made it more difficult for black courageous and radical voices to bring critique to bear on the US empire.”

Also in 2015, progressives recognised Hillary Clinton would be a shoo-in for 2016. But they feared she would be more like her husband and even less progressive than the disappointing Obama. Time magazine published an article called How Hillary Clinton Will Handle Populist Critics in April saying: "[A] groundswell of young, liberal and populist dissatisfaction with Clinton promises to be the central conundrum facing the former Secretary of State’s campaign." Oof, must be tough when even Time is saying the kids don't like you.

Suddenly a lot of people were using accusations of isms and obias as cudgels. Then the 2016 election happened and they went berserk. They put all their energy into labelling anyone who wasn't outraged by Trump as misogynistic, racist, white supremacist, fascist, and on and on. But beyond occasional rallies, the turmoil that was rising in 2015/16 has abated for the most part. We're seeing fewer -- although even one wrongly accused scapegoat is too many -- people who make dissident comments on social networks be publicly vilified. And at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the money funding the post-Obama progressive militia groups has dwindled.

Remember Occupy Wall Street? They had some strong, unifying, easy-to-understand messaging. Their appeal to fairness and democracy was baked into everything they did. By contrast, the new lingo of privilege, fragility and "stay in your lane" depicts a world of endlessly multiplying collections of demographically impotent interest groups locked in a zero-sum struggle. Not good. The old anger at "privilege" among the OWS crowd was directed at hedge fund managers who helped crash the economy and walked away unscathed. The new definition of "privilege" redirects that anger at a nice lady selling hand-knit sweaters on Instagram. Doubleplus not good.


Sometimes it feels like I'm trapped in the pages of a satirical novel, living out the fantastical imaginings of a clever misanthrope – a Thackeray world of shysters and rubes, of hypocrisy and idiocy, of frauds and fools. To be fair, most of this is happening on the internet which is essentially the world's largest fiction novel. But, the mean-spirited, ridiculous, self-righteous busybodies policing modern culture are just too perfectly ludicrous to be real. I wish the world’s all-seeing but unseen novelist would write an island for sane folk to set sail towards. A place that repels crackpottery. Beautiful but inaccessible. Kind of like “Lost,” but without polar bears.

A few months ago I saw a fascinating 1972 discussion between Arnold Beichman, an anti-Communist labour union official and academic, and a young revolutionary named Dotson Rader of Columbia University. It's worth the watch, in a popcorn kind of way:

Notice how the militant makes many of the same arguments progressives parrot today. He mentions the break up of the national progressive movement its initial state in the early 20th Century into “affinity groups,” or what we call today identity politics. The whole point of his life is to create subversives who will break down the trust between people and their institutions and values. But political setbacks, like the elections of Nixon, Reagan and Trump, are valuable because they radicalise more people; “Nach Hitler kommen wir” said the German communists in the 1930s. The militant prefers violent revolution to democratic action, and if it takes millions of deaths, so be it:
“A good portion of the left’s function is the advancement of despair,” says Rader. 
“A strong minority, it doesn’t have to be very large, of the population who are so deeply into despair over the impossibility of change in the system that they are willing to form a revolutionary underground to use any means necessary to bring it down.” 
“I believe in collective guilt.”
When talking about the achievements of his revolution, he says there haven't really been any in politics, but in the arts there have been many. But notice how he describes himself:
“Our belief is the first thing to change is cultural change before the political change. You need to change people’s attitudes toward sex, toward the church, toward education, toward business.”
“The difference between this generation and the revolutions of 19th century and we’re not interested, fundamentally, in equality. We’re fundamentally interested in justice. Which means we have a greater tolerance for ideas of liquidating a class and so on.” 
Buckley interjects: “As Jerry Rubin says, ‘You gotta be prepared to shoot your mother.'” 
Rader: “I also know I am part of a class, a part of a privileged class, that will be liquidated. It doesn’t matter to me. I want revolution to come.” 
“You [speaking to Beichman] are continually trying to find rationality behind what people do politically, particularly what the left does politically. The thrust of the left is against reason. It’s anti-rational. That’s why it’s anarchistic and nihilistic. It’s anti-rational. The motivation for revolution doesn’t come intellectually, it comes emotionally. That’s why attacking the left with rational arguments doesn’t work. . . . You don’t understand the motivations.”
In other words, what's going on here is terrorism -- cartel terrorism, to be precise. A progressive's only goal is to shame and abuse people for who they are. They are like a spell checker except for a social agenda. They do not read for intent but instead microscan each word and will pounce on anything they can interpret as "bad." Mostly, these terrorists are just regurgitating half-baked ideas they know little about and lack any real wisdom to address or confront. Most people don't know enough about themselves or have the courage to call bullshit when they see it, so the terrorists spread into the business world because that's where the power is today.


But the way this guy Rader speaks, and the slippage in reality of the last half-decade makes it hard not to see the progressive movement as operating like a cartel with rules. Those rules are: "always support a cartel member," "cartel membership is open but you are only a member if others agree you're a member," "others will agree you're a member if you advance the goals of the cartel."

An inside man acting for the cartel doesn't directly know the other members but he likely knows a few organisers and when he starts working for a bank, he can reward them by making contributions to some cartel-approved "community group" or by appointing some of the organisers within the organisation. The organiser now has "public pressure" to point to so he can get his share of money/power. Repeat across all companies. What ensures this all stays below the social radar and doesn't look like a conspiracy theory is that none of them are actually taking direct instruction from some cartel boss. They're all working from a synopsis and looking for public displays of fellow cartel members such as in language or clothing.

Because the conspiracy is decentralised, progressive cartel members can't directly pay each other so they motivate them with ideology (a con). But they still need to be paid somehow, so what are they going to do? Storm a bank and seize a vault? Of course not. Progressivism was built on a backbone of fraternal organisations and loosely-knit secret societies watching for opportunities. They always had the explicit goal of seizing maximum power with minimum means.

One of their most important skills is the systematic ridicule of conspiracies while adopting all the tactics of a conspiracy for themselves. Conspiracies are not new. Since the ancient world, people have suspected traitors in their midst. In all those cases the essential problem was to figure out if the treachery was real or not, identify the traitor, and execute him. Yet in the progressive cartel, the only conspiracy they cannot talk about in good faith is their own. For instance, Alex Jones is vilified just to keep up the pretence that conspiracies don't exist and only crazy people believe in them. The entire game is to get you not to notice that the progressive movement is perhaps the largest and most successful conspiracy of all time after Christianity.

And the thing is, Alex Jones has been vindicated on Atrazine, BPA, human/animal chimaeras, fluoride inhibiting IQ development, NSA surveillance state and Chinese collusion with the US permanent government. That's just the headline items. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward Alex Jones being right about everything. After all, the idea that our elites are aliens gradually changing human culture to be more like their own strange asexual, insect-eating culture is as good a hypothesis as any.

Now with things like the Jeffery Epstein murder/suicide, the suspicion something is "going on" is unavoidable for many people. The system will now need to assimilate those people too. Slowly, everything that has the potential to cause disruption with the system is assimilated into an acceptable grievance or viewpoint. I'm reminded here of Ted Kaczynski's The System's Neatest Trick: "Luckily, the system is able to fill their need by providing them with a list of standard and stereotyped grievances in the name of which to rebel: racism, homophobia, women's issues, poverty, sweatshops etc." Dissident, reactionary, conspiratorial and outsider thoughts are always commodified eventually.


What defines the progressive cartel isn’t its ideals but its anathemas. Progressivism combines naive goals with faith that a deliberate sabotaging by "them" is the only thing that prevents their achievement in life. The French Revolution birthed this thought-virus. Why, the French revolutionaries asked, couldn’t the king solve France’s problems? It can't be because they were hard problems, no, it must be that the king just didn’t love the nation. Of course, no progressive cartel member stops to ask why their policies still haven't solved the same issues.

Progressivism is unique as a version of democracy in thinking that no preexisting institutions cn possibly help to strengthen society, they’re dead weight, and the only task is getting rid of them. They think it is the obstruction by the power of the rich that protects them from being cut down to size. Progressivism is an ideology of irresponsibility for young cannon-fodder people who've never made a tough decision in their lives. It’s the worldview of children bickering with their parents.

To a progressive, the existence of patriarchy, global warming, casino capitalism, "The Man" and fascists under every rock are not conspiracy theories, they are real.


An accepted, but hidden, ruling conspiracy has occurred multiple times over history.

The Catholics set up the confession booth in each parish church which acted as a global network of intelligence gathering for the Vatican. In the spook world, the Vatican's intelligence arm was always (and in many places still is) considered an important source of information due to how many people could be convinced to talk in "private." But in today's progressive cartel, instead of a confession booth or community leaders and sermons, we have invasive Big Data to do the intel-gathering which is then used to oversee and influence societies through social networks and artificial intelligence for control and profit.

That's why big business has absolutely no problem being discriminatory in the required direction of the ruling cartel. There's always money to be made regardless of whose religion or cartel has power. The truth is, big business is not some bastion of liberalisation and emancipation. It is always a parrot of elite prejudices. When the elites were racist, so was big business. When the elites were anti-feminist, so was big business. Now the elites are anti-tradition, and so is big business. In today's world, political belief is not a protected class like race, religion, marital status or sexual orientation so discrimination is fair game.

When big business' preferences closely match those in universities, media and other sectors of power, they become just another lever for the cartel elite to implement their desired social policies. Business leaders are drawn from the same small pool as the other highly educated, highly remunerated carte members. And if you're not in it, you can't buy your way in. The wealthy elite has always disliked being bound by social mores. They may disagree with each other about economic policy or tax rates, but the social opinions of the politicians, academics, journalists and CEOs are not qualitatively different when it comes to the synopsis.

The progressive cartel has become adept at using HR or marketing (or even the CEO) to advance their cartel pedigree inside a company. Making money for shareholders might get you a raise, but raising status in the cartel gets you far more. And just like all hominids, power-hungry progressives crave status over all else. That's why it's such an insult to say "learn to code" to a journalist. It suggests they go from high status - policing the cartel  - to low status - working for a living. Journalists, along with academia and the bureaucracy, run a tight cartel that secures funds and status for themselves just like the church once did.


Religion was previously used to accomplish all this but technology and the free flow of knowledge cancelled out the effects of traditional religion.

The religious groups alive today are made up of specific demographics that can be isolated, penetrated, influenced and milked. And besides this, traditional religion hides what's really going on in the modern world by acting as a form of distraction rather than a counterweight as the unseen cartel hand does things you know about but can't discuss accurately. But as their social terrorism explodes, more people are seeing progressives as a ruling cartel and it is losing support. Progressives eat their own because they don't know who their enemies are anymore and even normal people are realising you cannot legislate human behaviour.

Yet in this world, online anonymity is at the core of power. Anonymity makes it impossible for the progressive thought police to target dissidents. It also denies Big Data for advertising. The end of internet anonymity has been a long time coming, but it's perhaps already outlived its usefulness. Anonymity has been too easily subverted and exploited since there's no barrier to entry online. There was a time when anonymity was normal. Does anyone know who made the beautiful windows in impressive cathedrals? Nope, the creators didn't care about names. Same goes for all the craftsmen making the cathedral stones. They knew they were just temporary vehicles of the gods.

Ancient men conquered cities and put them to the sword and fire, but today anonymous males on the internet lack the courage to publicly express the same opinion in case Nancy in HR gives them a timeout. No man should ever say he can't talk about something.

That, in itself, is a form of apologising to the cartel that made Nancy exist in the first place. In fact, it's the worst kind of apology: it's a pre-apology. It is stepping into their frame. Men can say anything they want, it's just they'll have to deal with the social consequences if they do. The word "inappropriate" is a vaginal word and should never come out of a man's mouth. If you have something to say, rather than just have to say something, masculinity means having the courage to say it, consequences be damned. Nothing will change if you keep repeating "I can't say that."

If anonymity is removed, people won't say what they really think. They'll lie. The outlet of exposing your feelings online will disappear and the only remaining release will be on the streets. Forcing people to use real names forces them to calculate which of their worlds they wish to describe, and which parts they prefer to lie about. The tension of living within any system is giving up some freedoms to live with others. The question is only where that tension is released, because it is inevitable. Either it builds over time or dissipates into the netherworld of meaninglessness online.

Pick one, or very soon you won't get to choose.


It's the same with sex. Instances of rape are down in the modern world because sexual frustration doesn't build and lead to alleyway assaults. In the West, men don't know what it's like to be truly horny, just like they don't know real hunger. Instead, porn gives men a release pretty much on command. Notice that nobody is suggesting men give their real names before loading up a gangbang clip... Apparently, the porn world is fine with anonymity and it's probably better that way. But why are we being tricked into giving up our identities elsewhere?

Internet anonymity is camouflage. It protects a person from the mindless herd. As Sun Tzu said, "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." It's more than a defensive measure. Online anonymity creates a level playing field. Instead of Googling my credentials or social network history, my interlocutor only has my argument to react to. Anonymity is the last safe space in which a dissenter to the progessive cartel can hide. Secrecy is a weapon never to be relinquished.

But anonymity is also choosing what not to post. Why do people feel so compelled to post every. single. thing. they think, do, eat or plan on Facebook? All you’re doing is inviting outside control. How many people search for things with Google? How many people post their questionable personal experiences on forums? All this is collected, cross-referenced, patterns are discovered, correlations made, profiles built, hooks fashioned, ideas implanted, the list goes on.

Just remember that the state no longer controls this process. That job has shifted to big business. They are trawling the networks for advertising purposes, but also for political profiling and ideas to craft influence tools for the different demographics and ensure the required direction is followed.


So, what's the response to the cartel? First, you should be making your own cartel.

Second, stick to your principles. Forge local bonds in the offline world. Support local business and culture. Be kind to your friends and merciless with yourself. Cultivate silence. Always retain some internal territory. Forget having a sovereign identity, be a sovereign individual. There's nothing power hates more than a strong magician in the woods consuming nothing. Dissident opinions are being slowly taken on by mainstream news outlets, watered-down and withering away or used by the system to promote the lie of binary freedom. We've already seen this with Chomsky, Fight Club, Anonymous, Antifa, etc.

An elementary tenet is to keep your business and personal life separate. Treat customers and colleagues like customers and colleagues and while staying helpful and cordial, confine the conversation to business. If you blog, post about the products and services you are selling, not your beliefs, experiences, perspectives or politics.

No one online needs to know your vacation plans, ever -- if only to avoid alerting burglars. Customers are not your friends. They are people whose patronage you need to live. Friends are people who are not customers. In short, be professional. You're conditioned to try to make those who are angry at you happy – or at least not angry. But as Rene Girard would have said, the only way to win is not to play their game.

If you do get targetted by the cartel, not responding or reacting is the best way. You are their oxygen. Without your response, they first get infuriated and then go away. Whatever you were doing before the nonsense started, continue to do it. Don’t change in any way, including blocking people. But, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. You must stand up to bullies, always, because they will go only as far as you let them.

And stay anonymous, it's the only thing that can protect anyone from rival cartels in a digital age,