FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Category Archives: Societies

On Alt-Sphere Reactions to Charlottesville

I previously wrote about the elements of the alt-sphere and their natural roles.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville the reactions I’ve seen are somewhat unsurprising.  Fish in a coral reef do not understand how they fill a niche in a larger ecosystem.

Most prominently the alt-lite and much of the manosphere went into complete freakout mode as soon as the news emerged.  The airwaves were full of screeching about how “bad optics” and “naivety” have forever tarnished a new conservative civic-nationalist movement.

It made me smile when I found largely supportive reactions on sites like Breitbart and the_donald where lots of red-state normies hang out.  Fox news was blaring on about “white supremacists” but from what I was hearing, the commentariat wasn’t buying it.  The alt-lite was far less supportive than plenty of people who would never associate with alt-anything.

The alt-lite meltdown makes sense when we remember they are the dissident marketing and PR department.  Their mentality is all about building a brand and getting as large an audience as possible.  Their way of thinking is consistent with commercially-oriented American culture so they do not easily understand the mindset or objectives of the other dissidents.

Because alt-lightists have by far the largest mainstream exposure they see themselves as the true alt-movement and any other factions as lesser hangers-on.  The impact of Charlottesville infuriates them because it challenges their notion of being CEOs and shoves the truth in their face that they are in fact the far less glorious marketing department.  In truth, it is the soldier class of the alt-right that have the power of executive action and this is too much for them to bear right now.

The marketers will always be upset when there is a major change.  They like a predictable steady environment to build their followings and sell supplement pills.  Whenever the gravy train hits a bumpy section of track, they will be very unhappy about it.  But there’s nothing they can do either because their role is inherently passive.  The way to deal with the alt-lite is not to get mad or try to disavow them.  Just let them blow off their steam for a few days as they adjust their brands to market changes.

A civic nationalist on twitter with hundreds of thousands of followers might scream about how nazis have killed the movement in all caps but it’s the nature of who they are to walk back their heated statements just hours later as they sense a sea change rolling in.  3 days and 300 tweets later, nobody even remembers their initial rage.  They are best left on their own to do their job.  The alt-right soldiers through their actions have shown they effectively control the terms of engagement for the alt-lite.

The NRx reaction to Charlottesville has been a bit more complex.  I’ve gotten an overall sense of disapproval from them.  I think the class divide is very important here.  The stereotypical neo-reactionary in my mind’s eye is a gen-x computer programmer, IT guy, or engineer with a hint of baldness and 1-2 kids at home.  They are patient and cautious types who are reluctant to take bold risks.  They also have a tendency to look down on and counter-signal anything that seems remotely working class which many of the alt-right soldiers certainly are.  NRxers are typically comfortable financially and socially so they tend not to understand the urgency and anger felt by the other dissidents—or at least they don’t share it on a gut level.

A common NRx criticism I’ve seen of Charlottesville is that it has distracted from Damore’s firing from google over his politically incorrect memo.  They are correct to identify this event as being hugely important.  The first cracks are showing at the top tiers of the upper middle classes.  The NRx critics betray their SWPL affinities when they insist Damore “did it the right way” by being mild-mannered and going through the right channels to get his message out.

Faux-polite office politics only applies to the middle classes and above.  I see the google memo as one prong of a double-sided attack in the last week, one for each half of the social spectrum.  Therefore, I think it is to misunderstand the social situation to insist that Charlottesville and Googlememo compete with each other when they are in fact synergistic forces.

Even NRxers sometimes mock each other over “passivism” the idea that a group can come to power by becoming worthy to rule.  I think it’s a very legitimate concept in the right context.  History is full of revolutions that just made things even worse.  It’s hard to build something worthwhile and easy to complain and wreck things.  The neoreactionaries are on the right track in thinking about how to build a new social order as the present society crumbles.  They have their own important role—there’s no need for them to compete with the front line soldiers.

As for red-pilled progressives, I am not sure if we can continue to call them alt-leftists.  That namespace seems to have been appropriated by President Trump to refer to antifa gangsters.  Whatever we may call alt-leftists, the forces unleashed by Charlottesville and googlememo ensure that more SWPL men will be disillusioned and forced to choose sides as they realize the politically correct society will have no mercy on them no matter how they signal even as they continue to struggle with college debt and see their wages driven down by endless waves of H-1B Indians and Chinese.

Charlottesville Will Help Alt-Dissidents

Right now the dust is still settling and people are still wrought up and that is a good thing. There are lots of objections and black pills.  I will address some:

They had bad optics!
Nothing they could have done would have assuaged their opponents in the least.  This has been proven ad nauseum.  Internally discourage the worst excesses like Nazi flags, Wehrmacht helmets, or anything KKK, but otherwise let it go.  Charlottesville should be enough to bury thoughts of appeasement for good.

But they did x thing wrong!
In making a move from the internet into meatspace lots of stuff is going to go wrong.  Real life is sloppy.  Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.  Remember how many panicked said it was the end of the world when Spencer said “Hail victory, hail Trump?”  That was a mistake, but everyone learned from it quickly and used the real-life feedback to adjust their strategy.
The important fact of Charlottesville is we saw an internet-based movement make a major transition into physical space.  That’s all that will matter.  Armchair generals gonna armchair.  They will always handwring over what could have been better while others go out and do things.

Trump Didn’t Help!
Mainstream political figures can’t overtly sympathize with those on extreme ends of the spectrum.  Do we ever see someone like Hillary Clinton praising the antifas?  Of course not!
Politicians deal with extremists in their coalition by pretending they don’t exist.  Trump refused to explicitly condemn the alt-rightists and that’s all that is needed, or can be reasonably expected from him.  Just imagine what the situation would be if Hillary Clinton were in power instead?  I don’t think the public emergence of the alt-right would have been politically possible.  Had it even been attempted, the leaders would have ended up in jail.  We’d have been busy fighting to prevent Chinese-style internet censorship and thereby losing even the ethereal platform we have.
A favorable leader gives the extremists a tacit nod that they will be unopposed as long as they don’t cross certain lines.   Then it’s up to the fringe political operators to achieve their objectives with the slack they’re given.

They Were Naive! What did they think would happen!
The whole point has been to play by the letter of the rules, one rule at a time so eventually an approach of moderation and appeasement becomes totally indefensible.  In this respect, Charlottesville is a brilliant success.  No one can ever again seriously argue that being more conciliatory is a reasonable approach.  This will ultimately force many fence-sitters squarely into the radical camp.

Now the Normies Hate Us! 
The vast majority of people go along to get along so long as their bread and butter isn’t immediately threatened.  They’d rather watch netflix, have a normal social life, and feed their families.  They can be thought of as neutrons.  Maybe they collectively have a weak gravitational pull but are otherwise inert.  The interaction of the charged particles is what matters.  As the course of the mainstream changes, those who go with the flow change with it.  So long as there is at least one significant demographic that is somewhat sympathetic towards the radicals, they’ll be fine.  Comments on Breitbart and the_donald suggest to me the necessary support is there.

This Proves the Institutions Are All Against Us!
This only disillusions people even more. Charlottesville even redpills people regarding the cops.  Until now it’s been a common sentiment on the right that law-enforcement will be on their side.  This expectation has now been proven horribly wrong.  At first, many may react with despair as each established institution lets its mask slip when pressured.  In the long run, it helps destroy the legitimacy of the system as its true nature is methodically exposed in all its facets.  The vast majority will just keep going to their day jobs no matter what happens but there is a proper audience that sees what’s happening and cares.  Even if they do nothing, it is essential to have a base of sympathizers. Even making ordinary, contented people feel the system is no longer infallible or the best possible way of life is enough.

The Deaths Will Drown Out The Message!
The people who got ran over make sure the story is on the front page of every publication and everyone’s heard of it.  Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech made normal middle class people aware of an alt-right consisting of civic-nationalist infowars and breitbart.  Now the public has been introduced to the ethnic-identitarian alt-right as a movement.  Simply entering into the mainstream consciousness is a major milestone and implicitly expands the window of political views.  Breitbart is not longer the farthest, scariest edge before you reach the KKK.
That the accident took place as someone panicked while under attack means the alt-right can’t really be blamed for it.  A deliberate attack by an alt-rightist would have been a genuine disaster and of course that’s what they were hoping for, but they didn’t get it.
They can spin it so many people, who are implacably unfavorable anyway, think nazis are out to run people over, but they can’t actually do anything to perpetuate it more than a couple news cycles or get the leverage to force Trump to denounce the alt-rightists.

Overall:
Charlottesville was a significant strategic victory for the dissidents even if some might see it as a tactical defeat.
They conclusively proved for anyone who was receptive that the established order cannot be reasoned with.  At the same time, the core groups are energized by the official beginning of white civil rights.
For everyone else, they only need to be known.  Being a household name will be all that matters in getting them future international attention and recognition.

Update 8/16/2017: Every time before the antifas have engaged in a strategic action and then immediately melted away.  This kept it so most Americans hadn’t really heard of them.   The C’ville protest has triggered them into staying out in plain sight where they are massively overextending by lashing out with no long term strategy.  This has against my wildest expectations allowed the president to publicly denounce them.  This is  a huge victory for alt-dissidents!  The establishment has either lost control of their thugs or they have been baited into revealing their true nature in front of millions.  Humiliated in 2016, they are further exposed as both weak and incompetent.

Macro-Sexenomics: Female Beauty Dysgenics In Modern Society

When the most beautiful women tend to go to the universities and the cities to chase the most successful men, their fertility is necessarily delayed.  They are then lulled into complacency by an endless stream of adoration and awards even as their best days evaporate.

Meanwhile, a plain girl with no equivalent cascade of brain-hacking reward signals sooner cashes in her more clearly finite pile of chips and has a family.  For some reason those girls who got pregnant in high school always seemed to be the chubby, ugly ones.  With no line of admirers awaiting them, there was no reason to delay past the first male willing to rut with them.  Their homeliness turned out to be the greatest fitness advantage in this upside-down modernity in perfect inverse to our primal desires.

Cities have always been gene-shredders, only made possible by the abundant fecundity of the countryside. When the prettiest women are carted en masse into these kill zones the society sacrifices them so they can grace the harems of the mandarin classes in sterile splendor for a short while.
For a woman who lives by her beauty, pregnancy is just an obstacle to her aims of securing adulation, power, and money from men. The game itself becomes untied from its biological objective of children.

How many jaw-dropping starlets have we seen end up barren because their very job is the appearance of eternal availability as a mate?  The moment, she sports a baby bump, she’s never lusted after the same, that irresistible power over powerful men, that unrelenting dopamine surge never to return.

Actresses and entertainers are outliers, but there are millions of pretty young women who have much to gain by staying barren in the short term.  Then some short terms later, their term is up, all the prizes they thought they had won but a vapor at midnight when the spell is broken.  Then their bloodlines are lost to us forever, or at best below replacement as those species with unassuming dun-colored plumage endure.

Never do we seem to consider that beautiful women are some of the most valuable social capital of all.  Just by existing, the group’s men are motivated to the heights of achievement and the best men from other tribes want to join in. 

As with superiority in painting or sculpture, the prettiest women help establish legitimate rule over lesser peoples through dominant aesthetics. 

Female beauty is not just ornamental but an inspiring force that backs the power of money to drive the massive gears of the economy as much as gold ever did. 

Any serious society sees it worthwhile to select for female beauty, in sharp contrast to the present dysfunctional order that aggressively purges the prettiest from the gene pool.

Somehow, modern societies must actively perpetuate and grow their socio-sexual wealth.  
Furthermore, society’s greatest rewards must be funneled to the most valuable men.  A smart tribe in modern times makes sure to hook up successful inventors with supermodels and intuitively cockblocks charismatic charlatans.

The obvious methods of implementation rely on outright coercion but as I’ve pointed out, patriarchy is hard to restore in post-scarcity, post-agrarian, high-information conditions.  Women are better at cooperation than men.  From the telegraph onwards, instant communications meant male political hegemony was dead. 

Many have noted the single great weakness of women, though, is their susceptibility to public opinion and custom.  If the status system can be rigged, the sharia police can be saved a lot of effort. 

The female imperative has some sense of indignation when it is being strategically diverted, as the feminist allegory, The Stepford Wives demonstrates, but against the right suggestive pressures they are as powerless to stop it as men are powerless to stop their own lust and sexual jealousy from being used against them.

Reclaiming male selection for female beauty relies on males’ ability to capitalize in turn on the foibles of the opposite sex in the information age while preferably limiting coercive strategies only to where they are most effective and necessary.

Failing that, humans will perhaps start to revert to a tournament species where a dozen dashing males fight for the attention of one drab female until the edifice of enabling technology finally collapses.

The Macro-Sexenomics of Female Beauty

Thinkers like Adam Smith and Karl Marx were on the right track in asserting that self-interest is a key animating force of society but they both overestimated human rationality in the enlightenment fashion.  Stuck in this literal-minded rut they assumed economic activity is the only manifestation of self-interest that matters. Clinging to prudish 18th century notions of human nature, they never considered that more animal desires are upstream of economic activity.

It’s true the butcher and the baker want to make money, but they don’t do so just so they can be consumer cogs buying more stuff to sustain the virtuous cycle.  They also want to get laid and have kids.  If they had no hope of forming a family or even getting a nice girlfriend, they might well abandon getting up early every day to work hard in favor of easy lives just getting by.

Our conventional economics rely on financial gain for its own sake and on the surface this seems to work.  But within this paradigm we fail to ask why people so reliably want more money, even well past the threshold of marginal utility. We typically handwave this, saying that human desire knows no bounds.  There is truth to this but we neglect to inquire into why this is.

It only becomes rational for people to acquire more than they will ever need because they are competing for relative status against one another.  Status competition is ultimately connected to the struggle for the best possible shares of the sexual market.  In other words, this means access to the most desirable mates.
For men this means a chance to court beautiful women that most men can never dream of having a shot at.   Young women as a whole in society are like dangling carrots that keep the masses of males striving away in the office and designing rocket ships.

We are told, of course, that we live in a modern wonderland of free sexual opportunity for men but this is of course misleading.  Pretty women know they are always in high demand by millions of men and this age of internet and urbanization allows them to play their hands in the most discerning way.

Past the last day of high school or college, a man usually has to pay to be in the same room with pretty young women.  In the general population these ladies are scarce to be seen.  The overwhelming demand causes them to insulate themselves from public exposure or else they go out with those huge movie star face-hiding, eye-contact-avoiding sunglasses and a stony “resting bitch face” as the manosphere calls it.  I don’t know if we can overestimate the value of a pretty woman’s spontaneous smile in keeping a society healthy even when no flirtation is intended.  Defensive stinginess creates a vicious cycle of desperation and hostility when the slightest friendly gesture invites urgent sexual advances.

There was once the concept of the “girl next door” a wholesomely pretty girl close at hand in ordinary daily life.  In the 21st century this no longer really exists past high school as attractive young women migrate to the biggest cities where they are from then on concentrated.
This serves a dual purpose in giving them access to the highest ranking men while imposing high costs of living and huge decreases in quality of life on the thirsty masses of men who try to pursue them there.

It is not even a viable strategy for most men to try to lock down the hot women before their great urban migration as the society stigmatizes youthful marriage and statutory rape laws make it illegal for older men to seek teenage brides in the suburbs and countryside.

Thus, the sex and the city lifestyle in pricey hipster neighborhoods functions like a burqa for modern women, denying the gaze of unworthy men as they go scantily-clad to the nearby wine bar.

When most men rarely see higher than a 6.5 in public who isn’t flagrantly anti-social, their morale and motivation is sapped and the scale of sexual market value is drastically distorted in favor of those obese and plain women who stay behind.  

While men will always get thirsty enough to settle for whatever they can find, they aren’t as willing to sacrifice as they would be if access to potential mates were more equitable.  Once the girls they could approach are repulsive enough compared to anime porn, enthusiasm for the chase goes into a downward spiral.

For every low-status nerd who is willing to date a fat woman, there is another who ends up a celibate omega.  This creates millions of bare branches with no roots or prospects in the social order, a state of affairs which makes steadily increasing agitation against the establishment inevitable.

Even those men who still succeed with women know they could be doing a lot better.  Without any real status or bargaining leverage they are struggling with long term relationships and family formation.  They have no more stake in the present state of affairs than do incels.  

Just as illegal immigration and offshoring push down wages for everyone, most men see their sexual market payoff reduced by relentless demand inflation.
To put it in perspective, we all know how an influx of millions of pretty young women would be received by the matriarchy. 

The overwhelming thirst caused by the hyper-inflationary collapse of the sexual market has played a significant role in the death of civic life.  Whether churches or old-fashioned bowling leagues, widespread male desperation erodes the social trust required for co-ed contact or cooperation between men outside of carefully vetted social circles.
Whenever a new man shows up, he is bound to be met with suspicion by the women and hostility by the men.  No one wants yet another swinging dick adding to the society-wide sausage fest. 

Clearly, a society that wants to persist under modern conditions must acknowledge the importance of balancing the sexual market for the sake of cohesion and stability.
To prevent complete social breakdown we might begin by:

-Making it less easy and desirable for pretty women to hide themselves in urban walled harems.
-Making it easy to import pretty young women to control sexual market hyper-inflation.
-Easing statutory rape laws so men who take until the their late 20s/30s to get established can be rewarded by society with high school brides.
-A fat tax.
-Deport illegal men, children, old, ugly women, but let 5s or better stay.

A main point here is when we objectively rate beauty in a new inegalitarian age we can incorporate it into policy.   A special tax on obese women for instance would tacitly acknowledge they are reneging on their side of the social contract by depriving society of the beauty that motivates male participation and helps sustain a workable balance of power between the sexes.
Similar penalties might apply to disfigurative piercings or tattoos.

Congregating in a few neighborhoods in a few cities could be dis-incentivized by removing feminist laws that make it easier for women to get nice white collar jobs they can’t get fired from and imposing special taxes on certain places of residence for single females.

These kinds of measures would obviously trigger massive female opposition, but if women as a whole tried living within a stable balance of power rather than an extractive matriarchy, they might actually like it.  
At present, even plain women have countless suitors to choose from but they live with a millionaire’s dilemma where they have to assume every man they meet is trying to get what’s in between their legs.
If they could live in a healthy society where non-adversarial social interactions are actually possible, they might to their surprise cease to be as angry and lonely as they are now.

Interview With Rob Stark About the Alt-Center

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=5109

This time Rob, his cohosts, and I discussed the emergence of an alt-center that departs from established political traditions and in general what sort of social re-organization will prove necessary to deal constructively with the unprecedented challenges of the information age.
Correction:  I somehow referred to the T-1000 as the T-2000.  How could I do such a thing?

The Factions of Alt-Dissidents

There has been a sudden burst of interest in defining the quarrelsome factions of the alt-sphere, often with an emphasis on bashing rivals.
Alf of AlfaNL blog wrote one of the most level-headed pieces yet on the subject. He sticks to analyzing the groups by their size, demographics, and motivations.

I will add my own thoughts after seeing the umpteenth article about how the alt-lite is doomed because they are just selling a brand, how the alt-right is bound to become an irrelevant fringe like White Nationalism 1.0, or how the “passivism” of neo-reactionaries is an excuse to do nothing.  Doom and gloom all the time. 

From my perspective, things have been going great and it has been a delight to watch the alt-sphere begin to mature.  Now it reaches a point of self-awareness where it begins to introspect.   Even the constant squabbling serves a natural function of figuring out each faction’s jurisdiction and specialty.

The alt-lite civic nationalists are often brawling with alt-right groups on social media or even confronting them physically in meatspace.  These guys get a lot of hate from ethnic nationalist alt-rightists, but I don’t see the need.  They inhabit different niches in the dissident ecosystem.

The alt-lite are by far the largest faction since they stick to positions that can be made acceptable for millions of ordinary, disillusioned republican voters.  They are accused of just going along with what’s popular to sell a brand, but over time more will realize, that is precisely their job.  

They are the marketing and advertising department that engages in public outreach.  Because they have the largest audience, they also have the greatest influence when it comes to running psy-ops that disrupt the establishment “narrative” and to sap their morale through relentless agitation.

Their large numbers make it impossible to ban them all from social media and by saturating the filters of censorship, they make it harder to crack down on more extreme factions.  The alt-lite is also a valuable farm system for new recruits.  Of the millions who get drawn in by the advertising campaign, once nudged down that path some percentage decide to keep going of their own accord and become alt-right.  

The alt-right are gradually showing themselves to be the front-line soldiers and true believers who risk physical injury and destruction of their reputations. While the alt-lite’s strength is crowd tactics, the alt-right is forming cohesive units capable of pursuing strategic objectives such as shutting down the antifa dominion of Berkeley.
Their beliefs are still considered too extreme for them to take part in the normal political discourse.  They hungrily wait as the alt-lite helps to gradually ease the Overton window in their direction, each grudging millimeter giving them more space to operate in.

The core alt-rightists rely on many ideological shibboleths to solidify in-group cohesion and loyalty.  Counter-signal them on the Jews, white women, or Vladimir Putin and they are not likely to be patient about it.  It is not their role to be discerning about shades of gray since they are increasingly oriented towards action.  They have no shortage of discussion but within clear boundaries.  Leaders such as Richard Spencer may have intellectual interests and more nuanced views, but he does not have the luxury to focus on this in his daily activism and speeches.

For most citizens, the alt-lite are the extremists and the alt-right are simply “nazis.”  Ask the average person on the street about neo-reactionaries, the dark enlightenment, or even the alt-left and they’ll probably just stare at you wondering what the hell you’re talking about.

There’s the PR reps and the soldiers, but the dissidents also have an R and D department where participants are free to mix and match ideas and see what happens without political constraints.  These outliers are kind of like priests who try to construct an over-arching theology. Working on the level of ideas, they are mostly invisible amidst the turmoil.  They are not trying to move a crowd.  Their mission is to corrode the secular state religion and replace it with their own vision.  Rather than direct the course of schools of fish, they hope to change the water all fish swim in.

These evil acolytes recognize that much of their discussion is theoretical and intangible.  They even point and accuse among themselves that they are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with no plan to realize their aims in the real world.

They will come to understand they are pursuing their natural role just fine.  Their discussions are not viable in the popular discourse but their ideas gradually filter through more relatable interpreters until the populace unwittingly embraces concepts that came from black scriptural exegesis.  The end game for the apostate priests is not so much to become emperors as to establish a new academy on the ruins of the Enlightenment.

There are those who despair at the in-fighting of the rebels but I would point out that they begin to know who they are and what they need to do within a larger synergistic organism.  Even mainstream sources have begun to officially distinguish between the alt-lite and alt-right, a sure sign that an organized structure is emerging despite the decentralized nature of 4th generation politics.

Alt-Right Drift Towards “Leftist” Policies

I’ve recently discussed the combination of Alt-Right and Alt-Left into an Alt-Center synthesis but it has been increasingly brought to my attention that elements of the alt-right already show support for issues such as single-payer healthcare.  I was skeptical when commenter Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur told me that Spencer’s group and Counter-currents embraced “leftist” policies.  I figured it might just be a few outliers.  Then Robert Stark of Stark Truth Radio brought it up as well, pointing me to certain links.  It appears that actual leaders such as Richard Spencer endorse these issues.

That this is new to me suggests they may downplay their position on this issue relative to others, knowing well it is still unacceptable and equated with evil “socialism” on much of the right.  Or, it could be I tend to exclude individual personalities as noise from much of my analysis, preferring to look at trends and incentives.  I took a closer look and found Spencer wrote a piece on the issue back in March when Ryancare was the topic of discussion and sure enough, a good proportion of his commenters were skeptical at best about his proposal with libertarian types as usual insisting on a return to “the free market.”

I can’t honestly say how much influence Spencer or writers for Counter-Currents actually have over the larger dissident right but they have already understood in which direction the natural synthesis of ideas lies.  It comes as no surprise to me that Spencer seems to come from an upper middle class or higher background, a demographic that more typically produces alt-leftists or neo-reactionaries.  As a fashion-conscious, city-dwelling socialite, who speaks with a faint lisp it seems in retrospect less surprising that his political views might be hybridized in some ways very similar to what I have anticipated.

The alt-nationalists will ultimately go in this direction as a whole.  As whites steadily slip from being an overwhelming majority, their politics will increasingly resemble minority politics.  In other words, leaders will be expected to bring back pork barrel rewards for their people at the expense of the other tribes.  Little do triumphalists or defeatists watching demographic trends realize that a 40% white country where all whites are forced to bloc vote to survive will be paradoxically more formidable in politics than a 65% white population that’s deeply divided.   As this shift occurs, single-payer healthcare will be tacitly understood as healthcare for whites first.

Just today, it has been decided a dismantling of Obamacare is finally to be discussed on the senate floor.  Mainstream leftists are recoiling in horror that the party of rich corporate warhawks is taking away healthcare from ordinary people.  It cannot even be explained to them within their egalitarian world view where the popular support for these measures derives.  First universal systems of redistribution that are bleeding the remnants of the middle class dry have to be done away with so that wealth can be run through more protected channels.  In countries where groups with 100 IQ or greater are in the minority,  we see the emergence of parallel societies and institutions for emergent castes in the 3rd world style.  The USA, unexceptional as ever, is in no way immune to the forces that affect everywhere else.

Abortion too is backed by Spencer and friends.  This implacable rock on which culture warriors shattered themselves will be reinforced by the dissidents as tribes form, with the tacit understanding that its purpose is to restrict the fecundity of ethnic rivals and keep the dysgenic underclasses in check.  The practical necessity of such measures as the struggle grows desperate will gradually discredit those misguided conservatives who still object.

The more intellectual alt-rightists are already thinking some years ahead.  They are aware that a constituency with many ex-mainstream conservatives and libertarians isn’t ready to accept alt-centrist views just yet and may be gradually testing the popular mood until the time is right to push the discourse of their blogs into popular rhetoric.

Thoughts On Replacing Traditional Marriage In A Post-Scarcity Society

If we reflect for just a moment on human nature with all its in-born capriciousness and greed, we understand that a system where everyone stays in any kind of permanent alliance must be fastened in place by necessity.

Traditional marriage worked as a foundation of society when most people made a living growing their own food and going hungry if you screwed up in life was a real possibility.  Most people’s priority was achieving a state of security and holding onto it at all costs.  Kids naturally fit into that mission as free farmhands and as a retirement policy.  Most people lived in rural areas where there was a limit on the number of people they encountered and therefore a limit to temptations.  

There’s no precedent for even poor people wallowing in unlimited junk food or going online to window-shop for mates from the entire array of the human race—or a society that is majority urbanized where most people meet dozens of strangers every day and kids are just an endless suck of time and money.

In this dyamic environment, it may be that bringing back traditional marriage as the founding institution of society is untenable.  Already, as many people still bother to get married, it is in practice a 5-7 year alliance to raise a kid or two past infancy and move on.  Only for the upper middle classes and above does it remain a somewhat stable way to build wealth in a polite society.

Ironically, our better health and sanitation conditions disincentivize parental investment in offspring below the middle classes.  Until modern medicine child mortality had always been very high even with both parents putting in their best effort.  With the survival of children practically assured, the life-long union with its extreme opportunity costs becomes strategically obsolete.

Of course, nobody calculates like a Darwinian robot when they make life decisions and culture informs their perspective as well, but sexual strategies that are no longer evolutionarily optimal for most people must steadily lose market share even if no one knows quite why.  

The traditional marriage asks the female to get married young to have all her offspring with a single man who is unlikely to be her best possible option.  Or even if he were highest quality, she might still want to diversify her portfolio so her genes survive even if one type of Galapagos finch gets wiped out by a freak disaster.  When we remember a typical woman has less than 6 rounds in her revolver with all the forces of nature arrayed against the continuation of her line, the least she can do is have different types of ammo against different adversaries.  Or at least, she weighs the benefits of sibling inclusive fitness against the advantages of genetic diversification.

Men, meanwhile, are asked to bring home the bacon their whole lives and to stand by for decades as their wives get old instead of searching for a “younger model.”  The ability of females to defect any time and take the kids, or take his money and then get impregnated by another man without consequence undermines even what diminished rewards he enjoys.  
He too instinctually wants a variety of mates to spread his line to prevent a single disaster from wiping him out.  The modern high-information society means he can spend his energy trying for multiple low-investment sexual partners instead of sinking all his resources into one insecure prospect.

Neither sex really wants to restore traditional marriage under present conditions.  Tellingly, aging pickup artists are now among the biggest promoters of turning back the clock.  Many people still get married, but only under pressure as they start to get their first grey hairs and wrinkles.  When scarcity of resources isn’t enough to make people have weddings only scarcity of time suffices.  If we were young forever, successful pickup artists would be forever unrepentant.  It’s only when we worry about ending up without children or unpaid companionship for the last 4 decades of our lives that we’re suddenly willing to make the huge sacrifices marriage requires.

It has been pointed out for years in the manosphere that traditional marriage is a game for young people, especially young women at peak fertility.
People have been using the word “traditional” for a reason because the present institution bears little resemblance.  The old arrangement means cashing in your chips at the start of the game.  The modern version means playing the game as long as you can and then rushing to cash in at the last moment.  So if we draw a clear line in our definitions, we can see outside of some rural areas, real marriage has already been dead for decades.

The question then is how we might begin to organize mating markets in an urban, post-scarcity, semi-nomadic society, unless of course, we are counting on a collapse to “rescue” us.
Presently, we are faced with falling fertility rates and the costs imposed on society by single motherhood.
Also, monogamy serves as a truce between men so they can spend their energies collaborating against other groups rather than fighting among themselves over women. 

The reality on the ground already is the truce has been broken and we have seen a return to soft harems that would not have seemed out of place in the stone age with most women chasing a few chieftains.  This arrangement has already put society on a path to the intermittent warfare typical of hunter-gatherer societies.  There are simply too many men in our peaceful society.  Eventually, violence culls the herd until sexual market pressures are again tolerable.

As greatly as Black culture is maligned, I have noticed it has been a preview of where the rest of society will be in about 20 years.  The word “game” itself comes straight from ghetto slang.  As the rewards and accessibility of being a career drone drastically dwindle for men, even the sons of respectable families try to adopt drug dealer swagger to signal status.  This is by its nature a strategy that signals low investment because high investment signals he has few options.

Since modern day marriage is associated with balding cubicle schlubs rushing to settle before it’s too late, the institution itself becomes uncool.  Even if all feminist legislation was done away with tomorrow there would be no grand reversal.  Doing away with no-fault divorce might actually send men running away even faster.

Traditional society rewarded men and gave them status but this also came with huge responsibilities that were expected to consume their entire lives.  So even as we see internet personalities indulge in nostalgia, hardly any of them actually take the plunge themselves.  Many of them talk tough about protecting any daughters they may have, but not a one of them wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to court a girl.

A workable new system might be one that secures mating rights for men with desirable qualities, but doesn’t force them to spend the rest of their lives breaking their backs so the wife can watch daytime TV.  Perhaps all the benefits a single mother currently enjoys would be conditional on having her kids with socially sanctioned men in good standing with the tribe.  If she bred with outlaws or blood enemies, access to benefits would be witheld and free abortions made readily available.  Most of them would get the hint.

Even in ancient Rome subsidies and legislation did very little to revive traditional marriage.  Once people aren’t afraid of starving, personal freedom and unfettered mate selection becomes priceless.  Women would rather work full-time to make their own money than have a provider if they think they can get the best genes that way.  As we can see with ghetto welfare, though, subsidies are highly effective at boosting fertility when they don’t require anyone to seal permanent alliances.

So, a future system might be structured around giving women the illusion of choice by carefully pre-selecting their dating pool.  Status is artificially bestowed on men easily enough.  A mediocre man has an officer’s badge pinned to his shirt-front and suddenly he’s never lonely again.  In the neo-tribal society, male status would be managed very deliberately along with subsidies to channel female mating choice in desirable ways even as she thinks it was her own idea all along.

As for paternal involvement, I learned a few things by listening to black co-workers talk about their baby mommas.  Smooth operators who were broke but had no entangling ties could move seamlessly from one woman’s house to another with as much access to his children as he desired.  This struck me in stark contrast to white schlubs who have to petition the courts to see the one kid they had with a woman who divorced him.

The married man’s need to beg makes him appear low-status even if he earns a good salary.  If he was free to withdraw his presence and his funds, he would be freely invited into her house.  High-status men would end up with multiple children by different women and he would be at leisure to identify his most promising offspring and invest in them most while still having time to focus on supporting the society.

Male sexual emancipation from the provider marriage might also serve some use in undermining overwhelming female political power.  As I have discussed previously, Western women already had extraordinary influence even before they got the vote because they had guaranteed access to husbands who were effectively chained to them.  Mycroft, one of my regular commenters, astutely pointed out that this position of total security from which to agitate was the cradle of the modern matriarchy and the cause behind millions of appeasing white knight males.  It may be necessary in a modern patriarchy to sever female relationship security so they cannot press relentlessly for their own selfish agenda without facing consequences.

With a tribal dating pool, some men would effectively have harems, but there would be a clear obligation among the brotherhood to get even the stragglers laid from time-to-time—if loyalty is to be expected of them.  The core idea would be that the mating market reflect the male hierarchy. 

Of course, not everything can be done with incentives and loose controls, but the trouble with a system of hard coercion is it is more energetically expensive by far and requires diligent upkeep to sustain.  So the question is that which kings often asked wandering scholars back in the Chinese era of warring states: What is the softest touch by which effective rule can be implemented?
Failing that, though, there’s always Islam waiting in the wings.

How We Get to an Alt-Center

Both the alt-left and alt-right are populist but attack the elements of the establishment most pertinent to their interests.  I have repeatedly noted, that if their platforms were combined into a single agenda, we would have an alt-center that comprehensively rejects the establishment.

As astute commenters have pointed out, a major culture and class divide separates these dissidents.
The working class alt-right and the upper-middle class alt-left progressives revile and distrust each other but my calculation is that they will be forced to work together.

The alt-right has scored some major victories but finds itself stalled in need of some kind of push to go further.  They need one more group to make a coalition that can put politicians directly loyal to them into office.

The alt-left meanwhile languishes at the bottom of the heap after Bernie was shot down and their attempt to install Keith Ellison as a compromise party leader was soundly rejected by the establishment core.

The progressive white males who are the heart of the alt-left have been humiliated at every turn and are asked to sit at the back of the bus by brown people and single women with no hopes of realizing their agenda of punishing wall street and the military industrial complex, or relieving the stranglehold of student loans. This state of stasis getting none of their demands met can’t last.

These scorned progressives may vote for third parties trying to start an independent movement.  This already happened to some degree in the 2016 presidential election.  Bernie voters defecting to Stein and Johnson certainly played a role in Hillary Clinton’s historic defeat. 

Of course, if they did not even have the power to get leverage within a coalition, they certainly can’t accomplish much on their own.  Alt-leftists simply by being higher class are relatively few in number.  Voting for third parties, they would hate to admit, is a tacit confession that your votes are on the table, inviting a bigger coalition to throw you a bone and take you in.

My prediction has been that necessity will force all white males into the same coalition.  When you have poor alt-left millennials with useless degrees looking for jobs in urban areas they end up competing with other ethnic groups for scarce low-skill jobs where the cost of living is highest.

Even a lifetime of indoctrination is irreparably damaged once you realize everyone stops acting nice and abruptly drops the platitudes when bread and butter are on the line and they all play favorites with their own kind.  Progressive whites find themselves trapped in the same hell at their coffee shop or adjunct teaching jobs as they do in the democrat party.

They are assigned lowest status even when working part time at minimum wage.  This insult is finally too great a hit for the egos of the sons of engineers or lawyers to bear.  They are living along the faultline, getting ground in between clashing tectonic plates with nowhere else to go.  Eventually they must snap and sure enough, we have seen a disproportionate amount of political violence from exactly these disgruntled progressives.

So far, they’ve just lashed out in a panic, unable to really grasp the contradictions that have condemned them to suffer.  Any kind of widespread movement, though, lasts because it has some promise to increase the status of its followers and achieve their objectives.  If the left-progressive movement does not benefit, or actually hurts its believers, they must migrate or else leave behind a failed ideology.

As they start to explore the wilderness, they’ll find the alt-right and dark enlightenment waiting for them.  Some have already begun to experiment with being “edgy” and “fashy” to suddenly realize that there’s a way to status and influence outside the infernal volcanic rift they now live in.  As the way out of their predicament becomes clear they’ll be steadily squeezed into another camp.

The fundamentals of self-interest are stronger than class or ideologicial animosity in the long run.
Once these groups are stuck together they’ll find they belong together.  Both factions are dominated by white males who have been designated the collective Satan of the national religion.

The alt-rightists were also white men who were no longer getting enough status and access to desirable women or prospects of family formation.  Instead of trying to petition for a piece of the action in a mainstream political coalition they went out into the wilderness and began to clear a pasture for themselves hoping as all rebels do that some female groupies might follow them. 

Perhaps because the alt-rightists rejected the shibboleths of the conventional discourse from the start, they could not delude themselves, as alt-leftists have that they have a place at the table of the orthodoxy.  The clear path to success always was to ply the cool rebel angle to get mates and status.  Now that the alt-right is meeting with some success despite the best efforts of the establishment they suddenly find themselves defining the new cool of the 21st century.

The alt-leftists can already perceive that the coolness of the rebels has paid off better than trying to be “good” white men in exchange for getting their issues addressed.  Coolness is what they lack most.  Even many of those who have good tech jobs or are in academia still struggle to get laid and even what little they have left is being taken away.  

The few politicians who align with them aren’t cool either.  Bernie Sanders is likable but not cool. Elizabeth Warren is shrill and only slightly cooler than Hillary Clinton.  The only remotely cool alt-left-leaning politician is Tulsi Gabbard and she is a part-Indian, part-Polynesian female from one of the least white states.  Progressive hipsters would find themselves sorely disappointed even if Gabbard somehow got real power.  She, like rabid black muslim Keith Ellison, does not represent them.  

By 2020, it will be clear to even those in deep in denial that their attempt at a mainstream movement is dead.  There will be no Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard running for president except as a third party spoiler.  They’ll get to take a back seat yet again as an establishment matriarch like Kamala Harris easily captures the democrat nomination.

The massed in-group nepotism of every minority tribe packed into one coalition is finally too much.  The more the European-American population shrinks the more strongly it will be pushed through the process of ethnogenesis as the weight of the earth transforms loose sand into rock.

Those who doubt this should consider that African-Americans regard themselves as a single people despite descending from hundreds of different tribes scattered across thousands miles of coastline, desert, and jungle.  White-Americans will be no different as they are placed under siege.  Instead of slavery, being attacked from every side will be the crucible in which they are forged into a single people. 

As these pressures mount, the alt-rightists will be forced to jettison their own cargo of cognitive dissonance.  Many of them look to the Reagonian 80s with worshipful nostalgia just like corporate-backed republican puppets.  Somehow, even as rebels, they still sing hymns in praise of the “free market” and trickle down economics after 30 disastrous years of plunder and kleptocracy.

Those that come from a more sophisticated libertarian background, gulp from the same poisoned chalice.  No matter how the free-for-all is justified right wingers are easily cucked out of their birthright as multi-national corporations thrive.

As with the alt-leftists, I count not on a mass epiphany arrived at through reason to change their minds, but the relentless lashings we all receive from harsh reality that grow ever worse until we finally change our ways.

The issue that will finally force the alt-right to abandon their old assumptions is free association for white Americans.  They’ve been against affirmative action and illegal immigration since the beginning but they don’t yet understand where this will lead them.  

As their platform congeals, a neo-tribalist alt-center begins to take form.  From the necessity of in-group preference they will learn that unfettered competition is not society’s highest goal.  In the present year, the mere mention of social safety nets or mutual aid on the right begets a frenzy of primal rage.

Like Pavlov’s dogs they have been well-conditioned.  Every time the bell of redistribution rings, some of their food is taken from them and given to other dogs as they receive a nasty electric shock.  So naturally, they snap viciously at the cage bars whenever they are triggered.  It will take some time and a sense of security for them to begin to overcome their trauma.

As an unchallenged cultural territory is established a new tribe can begin to discuss what role the financial sector or the weapons industry should play.  They will finally be able to talk about job training and apprenticeship in a way that makes more sense than credential-hunting that destroys the savings of the middle class and makes even the lucky graduates indentured debt servants of their employers.

The alt-left is actually ahead of the curve and more imaginative than the alt-rightists but they still don’t quite get the urgency, that alt-rightists understand deep in their guts.  We’re faced with a fight to survive right now and until existence is secure, struggling white college grads will never get any help with their loans and the “too big to fail” banks will never get properly punished.  Only when all the white male populists are forced to fight back to back in battle will we see all their issues addressed within an alt-center that leaves behind the fake dichotomy of left and right.

Defining the Alt-Center: Neo-Tribalism

An alt-center is not moderate—it is alternate—that is, opposed to the discredited establishment.  It doesn’t try to be exactly in between, grey, or neutral.  It is a synthesis taking the best of different mindsets and ideas to put together the pieces in a way that makes sense.  

The alt-right understands that people are not equal and can be categorized quite accurately by race, ethnicity, sex, status, and intelligence.  It is hamstrung though by favoring the continuation of a Hobbesian nightmare and tragedy of the commons.  Many vanilla republican politicians would readily agree with this stance when it comes to economics and social policy.  In this respect, the alt-right is not alternate.

The alt-left understands that you can’t have a real society unless people have a sense of belonging and investment.  People cooperate much better if they know there are safety nets if they stumble.  It is hamstrung though by failing to understand people vary widely in character and capability.  An indiscriminate system of aid quickly degenerates into a tragedy of the commons.  The alt left is not alternate in this sense because plenty of the the entrenched technocratic elite share their egalitarian views.

Both alt-right and alt-left retain ideological ties to the conventional platforms they’ve departed from, so in a way of thinking, alt-center, can be thought of as a true-alternate point of view that reaches on both sides and snips the last ties to prevailing political traditions.

On the right, the propaganda of rugged individualism and not taking “handouts” is used to manipulate atomized consumers into letting corporations and wall-street run rampant.  The left shrewdly critiqued this view by coining the term “corporate welfare.”
On the left, the shrill politics of victimhood combined with socialist attitudes is a cynical ploy to drain resources from the republican middle and working classes to buy the votes of a teeming underclass that depends on their largesse.  The right astutely points out that the leftist elites are trying to “elect a new people” through mass immigration and welfare babies to keep them in power forever.

An alt-center rejects poisonous propaganda positions from both fake sides.  It is a complete rejection of the authority of rulers who have long since lost the mandate of heaven through their incompetence and greed, whatever irrelevant side of a made-up spectrum they claim they’re on.
The alt-center recognizes these ideas are just deception used to herd political opinion by parasite-kings and prevent any dangerous(to them) mixtures of ideas from taking place.  

Is free healthcare a “left-wing” position when we’re just giving it to members of the tribe we identify with and jealously witholding our wealth from openly-declared blood enemies?  What made this stance left-wing is that it was charity without judgment.
Is it “right-wing” to adopt protectionist trade policies when doing away with “free competition” to make sure the newly created jobs go first to people in good standing with the tribe?  What made this stance right wing was competition without context. 
When we no longer assume an atomized society, to even ask these questions is meaningless.  We find ourselves with something different.

Alt-centrism then might be called neo-tribalism, an authoritarian system that maximizes liberties and benefits for cooperators with basic safety nets for all members, generous formal privileges for the best, but treats outgroups as other countries, or within the context of empire as auxiliary associates who are explicitly 2nd class.  More important than individuals becoming billionaires would be the ability of society itself to preserve wealth and build assets.

The neo-tribal alt-center understands there is no more nation-state in an age of instant mass communication where hardly anyone farms the land and where we live as semi-nomads drifting from job to job.  People, not lines on a map are the territorial borders.  Wherever the people set up camp their nation resides in them.

Combining The Alt-Right and the Alt-Left

The populist rebellion against the establishment presently comes in two main flavors, the alt-right and the alt-left. 

Of these the alt-right has met with much greater real world success so far for it is heir to years of internet dissident thought, which while considered right wing cares little for conventional political parties.  The alt-right discourse has tapped into the anger of the working classes while guided by a priesthood of savvy students of human nature.  Alt-lite civic nationalists market a less threatening entry-level brand to normie republican voters who then are given tacit permission to radicalize until some of them progress to the alt-right where the ideas are formed and taken to their logical conclusions.

The alt-left is still being formed from increasingly disillusioned white middle class progressives who have typically affiliated with the democrat party or third parties.  Some of this cohort freak out and go off the deep end into nutty socialist utopianism and impotent activism as a coping mechanism but others realize there’s something incomplete in how they understand the world.  They begin by reading a bit about the dark arts and soon find themselves falling as Lucifer fell.  One day it hits them: the nepotistic minority groups who pushed them out of their own party are a major reason why we can’t have nice things.

As things stand, the alt-lite and alt-right often see themselves as rivals and the to the extent they know about an alt-left, they’re just more enemies in the direction they’re told to always punch.
I’ve observed, though, since I was watching Bernie Sanders’ efforts in the primaries last year that populists on both sides of an obsolete political spectrum possess pieces of the puzzle.

For all their sudden and dizzying victories, the alt-right has little idea what to do next.  By decoding the obfuscation of political correctness, they established a superior understanding of the political situation, applied their knowledge, and spent long years gnawing on the roots of the world tree, Ygdrasil. 

The weakness of the alt-right is it lacks any compelling or coherent vision, or even any motivation to establish a functional society.  They indulge in warmed over libertarian theories every bit as fanciful as progressive dreams of US universal socialism, telling themselves they’re going Galt any day now.  Attitudes of personal responsibility, taking initiative, and every-man-for-himself served them well in the days when they just wanted to get laid more but now the question is how to have a society that doesn’t suck to begin with.

To be fair, there are those who grapple with these problems and their prevailing impulse is to try to go back in time to a more traditional society.  We see pickup artists getting grey hair, losing their youthful horniness, and suddenly wondering what to do with the rest of their lives.  They end up advocating for traditional family and marriage they never had any interest in—making them eerie parallels to feminist relationship and marriage advice columnists who always seem to be divorced and single in their 30s.

Bizarrely, they look to a historically backward Russia with deep social problems, low fertility rates, and millions of Muslims and Central Asians as an example of the ideal white nation.  There are indeed good reasons to admire Putin’s strong leadership and the staunchly nationalist direction he is taking his country, but mayor of a city-on-a-hill he is not.

The alt-right types including red pillers and neo-reactionaries are undisputed masters of understanding the darker corners of human nature but so far they have failed to apply their cynical worldly wisdom to create a viable new culture.  This is where they can benefit from fallen progressives.

The alt-leftists started out believing in all the feelgood ideas about human nature taught by school and well-meaning boomer parents but they went down a path to heresy as the world view they were taught was torn apart by cold and pitiless reality.  As they absorb some of the hard lessons of race, sex, and general human scumminess it dawns on them they’ll never have a nice society until they are selective and give the smart, responsible people most of the power and resources.

The fallen leftists understood even under egalitarian tutelage that hostile elites exert great control by rigging the economic system itself and especially the financial system.  They tried to make sense of their situation, like the alt-right did, by studying history.  I have actually come to think of Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years as one of their founding works.  For many middle class progressive kids their first big red pill was graduating from college and finding there weren’t any jobs and everything the schools and their parents had told them was a lie.  So as manospherians studied Ancient Rome to gain insights into feminist cultural decay, unemployed hipsters who took out big loans to get useless degrees read about debt forgiveness in Ancient Mesopotamia.

The key insight the alt-left arrived at was that people need actual incentives to care about society whether we’re looking at hunter gatherers or the inhabitants of the first cities.  An endless war between the butcher and the baker isn’t the basis of the social contract, mutual obligation is.  There was no primitive system of barter engaged in by atomized Smithian savages—instead, credit predates coinage by tens of thousands of years.

Thus, these inquiries led alt-leftists to challenge a core assumption of Marxism—that the market is the central concern of human affairs and religion, tradition, and aesthetics mere distractions compared.
Alt-rightists, including the dark enlightenment, actually double down on flawed enlightenment theories of human motivation when they advocate for ultra individualism and atomization where everyone has to prove themselves from scratch and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps in the market economy.
The way successful human groups really work is by helping each other out, giving the most help to the best but always remembering no one can get far alone.

The alt-rightists though, can teach the fallen leftists the underclasses are the way they are for a reason and most resources given them disappear without a trace.  The most you can accomplish is prevent riots caused by empty stomachs.  Their unapologetic Randian ubermensch self-interest is unsuitable for a society, but it is just the medicine ex-leftists need to get past sentimental egalitarian attitudes, take responsibility, and be willing accept harsh truths.  With some tough lessons, the alt-left can acquire the will-to-power and pragmatism they need to rise above wishful thinking.

When we combine a matter-of-fact understanding of the harsh competitiveness of cruel nature with the principle that societies are made successful by reciprocity and shared purpose we end up with a new synthesis.  We have arrived at the alt-center.

Female Power and the Vote

Before female suffrage there had already been a huge and influential temperance movement for decades.  It was partly the cause of sanctimonious WASPs trying to sabotage the finer things in life for Catholic immigrants.
More importantly, though, it was staunchly backed by legions of matronly housewives who resented their husbands spending money at the pub instead of on her kids.

The prominence of the temperance movement shows us that women had great political influence long before they got the vote.  Not to mention, history is replete with concubines and mistresses who molded the most iron-fisted emperors to their wills.
Average Joes were like play-doh in their hands when it came to pursuing a political agenda.  Moral pontificating from ladies’ associations backed by sob stories about drunk and abusive husbands was enough to trigger vast armies of white knights into action.

Female suffrage, then, was overkill.  The temperance movement grew from an already powerful political lobby into an overwhelming force that banned alcohol altogether, with disastrous results.  With females given the vote themselves soon afterwards, they were all but crowned as empresses.

As we would expect, the West has become a de facto matriarchy.  Women bloc vote more than men since they are by nature more collectivist and can recruit the millions of white knights who are already under their control.  

 If we look at the particulars of the female vote, we notice there is one great divide in the matriarchy.  Single and married women play a great game of tug-of-war over society’s resources.  Married women mostly try to enable the wellbeing of their husbands and families.  Single women, on the other hand, try to provision themselves by using government as an extractive proxy provider.  Worse, they form traitorous alliances with hostile outside tribes to pry even more concessions from the married woman side of the matriarchy and the masses of hapless male helots.

An eternal truth, though, is matriarchies last only until the next invasion.  A society that doesn’t make its men the primary shareholders, always loses.  As much as people like to speak of fairness and equality, women simply don’t have the same territorial impulses common in men.  Whenever some bereaved band of unfortunates comes begging at the gates, women evaluate the situation through the nurturing instinct rather than the male’s timeless drive to act as guardian.  The territory itself to some extent is naturally a male concept.  Females, in some sense, have no country, especially when they are young and single.  A conquerer who just butchered all the boys she grew up with will get her pregnant just fine.  He might even be an upgrade as far as her genes are concerned.

When the walled city is under attack, every man knows he will be killed or enslaved, his family dissolved, his property plundered if he’s on the losing side.  For young women, especially those without kids, the consequence of conquest has been the inconvenient shuffling from one sheikh’s tent to another’s.  Even older women are not expected to risk their lives on society’s front line as men are though they have outlived their immediate usefulness to mother nature.  Modern society erroneously continues to assume they are involved in nurturing young ones even as they age.  

Women simply don’t have as much skin in the game.  As a perpetually protected class they haven’t undergone the brutal culling of life and death struggle for power, status, and territory every male ancestor has survived through back to y chromosomal Adam.  Women just don’t understand high stakes and danger in the same way or with the same sense of urgency that goes down to every male’s very marrow.  The way women fear rape by undesirable men to the very bottom of their psyche, men fear being conquered and disenfranchised.  

First the tribe must protect its holdings, then other issues may be settled.
At the very least, we could recognize the incentives and natural tendencies that make single and childless women unreliable potential traitors and thereby strip them of the vote and bar them from political office.  Principles aside, we might hope this would sufficiently compensate for the vast underground reservoir of female soft power that has always been there.

When weighing whether someone should vote, whatever their sex, we might ask: “What happens to them and their own if the walled city gets sacked?” Beyond that, we ought to test for judgment and intelligence.  After all, weak and stupid men were pawns of women anyway back in the “good old days” before women could vote.  Maybe it’s better a competent woman who owns property, has kids, and runs a business can vote while a man of poor character and weak wits who she’d manipulate with ease loses his vote.  Perhaps then we approach a somewhat more balanced equation where soft influence and hard power coincide.  Though the tribe is founded and defended by men, the reality of female power might then be incorporated within reason into a functional political system.

Career Women and Dysgenics

With the rise of automation and AI, encouraging women to spend more time out of the job market to raise children could serve as another pressure release valve.

They could be incentivized to have more kids while politically correct subsidies on female employment are removed and laws hostile to fathers and blank-check rape and harassment laws are repealed.  As we all know, though, women love careers with a fierceness men have never known because it gives them the illusion of unlimited choice in the sexual market.  So where material incentives might fail to persuade women to be less involved in the labor market and have above replacement fertility we need to look at some cultural roots of the problem.

To begin with, women have always worked outside the home and on the farm, so the whole idea of barefoot and in the kitchen is the other side of a false dichotomy perpetuated by feminists.  Being a purely stay-at-home wife was a privilege of the middle classes and above.  Any history of the industrial revolution tells us of the huge role women played in manufacturing.  Though many women worked, they tended to work fewer hours and stuck to positions that could be plausibly returned to after extended leave of absence, or left behind altogether.

It is not reasonable, though, to leave a competitive career track and expect to easily come back a year later.  This kind of gender welfare is untenable.
The simple truth about women in serious careers is they are trading their fertility for more personal autonomy and mate choice.  Even if they manage to have an only child in their 30s, they’re left far behind in the genetic arms race.

A society that encourages female careerism has to consider the impact of female dysgenics as the brightest and most capable of each generation are wiped out as surely as male soldiers charging a machine gun bunker.  First world civilizations are remarkable in that women are experiencing almost male levels of selective pressure.  Typically, societies with high female attrition disappear.

One possibility is we accept that the human species needs to be more sexually dimorphic in a prosperous, high-information society and simply let all those who take the bait of feminism breed themselves out over the next couple generations.  The problem is everyone gets genes from their mothers so dysgenics for women might be dysgenic for everyone.

Not to mention, it is already hard enough for high IQ men to find compatible partners.  The only way for such a society to stay at modern levels would be to make sure smart men have many babies with concubines he doesn’t have to spend too much time around and perhaps eugenic qualities would get progressively more linked to the y chromosome.

If we look for a more moderate path, maybe some females, especially those plainly of a man-jawed aspect should be encouraged to enter into careers but everyone would understand they are to be regarded as nuns or honorary men.  They would have no special status in the general class of women and thereby be denied a podium to normalize tribally suicidal behaviors.
These cleverest, most socially dominant women would have to be prevented from poisoning the cultural well by making anti-natal behaviors appear high status to the female masses.  Feisty upper middle class Jewesses with chiseled chins who churn out tomes of gender vitriol would have to be either given sufficient outlets to keep them happy or else crushed down and bred out when they get out of line.  

The basic social contract for career women would be that they have to help society with cheerful good will rather than try to destroy it with subversion and activism.  They would have their place in the hierarchy they must respect like men do.  They wouldn’t be allowed to go completely wild in the workplace like they do now.

Those competent women sufficiently attractive and of not completely abrasive character might be encouraged to donate their eggs to wombs belonging to those of low intellect. The surrogates could be given special rewards for volunteering.

Also, there could be subsidized in-home nannies instead of daycare for high IQ women so lady scientists don’t have to spend a couple years changing diapers or nursing.  This would help reduce the basic conflict of female fertility with self-actualizing work.  
A setup like this was actually pretty normal for aristocratic women of past ages, leaving them free to continue participating in high-status social life while still producing heirs.

We need to consider alternatives because until we return to times of subsistence poverty and small farming, traditional marriages won’t be attractive to most people, especially not men.

As bitterly as red pillers complain about female sexual adventuresses, none of them want to go back to bringing home the bacon for a lifetime to a surly wife he’s chained to.  Most men enjoy the load taken off their shoulders by female economic independence.  When it comes to meeting girls nobody really wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to talk to her.

The popular imagination seems only capable of conceiving of either our present feminist dystopia or rigid traditionalism nobody really likes.  A solution might involve the creation of a new type of society that is functional in the modern environment.
A beginning requirement is to re-evaluate the balance of power between the sexes.  Otherwise we have our present dark age of soft harems and millions of incel basement dweller males.
Until we deal with fundamental contradictions in our present society, we will be locked in a dysgenic and social downward spiral until we go the way of Ancient Rome.

Preventing Dysgenics in a Society With Basic Guaranteed Living

A system of guaranteed basic living above all must avoid encouraging dysgenic outcomes.  Otherwise good intentions make a bad situation worse until within a couple generations the lifeboat of society is destroyed and most everyone drowns.
I’ve already proposed that low IQ people who refuse to perform labor on state aid be sterilized and those who are useful enough incentivized to breed below replacement levels.
I’ve figured that could be done in many different ways including:
-anti-natal religion, propaganda, entertainment
-small living spaces given them
-food rations that don’t completely meet the needs of a kid, making it difficult to feed more than 1 without going hungry themselves.
-free contraceptives.
-free abortions

The more difficult question is how to deal with high IQ people receiving a state living.
If they are pursuing their passions but have little access to the mating market because of their lack of money and conventional status all we’ve done is reconstruct monasteries with celibate priests where we systematically kill off many of the brightest and most curious every generation.

On the other hand, we don’t necessarily want a group that contains many smart but lazy stoners to overrun society with their progeny.
So I figure it would be a sufficient goal for society to try to at least preserve its monastic leisure caste at replacement levels.  Perhaps those without kids would have the option to donate their sperm and have up to 2 kids to be raised by parents who volunteer for it.
Perhaps lower proles on BGL would be allowed to have more kids and with full rations and other goodies if the woman agrees to get impregnated with sperm/embryos from the leisure caste.

Of course, the most successful leisured creatives should be assured reproduction well above replacement.
Looking back on history, one of the greatest examples for me of elites’ lack of imagination is they did not seize men like Michelangelo, Newton, or Tesla and set them to stud.  None of the kids could be expected to be like the parent but simply propagating those traits would spread the tendencies that formed them.

J.S. Bach, for example, had something like 18 kids.  As it happens, some of his kids and even grandkids were also notable composers.  We can assume his favorable tendencies then got diffused into the general population.  If that’s the general practice rather than an exception, it perhaps starts to have observable effects.

I have wondered often if Confucian examination systems actually bred people to the test in East Asian countries.  After all, the mandarin classes to this day are well known for keeping multiple mistresses.  Their stereotypical study style of memorizing lots of precise information but not necessarily understanding fundamentals seems to me at first glance to support this hypothesis.
I think certain, though, that long-term social policies and customs must affect the gene pool through incentives.  Every system selects for something.

Naturally, a guiding principle for a system with a basic guaranteed living is having kids cannot be more attractive on state living than it is in the market economy.  Or else, like now, you select against the base of people who actually work hard to keep things running smoothly.

One of the main things this society needs to get straightened out is working cooperators need to be treated by the state kind of how a business treats its customers.  They should feel like they are valued every time they show up and put in effort and care.

When most people are just toiling on pain of starvation while they watch their money feed multiple welfare kids and pick up the slack for parasitic feminist and affirmative action hires, they feel like suckers who are being used.  This breeds resentment and sends them the message they are on the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, undeserving of basic security and unfit to breed.

The higher proles and up feel these pressures especially strongly because they are terrified of falling behind in the rat race and eager to get ahead no matter the odds.
The intense competition makes them insecure in having offspring who they produce in low numbers and instinctually hyper-invest in.  Some of that hyper-investment might be an inherited reproductive strategy amongst striver types but its intensity of expression could be alleviated if stressors were reduced.  Just a couple generations ago we see large families were normal.  Helicopter parenting of only children should be seen as a behavior of shell-shocked troops cowering in foxholes under perpetual machine fire rather than normal behaviors in a healthy society.  The same behaviors in lab rats would be noted as a response to extreme stress.

One of the key stressors is lack of time.  Relatively prosperous career couples often say they can’t afford kids.  What they’re really saying is they can’t afford kids if one of them were to stop working and they don’t have the time and emotional energy to raise a kid as it is.  For that matter, careers are so competitive, you can’t just waltz back into one after taking months off—there’s always a whole assembly line of pod people waiting to replace you.  They’re also saying they doubt their abilities to sufficiently hyper-invest in their offspring.  Most of all, perhaps, the scarcity of time and disconnection from supportive communities means the parents must sacrifice leisure, hobbies, and friends to have just one kid.

This complex problem has to be approached through gradually removing stressors and thereby giving working people a sense of stability, reasonable amounts of free time, and participation in something bigger than themselves.  They have to feel that by simply earning money in the market economy they have unquestionably higher status than proles taking out BGL.  Literal-minded enlightenment shills, never seem to understand that low status alone instigates fight-or-flight adrenaline-pumping crisis in humans.  Until we try to make inviting habitats for productive humans as we would do for the lowliest terrarium pets, we cannot go far.

The Leisure Economy

The market economy acts as a sort of spontaneous recombinant system that rapidly evolves possible solutions to problems.  New mutations arise en masse so for any lock you may encounter, you soon have the perfect key in hand.  With superhuman precision, the market decides on the perfect price for every good, down to the last fraction of a cent.  If there’s something people want, the market figures out a way to provide it as a river finds its way to the low ground no matter how many boulders lie in its path. 

The market is highly efficient because it harnesses the natural force of desire as mills harness wind and water with no further effort needed from man.

But there is a limit to the scope of the market’s power.  It can only work with existing components and cannot deal with excessive uncertainty.  Not to mention, that which deals in desires does not always give people what they really need to solve problems beyond basic material want.  Unpleasant truths and tough-but-necessary solutions tend not to sell well.  Nor can the market provide what desirers can’t imagine.

The religious devotion of modernity to the market obscures the understanding of other recombinant systems designed to solve different sorts of problems.  The biggest weakness of desire recombinance is that its function is linear and incremental.
If we are thirsty we want water.  Then we want a container to hold the water in…and so on.

The core shortcoming of powering a windmill with desire is that it’s as basic and elemental as tangible things, as common to animals as it is to people, lying near the bottom of the hierarchy of needs. 

The natural inquiry then is to ask how our windmill is powered as we move up the hierarchy of needs to its pinnacle of self-actualization that is unique to conscious beings.  We end up with something non-linear and exponential, the market of ideas where the main currency is not solid gold but ingots of free time.

Ancient Greek philosophers were not motivated by making money at jobs, nor were they really entrepeneurs.  Yet our present day society has no concept of a productive social role outside the market.

Plato had a school.  Pythagoras and Epicurus lived with bands of followers.  These groups provided for the philosopher’s material needs but they don’t seem to have been rich as we think of it.  Conspicuous leisure to develop the intellect without having to worry about money was itself the mark of natural aristocracy.
In fact, the philosophers looked down on thinkers and speakers who plied their craft primarily for profit.  These ‘sophists’ were criticized for caring about their clients rather than objective truth.  We can easily identify this same problem in our money economy thousands of years later.

This is why throughout history, societies that are poor in learned leisure fail to produce new ideas however wealthy they may be.
For thousands of years, there have been magnificent empires in China, India, and the Middle East yet it was paradoxically the comparatively barbarian fringe of Europe that reached critical mass and exploded with power and creativity like humanity has never seen.

A common pattern with peoples like the Chinese is they had no lack of ingenuity as can be seen with their inventions of gunpowder and the printing press.  
However, unless it was immediately useful in business or government the uses remained limited to low-hanging fruit.  There simply wasn’t the ripple effect of new, more sophisticated applications that we saw time and again with Europeans.
There was no space in their society for the meandering process of experimentation that has uncertain yields, if any.  In business and farming, no one can afford to consider any plan that doesn’t have consistent profits.

Societies that produce enduring ideas have in common a class of literate, educated, leisured people besides government scribes and bureaucrats.  So we might anticipate a successful future social structure will have a formal leisure economy.  Already, the internet overflows with the information and ideas of millions given to all of us for free.  Theories of capital gain have no way to navigate, or even describe this miraculous, seemingly altruistic terrain yet we’re all still stuck scraping for money.

State Capitalism in the Internet Age

In 21st century societies, we must consider the commanding heights the state must jealously guard also consists of social media, search, and online retail.  The lords of facebook, twitter, google, and amazon are gatekeepers of communication with enormous power over culture.

While anyone would be wary of government control over these services, the obvious approach is to maintain these systems without interfering with their function.
They were developed in private shops just as the telephone was but likewise cannot remain solely private.

Social media in modern society is part of the basic communication grid like landlines are.
Would we rather have government or Zuckerberg with power over the telephone service?

Since we consider telephone a utility, how about we ask the same question about other utilities?  What if Zuckerberg could turn off your water or electricity if you say something he doesn’t like—Total Recall-style?
In real life, facebook is a private business that can refuse service.  The only real deterrant against dictatorial control is the potential for poor service to encourage the rise of competitors.  

However, when there’s an entrenched monopoly it is much harder for a correction to take place through market forces.  This is why, even though governments are flawed, it’s necessary to have firm regulations in securing these vital arteries.
For many, facebook is almost a prerequisite to participate in normal society.  Imagine if the DMV could refuse to issue you a driver’s license because they don’t like you!

The core problem is that some services are natural monopolies.  We refer to many of them collectively as “utilities.”  It makes sense to have an electrical grid, railroads, waterworks, sewage, trash under one organization.  These are domains where the barrier to entry is high and where bottlenecks mean competition can clutter or even cripple the system.  The last thing anyone wants is 20 different companies building competing pipelines or powerlines.

On the internet, no one wants to go back and forth between 20 different search engines. I’m sure plenty of readers here remember switching between webcrawler, altavista, askjeeves, yahoo, and about a dozen others before google got in front of the pack and never looked back.

Who looks back nostalgically to a time when you couldn’t get amazon’s low prices, unequaled variety, and numerous product reviews?  Remember when people got movies and video games hoping they’d picked something decent?  Or back when many people got thick consumer reports magazines in the mail?

Perhaps even more importantly, amazon’s natural monopoly of internet retail has become a platform for countless small merchants and authors.  Why not just make some regulations to prevent abuses and keep this mostly the way it is?  The government could even use amazon as a dial to control incentives for a micro-merchant economy.

It’s good to let a natural monopoly be, but as we can see with water or electricity, we can’t play the market game of price discovery.  The solution is to have the state regulate prices, allowing the monopoly a modest profit.  To some this might sound like some kind of commie plot, but just think for one second what the electrical bill would look like without government price controls.

Beyond prices, we should consider that an area’s water supply can’t be switched off on a whim.  Even when people don’t pay their bills, there must be fair warning.  This strikes no one as being outlandish or communist.  We intuitively understand that basic infrastructure must be protected by special rules.

While the natural monopolies of the internet are mostly free for users, we can see there are still prices in a less tangible way as we depart from an enlightenment-materialist mindset.
If we extend the anti-abuse principle we realize there must be strict anti-manipulation policies for social media and search just like there is for the stock market.

On Twitter, shadowbanning, promoting the tweets of dectractors while burying supportive tweets, or manipulating the list of trending hashtags aren’t that different from insider trading. One party rigs the game for unearned monetary profit, another tries to manipulate a collective culture to serve a private agenda.
Both are means of subverting the entire society.
Some kind of government SEC would watch over natural internet monopolies and punish those who try to cheat.

What cannot be allowed is for these private mass entities to run rampant with no control at all.  Even if we have a perfectly selfish ruler who just wishes to stay in power, ceding control of the commanding heights is dumb and suicidal. 

When was the last time the electric and water companies were a serious threat to the power of the state?
What about social media tycoons, big banks, the insurance industry, or the military industrial complex?
The answer speaks for itself.
The ruler who does not control the commanding heights creates a free market for the control of government.

Reviving Hammurabi’s Code: Different Laws For Different Castes

There was once a king of Ancient Babylon who made a law code and had it written down for perhaps the first time in history.  Fundamental to this code was the assumption that the ranks of humanity are not equal and therefore given different treatment under the law.
In Hammurabi’s time, this meant lighter punishments if the victim of a crime was lower in rank.

It sounds unjust to us now, but if we think about it, one of the great perversities of our present system is that there are still protected castes in our society, it just can’t be written or spoken.
The human experience shows us if we do not explicitly codify rank, parasites implicitly become the most-protected.  Equality is hypocrisy because to espouse it is to defy the timeless lessons of human nature.

Every human society organizes into hierarchies and in a healthy society, people are ranked as they contribute to the society’s survival.  Higher status people, being more valuable, are given greater powers and protections.
The ranks of humanity tend to stratify into breeds based on temperament and ability for abstract thinking.
Therefore, the incentives and deterrants that work for one caste do not work for another.

An underlying problem of our present system is that everyone from professionals to the underclass are subjected to the same laws.
In practice, this means the underclasses are threatened with punishments that deter people with families and careers reasonably well, but give hardened gangsters little pause.

Unable to admit that society can’t deal with its underclass, over 2 million people are locked up in America with millions more on probation or parole.  Rather than being truly punished, society prefers to neutralize them.  Then feeding, clothing, housing these captive consumers, like students or soldiers, becomes an industry of Keynesian broken windows.

Underclass troublemakers tend to have high testosterone, low IQ,  and short life histories. The strategy for their niche is to take big risks with drugs and violence that get them killed young, but also get a few women pregnant.  They don’t really think far ahead.
They’d very much like to stay out of a jail cell, but it doesn’t come with the same stigma it does in polite society.  It might even increase their status and get them more women when they get out again.

For thousands of years the solution for dealing with underclass aggression across the world has been pretty similar.  Either beat the crap out of them with nightsticks or, if they can’t be trusted to contribute to society again, just have them shot.
An egalitarian system is forced to try to harden the laws against its underclass, but as it does so it ends up dumping a steaming load of feces on normal people going about their business.

We end up with nice professionals bewildered by “militarized” police who treat them like dangerous animals at a routine traffic stop and it ends up making even ordinary workers suspicious and frightened of the police.  The quality of life falls dramatically for everyone and the morale of the tribe is damaged.

The irony of making a law for everyone is no one gets dealt with properly or proportionally.  
Unable to simply beat down underclass thugs and unable to admit they require more attention from the law, a phony “war on drugs” gets invented.

At the same time, the cooperative classes do not get the friendly benefit of the doubt their lower risk profile would merit, causing fear and resentment.
Inevitably some get caught and ruined by the indirect dragnets meant to catch the underclass.  To cap it off, those who have jobs and earn a wage by the rules have to feed and house a small country worth of prisoners.  What is a struggling worker to think when they cannot afford to see a doctor and the prisoner gets to see one for free?

A legal system that cannot properly punish low-level dysfunction ends up punishing cooperators instead.  In the long term, this dangerously undermines trust in the legitimacy of the rulers and makes people question the good and worthiness of the society itself.

A society correctly aligned with the Divine Justice punishes low-consciousness defectors with the negative reinforcement of raw force that even animals can understand.

Those who work jobs, and can behave so long as they are given structure can be threatened with humiliation and damage to their reputations.  Just a few hours of being pilloried in the public square being posted to social media would make most hesitate before breaking the law.  
Those who become repeat offenders and no longer care about their public image can be demoted to underclass and treated accordingly when they commit their next transgression.

Those of high agency have greater understanding of their actions in the context of society as a whole so they are mainly punished for crimes they know full well can puncture the lifeboat everyone relies on.
Demotion to the job classes, temporary or permanent, would be one of the simplest penalties.  For people of active awareness, a 9-5 job scraping for money is little different than a prison sentence.

Those who betray high responsibility over wealth and culture must bear the greatest punishments.  An underclass murderer might be quickly dispatched with a bullet.  Reckless speculators and embezzlers who crash the economy are destroyed in every respect with elaborate ceremony as befits fallen angels.

For all classes incarceration ought to be a last resort, where it would potentially do actual good, not indulged in as a net-negative industry.  Already, most other countries imprison a tiny fraction of their people compared to the USA.

Above all, societies are not charities.  Every tribe exists in tough competition with its neighbors.  If it does not run a tight ship, it is conquered and subsumed.  Life is already hard enough for people who faithfully spend their lives helping the group.  It must be relentlessly reinforced: the fruits of society are always for cooperators first. 

There must be severe limits on patience with takers.  A criminal, whatever their class, is put to death or exiled when society can no longer trust them to participate in the mission of the tribe.
Come to think of it, the United States could send thousands of its criminals to Cuba as they once did to the US.  If a tribe finds a neighbor weak and stupid enough to take in their unwanted exiles, why not use it against them?  Then, even the worst become useful as shock troops.
Or just have an actual island or an entire walled-off province where the exiles get a real second chance to build something.

The unprecedented abundance of the industrial revolution has led to such splendid rot that we house and feed people when they go on killing sprees and pat down our worker bees.  
The quick gains of the last two centuries are taken now and societies everywhere are reaching the point of saturation.  Where there is less insulation against reality provided by accumulated wealth, criminals and drug dealers are again being put to death rather than nicely hidden away from the common life.

White Undertow: The Cause of SWPL Hate?

Black societies can’t compete with white society even though there are many thousands of high IQ blacks.  There just aren’t enough of them relative to their population.  The distribution curve also means the smartest blacks aren’t as smart as the smartest whites.  Thus wherever groups of blacks move in, higher IQ groups observe an effect known as “black undertow” as the quality of life plummets in both obvious and subtle ways.

I recently wrote about how Jews get ahead even though there are high IQ whites at their level. Though small in numbers they have better teamwork.  A major reason for this is Jews have higher IQ on average and human affairs tend to be decided by group strategy over individual efforts.

On the individual level, there’s no shortage of failed and neurotic people with high IQ.  This is why no one cares when people say they have high scores.  They rightly look instead for demonstrated abilities, accomplishments, and personality.
IQ is just a rough proxy for someone’s ability to think abstractly and tells us little of how they’re most inclined to use it.

The meaning of this statistic expresses itself more readily in groups.  If you have an individual with 10 more strength points than average, it doesn’t really tell you much.
But if you take a group and give everyone 10 more strength points, you can make predictions about improvements in everything they do that requires strength.
Most importantly, their whole society would be organized on the assumption everyone has a requisite amount of strength.  A 90 lb weakling from another group might find themselves unable to open doors or twist caps on jars no one else has trouble with.

Raise the average IQ of a population by 1 point, it’s almost like heating up the ocean by 1 degree. All kinds of cascading, emergent effects result.
In a human society changing baseline expectations dramatically affects how people can be organized.

Low IQ societies have to be ruled with an iron fist because the average person can’t understand or act on an abstract appreciation of the law or future time orientation.  When a 3 year old child misbehaves, they aren’t going to listen to reason.  They won’t change what they’re doing unless they know they’ll get time-out or a spanking.  And if they ask why, you reply: “Because I said so.”

Middle IQ societies have to be ruled with elaborate rules and laws with strict attention to detail.  This is because people can understand constraints they can neither see nor touch, but they are unable to extrapolate the next step from a premise.  So as with programming a computer, every exigency must be thought of in advance.

High IQ societies trust most people can make judgments about what rules matter most in light of their intended spirit.  This creates high trust, highly efficient group dynamics.  It’s seldom necessary to coerce people with actual force because everyone understands the big-picture need for voluntary cooperation to enjoy the benefits of a healthy society.

White people as a whole fall squarely into the middle IQ bracket.
The most common complaint of even slightly clever whites about white society is all the law suits, regulations, HR departments, ordinances, the bureaucracy, the TPS reports.  These are all the hallmarks of a system that assumes the average person can follow instructions but has very little capacity for reflection or effective independent judgment.

Smart whites fight a constant battle against white undertow.  Everything they try to do is met with resistance and they seethe as they see all the extra steps everyone goes through that could be easily skipped.

The +1 SD revulsion for Christianity and literal interpretation of the bible is just another example of frustration with onerous rulebooks.  They aren’t quite bright enough to understand that for most people, the extra structure is healthy and necessary.

The worst disadvantage for people with above average IQ is fewer people they meet are like them, which means they have a much smaller pool of social capital to work with when trying to function in the general population.

Until they find a community of others near their level, they can’t exercise their full potential.  This, however, often doesn’t take place until young adulthood after the best years for cultural acquisition and learning are already wasted.
The politics, the law, the family, public signage and advertisements are all built for the benefit of the majority.  If you don’t fall in that category, you’re surrounded with reminders everyday: This society isn’t for you.

Jews, on the other hand, have superior social capital to nourish high IQ people from the day they are born.
Every one of them inherits a tradition of smart, literate people dating back thousands of years when most of the world was illiterate still until barely 200 years ago.
I sometimes think of rabbinical commentaries as the original blog comments and many of them date back to ancient to medieval times.  You can’t overstate the importance of having this mindset built into the very foundation of your identity as far back as you can remember.
Jews thereby deal in complex abstractions as naturally as they breathe, it’s their stock in trade as horsemanship and archery was for the Mongols.  We see smart Jews with community support easily outmatch smart whites who may even have more raw mental horsepower but have spent their lives struggling against a culture of lowbrow rigidity.

With just a glance at the high IQ vs. mid IQ society.  We can get an idea where “flyover country” resentment derives from.  Nerdy, clever whites with bean-counter temperaments remember how they were low ranked in childhood outside of their safe havens of marching band, choir, cross country, chess club, and debate club.  They aren’t clever enough, though, to recognize the roots of their problems or how it fits into the story of humanity as a whole.

So once they are urban professionals who hang out at the same wine bars and watercoolers, they share stories and form a culture and narrative.  They collectively remember what it was like to be outnumbered by proles with crass tastes.  For those that were born into urban areas and spent their youths in preppy feeder schools, these stories are all they know of the outside world.

Those that grew up in the suburban and rural culture suffer from class anxiety since the urban yuppie culture is higher status.  This makes signalling disapproval with the white heartlands an easy way to score points.  Say it often enough, finding each time your Dunbar group approves, you start to believe it.

The final deadly ingredient of SWPL resentment is aggressive indoctrination by the gatekeepers to Upper Middle Class America.  No one makes it into salary heaven without at least mouthing the right platitudes about gender and race.
But coercion alone isn’t enough.  Their professors and corporate handlers feed their resentment and jealousy for the middle IQ culture.  Without a seed already planted, white self-loathing among the professional class couldn’t take root.

With these powers combined, we have the right ingredients for a lesser aristocracy with no sense of noblesse oblige to a larger culture or a longer history but defined instead by rankling suspicion and fearful contempt for the lower orders they’re meant to protect.

Yesterday, an antifa rioter who smashed people’s heads with a steel bike lock was identified as a college philosophy professor who taught ethics!
It comes as no surprise he was a small and nerdy man with a reedy voice.  Though he had a nice job and a house, he couldn’t resist the opportunity to finally take out his rage on those he saw as the natural enemies of his tribe.

Now he’s thrown out his life of privilege, status, and ease so he could backstab his own people in the most juvenile way.  He will probably never understand that he was trying to smash the pedestal on which he stood.  His life is a microcosm of the ideologies that twisted his soul.

Feminism was a lobby to change the whole society in the interests of women with above average IQ and testosterone levels. But with most of them at +1 SD, they couldn’t understand society as a whole organism, let alone their place in it. They ended up destroying gender relations for everyone.

The cultural revolution of the 60s suffered from the same disastrous misunderstanding.  They attempted to make the whole society more welcoming for the slightly clever and have thereby nearly destroyed it for everyone.

Clearly white undertow has to be dealt with in a new social structure.  The mildly clever are much harder to control than proles while composing nearly 20% of the white population.
They have to be either given outlets they find rewarding in the caste system or else crushed ruthlessly.
They are the ones the lower orders see as most intelligent, because they are close enough in capability to somewhat relate to them.  A few equations on a white board or quotes from Einstein and the masses are impressed.  If we watch a few hollywood movies, we can see the average person thinks the intellectual is some kind of magician—the more abstruse and esoteric, the smarter.

The ability of the mildly clever to influence those immediately beneath them by putting on airs means they can muster mass movements to overthrow the culture and eventually the state.
This is exactly what happened in the 20th century and the source of much of the damage we must repair.  To live together, the different castes must be governed by rules appropriate to their station.

Syrian Strike, North Korea: A Formative Moment For the Alt-Sphere

For months factions have quarelled about what the alt-right is, who are its leaders, if anybody, and what it believes with only wavering ground of agreement. Then President Trump fired missiles on Syria and the reaction from these disparate groups was overwhelming.

The anti-establishment internet has come out in force against the attack, and especially against any further moves towards intervention.  For the first time, red pill PUAs, white nationalists, alt-lite civic nationalists, neo-reactionaries, alt-left former Bernie supporters find themselves all on the same page.

Meanwhile, a faction of optimate neocons begins to solidify with warhawk republicans and SJW libs alike coming out in favor of new Middle Eastern wars.  Even progressive-leaning politicians like Elizabeth Warren were agreeing something must be done about Syria.

What to think when even the president’s sworn political enemies want to “hold accountable” the leaders of far-away lands over their own domestic policy—and for no clear US gain?  Actually, the clear US gain is to simply allow Assad to finish crushing ISIS!

Even Rand Paul, a republican known for some anti-establishment leanings, seems to disapprove but draws things out and chooses his words very carefully.

While many Trump supporters are disappointed or even disillusioned by the attack, it becomes increasingly clear that no one, whatever their professed beliefs, would have brought significant change to American foreign policy.

The flimsy excuse of “chemical attacks” that’s been recycled for decades now only hammers in the point.  We have established beyond a doubt that the problem is systemic.

The best move is not to panic and run, but to stay firmly in the Trump camp for now making our presence felt.  The Syria attack may have been one of Trump’s trial balloons which may well have just been shot down with all the firepower the anti-establishment can bring to bear.

The alt-right is actually pretty small, but it’s so easy to overestimate its size because that’s where the new growth and the energy is at.  Audacious Epigone aptly describes them as the “trench warriors” who got Trump into office.

Dissidents have made unimaginable progress since the beginning of the 2016 election entering into mainstream visibility as a political force for the first time.  But now the limits of that influence become clear.

The next obvious step is the rise of politicians who don’t just smile and wink at the dissidents from time to time while “disavowing” but profess their beliefs outright.

We’ll know we’re on the right track when there are leaders who unequivocally and unreservedly denounce pointless foreign interventions, sappy globalist claptrap, and traitorous open-border cuckery while saving the majority of their energy for domestic policy.

It’s time to figure out how to make neo-populists a force in their own right if it turns out the present order is impermeable and unchangeable.

At this moment, we are seeing a new standoff over North Korea, this time possibly with Chinese cooperation.  If that’s so, Trump’s maneuvering may actually have paid off impressively.

However cleverly done, though, nuclear brinksmanship isn’t the reason people put Trump in office.  It would be a big accomplishment if North Korea comes out of this confrontation chastened, but America’s real problems right now are internal.

I understand arguments that Trump wants to reassure his allies after Obama showed weakness and that North Korea is trying to develop missiles that can reach the USA.

The problem with this policy is eventually, most nations will have their house atomics.  North Korea’s boss, China, already is a major nuclear power.  What’s next, unilaterally blowing up Iranian reactors?
It’s 1940s technology and most nations that want to will be able to eventually find the materials and expertise.  
If that’s not something humanity can cope with, perhaps we have the answer to Fermi’s paradox(not yet finding signs of other sentient life).

The alt-sphere finds itself facing its first big challenges as a visible political influence. Like all politics there is a delicate line to walk.  Too strident, you lose your place at the bargaining table.  Too docile, you get nothing anyway.  From now on it will be about finding that sweet spot.

A lot of objectives are already meeting with success:
-The TPP was killed almost immediately.
-Illegal immigration is plummeting.
-ICE has been far more active within US borders.
-Originalist Supreme Court Justice confirmed.
-Some encouraging initial reports that corporations may be returning operations to the US.

However, the re-emergence of neocon foreign policy is profoundly worrying and the rustlings and shufflings of power struggles within the administration are ominous to say the least.  

Critics like Hunter Wallace pointed out all along that a cabinet full of establishment generals, Wall Street bankers, corporate open-borders apologists, big party donors was bound to cause problems.

I guess many of us supposed Trump would somehow bend them all to his will but it seems the simple fact is, people are who they associate with the most.  So special attention must be paid to the last alt-right and nationalist figures in the cabinet.

Like elite classes throughout history, the present elite are unwilling to accept their decline.  If they back off, they will still have social status and their mansions in Potomac and Arlington for awhile living an easy life in an Edwardian twilight.  If they put all their chips down on keeping all the power they’ve got, it will start to get interesting.

Though vilified as a Nazi, Trump ran, for the most part, as a center-right moderate as he has been for most of his life.  I’ve said before:  Obama was the establishment’s last chance to fix the system.  Trump is the system’s last chance.  If this round fails to produce satisfactory solutions, it is possible that the door is opened to the spread of more radical sympathies.

Why the Attack on Syria?

I won’t mince words: Trump’s decision to launch missiles into Syria is a disaster.  In reactions across the internet I am seeing justifications but in no way do the advantages come close to outweighing the costs.
I will address a few:

Trump wanted to intimidate China and North Korea
I doubt the Chinese president is easily frightened and making Kim Jong Un too nervous or desperate could turn Seoul and then the whole Korean peninsula into a smoking crater.

Russians and Syrians had time to evacuate/runways weren’t destroyed etc.
It’s still an act of war on another nation’s territory.  You don’t get brownie points or gold star stickers for playing nice at war.  These measures prevented immediate escalation to actual war but has worsened relations that were already pretty bad for no real reason.  If the goal was to get rid of ISIS why is the US attacking the people who were successully getting rid of ISIS?

That’ll Shut Up the Media About Russian Conspiracy Theories!
This didn’t stop Trump in the election when he was far more vulnerable, it certainly wasn’t going to stop his presidency. Wiretapping ploys and Rice unmaskings were already effectively countering the fake hysteria. Nothing about this relatively small problem required a risky foreign policy move.

Trump showed those pansies he’s not another wimpy Obama!
Trump got elected in part because his opponent was openly agitating for war with Russia and Syria that no one wants.   Obama and Hillary’s disastrous Syria policy helped ISIS form in the first place! Now we’re back to square one after spending nearly two years on the election?

The Syrians were gassing their own peoplez! Look at the cute dead kidz!
We all know this was just an excuse.  It’s irrelevant whether it’s fabricated or not. Trump’s whole America First campaign was a reaction to this kind of moralistic world policing.

The most rational possible reason I can think of for this idiocy is Trump has to make some concessions to the neocons or they would have just let the democrats filibuster Gorsuch indefinitely. 

Trump’s administration desperately depends on getting new justices into the supreme court.  For millions of American voters who did not like Trump, that’s the one issue that pushed them over the edge.  Furthermore, he desperately needs to break the impasse that is preventing him from acting decisively on immigration, the single biggest issue that put him in power.

I recognize it’s a tough situation, a sacrifice of some kind may have been necessary to grease the wheels, but I do not think this sacrifice was worth it.
The optics of attacking Syria right as Hillary came out and asked for it, with all the neocons celebrating afterwards is terrible.

It has just been openly demonstrated that no matter who you vote for, you still get pointless bombs and wars in the Middle East while the same old elites pat each other on the back.
Over $100 million dollars worth of cruise missiles just got dumped on a distant land most Americans could care less about for no real gain.
These conspicuous displays of waste while dams are crumbling and highways are burning down at home starts to sound a lot like just another chorus of “let them eat cake.”

So now Gorsuch is in, a key victory for Trump.  But the meta is even more important.
Now that Americans have seen appointed federal judges can block anything they don’t like…
Now that they’ve seen you get war and bombs in the Middle East no matter who you vote for…
The whole democracy really starts to look like a thinly veiled fiction.  And if that last veil gets stripped away, judges are just silly ugly old people in robes playing make-believe and all you have left is force.

From the start of his campaign, Trump shrewdly sought to curry favor with the military.  He understood if he was going to go against the entire political establishment, he would need solid backing to stay in power against contrived coups.

Unfortunately, we might be discovering a hard truth that neo-con politicians are just the political arm of the military top brass.  

Generals tend to be establishment to the core and incestuously in bed with military industrial contractors.  So perhaps we’ve found the limits of what voting can accomplish.  
Some grudging concessions on immigration and jobs perhaps, but the flow of trillions to contractors who pretend to design fighter planes and wars in the interests of the US’ biggest arms customers must continue.

The problem is the country is being bled dry and the farce is becoming obvious to millions.  Generals can’t really seize power directly until their troops are willing to fire on fellow citizens and if they tried that, they’d find their authority doesn’t go as far outside the beltway as they think.

So Trump still has considerable bargaining power even though he’s under a lot of pressure—if he wants to use it.  In retrospect perhaps we can now see the coils tightening.  Flynn replaced with someone more in line with the innermost circles and now possibly Bannon getting edged out of favor?
At this time all we can do is wait and see what happens next.

The Problem of Rent-Seeking

Money is in theory just a liquid means of exchange so every bit of it should represent real world wealth.
The core problem of a society based on financialization is everyone starts to believe money itself is wealth.  Then society rewards the manipulation of money more than it does the creation of real wealth that actually helps people.

Why would anyone of means do anything productive if they can just collect interest and rent?
Rent-seekers use property to extract wealth indefinitely, making their living from a distortion of reality.
In the world of material things, there is no such thing as a gold mine that never runs out.  There is a limit in value to all things.  Yet those who control property can extract rents in perpetuity.

Patent law recognizes a limit in the claim to the rights of an idea or invention.  In time, the patented material becomes the natural inheritance of those who benefit from it.  So by what principle then does rented property stay forever in the hands of an owner who never uses it for themselves and never produces anything?

In Cincinnati, where I currently live, I noticed there are small patches of land used as paid parking in downtown.  Someone bought a small lot, threw down some asphalt on it, installed a ticket machine and voila, they can rake in cash every day.
The person who provides the parking lot, I thought, provides a useful service.  Not to mention most of these lots are cheaper than the parking garages, so they can save people money too.
On the other hand, I noticed these lots were minimally maintained. The asphalt was worn down, cracked, with weeds growing through it.  I supposed other than checking for freeloaders every once in awhile, there was no incentive for the property owner to do anything else while they reaped their dividends forever.

So the problem here is we need people to develop property and provide services but the value they bring to the table must also be recognized as finite.
The property owner must make a reasonable profit if we want them to bother but it is unnatural and improper for them to bring in an indefinite and infinite harvest once they have long since ceased to contribute new value.

So would it not make sense if there were limits to ownership of property that collects rents?  Like patents, you profit for awhile, but eventually it passes on into the public domain.
This could be especially relevant where there is opportunity cost.
Those little flat, run-down parking lots in Cincinnati are surrounded by 10 story buildings.
So while the land is put to a use that creates some value, surely it would create far more value if it re-entered the market and was used for a multiple story building owned and used by a business that actively creates new value every day.

The total gain appropriate to a renter could be determined by a number of factors.

-Absolute quantity of wealth invested in the property.(Did someone spend millions or billions of dollars on it?)
-Percentage of personal wealth invested.(Did someone put a lot of their money into the property?)
-Riskiness of the investment.
-Amount of effort to develop and maintain.
-Value the property gives back to society.(Penalize houses that sit empty just to get flipped later and/or keep rents artifically high.)
-Opportunity cost to society based on the property’s location.
-Is the property a strategic chokepoint that people have to pay for and therefore easy to command unreasonably high prices for?

The point would be to impose especially harsh penalties against large, lazy property holders who try to be dogs in the manger using the state’s monopoly on force— without which they own nothing—to parasitize others.  Without the threat of armed enforcers, they would probably be shot in the head trying to impose their will.  Why do they deserve state backing that not only hurts society, but delegitimizes the state by association?

Money acquired through parasitism is heresy.  Not only is the sacred relationship of money and wealth desecrated and distorted, every penny of false money-as-wealth is real wealth stolen from those who are trying to help the social order.  Once a society rewards clever defectors, while punishing honest cooperators, it is doomed.  Society cannot exist without maintaining the integrity of its wealth.

A worthwhile society understands that money used as counterfeit real-world wealth is nothing but theft and fraud—not just against one person but against the entire social order.  There could be a generous grace period after implementing such rules after which, perpetrators would be regarded as far worse than mere murderers.

See Also: White Collar Criminals Are Worse Than Street Criminals

Searching For the Golden Mean of Government

Direct democracy is mob rule.  It is so unviable and volatile that no polity has ever had a completely direct democracy.  At best, popular referendums are used sparingly and mostly in local government.
The Ancient Athenian democracy was a disaster and it was even limited to an elite class of citizens.

The founders of the United States took note of history and used the Roman Republic as their model instead of Athens.  
Separation of powers and the use of representatives was far more stable because it could moderate the whims of the crowd and favor the power of one faction over another.

There are those who argue that having a King or Emperor is the best and most natural government.  Monarchy after all has been the most common and stable government for thousands of years.
Monarchists have a good argument that monarchs are effective executives able to make quick decisions when it matters most.  Because their entire lives and family are invested in the state  they have a built-in incentive to care about long-term problems whereas elected representatives just care to get re-elected.
In practice, of course, history has countless examples of incompetent monarchs.  A system that depends so heavily on one person can seesaw between being very well run to a complete nightmare.  

When power is more focused, major changes in policy can occur immediately. But those changes might prove to be disastrous and even bring about the collapse of the state.  
Republican government makes sudden changes in policy difficult to safeguard against any single person making fatal decisions.  It also avoids the ancient problem of being just 1 heartbeat away from wars of succession.  
However, problems that need to be boldly addressed tend to fester when there are safety rails everywhere.

So can we find some kind of balance between autocracy and the republic?
The USA in its current form has nearly universal suffrage and slips into the disaster of mob rule.  The early US republic had limited franchise.  Moderners obsess about suffrage being limited to evil white males but the important part was land ownership requirements.  This may not be exactly what we’d want now, but it gives us a useful principle.  

The idea behind this restriction was that voters had to have skin in the game and safeguard them against people with nothing to lose simply using the state to plunder everyone else.

There was a clear idea that some people were more invested in society as shareholders than others, an idea that’s totally alien to modern concepts of democracy where every warm body has a “right” to vote. 

We also ought to go all the way back to the principles of merit from Plato’s Republic.  Like any other job, those best qualified to rule should be the rulers.  In a republic that would mean we dismiss handwringing over “rights” and worry only about what results we get from bestowing the ballot.

We’d refine the electorate like consultants brought in to trim down a company.  Did we end up fighting wars for no reason?  Were there tax breaks for the rich while peasants starved?  Who voted for these things?  Does someone have the civic knowledge, basic literacy, and intelligence to competently wield the power of the vote? Do they have skin in the game and a reason to care about where society is 100 years from now or does it make no difference to them if they plunder the treasury now?

This is of course an imperfect process. Imagine if we had simply made the top 20% most educated people the only ones with the vote in the US.  Out-of-touch SWPL total rule would have been a disaster for everyone.  So clearly a formula for who gets ballots has to be worked out very carefully.

-Those with special knowledge on an issue get a more heavily weighted vote. (The challenge is this might end up benefiting parasitic insiders.  We’ve all seen where rule by “experts” has gotten us.)
-The whole society gets divided into castes based on capabilities and neurological temperament.  The best(with skin in the game) get to vote.

The basic idea is to use a republican or other system for collective decision-making to limit the potential for a single fool to destroy an empire or for one untimely heart attack to plunge the nation into a war of succession.
Yet there are also far fewer voters making decisions.  Enough so that nothing depends on just one person but so that major decisions and changes are possible.

The Roman Republic gradually fell apart as power had to be “temporarily” granted in crisis situations where political gridlock was simply not an option.  This inevitably led to generals who were more powerful than the state.  When a collective decision making system cannot adapt in real time, it is forced to gradually dismantle itself.

So the successful system of government has to walk a tightrope.
The trick is to benefit as much as possible from the acumen of great men while preventing and blunting the depredations of the worst.
And to benefit from the “wisdom of crowds” from the best crowds rather than an indiscriminate mob.
The use of computers and statistics would play a prominent role in figuring out what works best.

Look up strategies for any online game and we see the experiences of thousands of competent people who played countless hours compiled into build orders timed down to the second, or item builds categorized by victory percentage across an entire server.  It would take more than one person’s whole lifetime to figure all that out by themselves!

Surely these kinds of tools would help a republican oligarchy figure out who has the best judgment to run a health system and who is full of bullshit.

Trump Foreign Policy: Post-Unilateralism

Coalition, or no, whether other nations were willing or not, the brand of America has been built on unilateral foreign policy.  The world’s only superpower was also the world’s policeman.
Power, however, is a tool and as with money even great amounts of it are easily squandered without clear objectives and a sensible strategy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as the ultimate legitimation of unilateral diplomacy, an eternal blank check for Wilsonian exceptional interventionism at the “end of history.”

Every president since Reagan doubled down on this nonsense until it reached a climax of absurdity under George W. Bush.  Obama finally toned it down a little bit, because he had to.  Meddling went on unabated, but with most of America’s once abundant international political capital finally frittered away there was only so much he could do.  By the end of his presidency he was a laughingstock openly mocked by the Chinese leadership, insulted by the leader of the Philippines, and regarded with thinly veiled contempt by Russia.

Trump leads a reaction to a political establishment that has been utterly discredited by its decades of relentless ineptitude and failure despite holding every possible strategic advantage.
It has been clear since Trump’s campaign he envisions a US that conducts foreign policy as a nation among nations, not as a bombastic world police that clumsily throws its weight around.

This will mean, thank goodness, far less meddling in the affairs of other nations and a restoration of balances of power.  By wielding power with a lighter hand, it will become possible to accomplish far more.

The US can begin to create a post-exceptionalist, post-unilateral world by simply withdrawing US military interference.
Having US bases while limiting the military power of the host countries has increased the burden on the US while merely infuriating neighboring powers needlessly.

If the US removes most of its troops and involvement in NATO it forces EU nations to spend far more of their wealth on defense.  If Europe insured itself against Russian aggression, Russia would possibly be more amenable to talking about its interests elsewhere…

With a stable balance of power between the EU bloc and Russia, the US could have more constructive conversations with Russia regarding its extremely long border with China.  China is the only world power with potential, besides a real United States of Europe, to be in the same league as the USA.
America and China are presently economic partners joined at the hip, but we must think towards the long game.  Even as the US-Chinese relationship exists now, why not encourage other powers to contain them, giving the US more bargaining leverage?
In light of this, the complete obsession of the USA’s establishment with the Middle East and anti-Russian sentiment is perplexing.  A major foreign policy coup of the 21st century will be to split Russia from China as Nixon once split China away from the Soviet Union.

America could also withdraw from Japan forming a new, more equal relationship and encouraging Japanese re-armament and cooperation with Taiwan to counterbalance Chinese naval ambitions.
Hopefully, a post-exceptional international order would see the US and Europe able to freely operate with the emerging great power of China hampered by its nervous neighbors.  Why meddle when we need only encourage them to do what serves themselves?  The Daoist maxim to “do without doing” will be very appropriate in coming years.

Regarding Korea, it is ironic that if the US renounced its military commitments in the South, it’s possible the Chinese would become suddenly more amenable to discussing phasing out a client state of North Korea they have no special love for, but have kept around as a buffer against a clumsily over-aggressive US.  Add some diplomatic pressure from  neighboring powers, and perhaps an understanding could be arrived at where none is possible now…

Much of the benefits of a post-unilateral foreign policy come from simply undoing the heavy-handed status quo that counter-productively plays at imperialism.  From now on we may see the US doing more with less or in other words, “under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Trump vs. The Courts

They’re making the same mistake they did during the election.  Committing too much of their forces too early instead of picking their fights and keeping their powder dry for the right time.
In two weeks we’ve already seen endless protests, riots against free speech, and now political power plays from  the judiciary.  What unplayed cards will they still have up their sleeves in two months?

They can have media outrage over everything President Trump does or says.  They can try to hold up his confirmation hearings for his cabinet just ’cause.  They can have judges declare it’s unconstitutional for him to tie his own shoelaces.  They can never “normalize” him or examine the possibility that he’s anything other than Hitler or the devil incarnate.
The thing about effective use of power though is it needs to used like a tool, with precision and in the pursuit of decisive objectives.
Using a frantic scattershot approach is bound to lose.  Try winning at chess or go behaving like that!

If the opposition had chosen key times and places to block Trump spaced out over the next couple of years, they may have succeeded in sapping his momentum and the popular support he requires to stay in power when both parties hate his guts.  This indiscriminate shitshow though will backfire.  A hundred million Americans are watching this happen with shock and the quick succession of events is keeping their attention.

If the judiciary shows it is just another political body without any sense of impartiality or fair play then it loses its legitimacy.  Even if they succeeded in stopping Trump cold from now on, no one would take them seriously anymore as keepers of the law.
This corrosion would leave them vulnerable to a new wave of demagogues that would have them begging for the good old days of a center-right moderate like Trump.
Their total inability to keep the long game in mind or even to approach issues right in front of them with a coherent strategy reminds us why they are falling from power in the first place.  Their ineptitude is great enough, if Trump doesn’t clear them out, someone else far worse for them will.

Today, there will be a hearing in the 9th circuit court over a judge’s ruling that prohibits Trump to mandate the exercise of his most basic constitutional duties.  We are about to see how far they want to escalate this right now and whether they have any basic common sense.  If this goes to the Supreme Court we are entering Dredd Scott decision territory.  It wouldn’t be the first time the courts have been openly co-opted as a political weapon and once that is done, the rule of law itself is undermined.

Update 2/9/17: They really did it.  They ruled against the ban and this escalates further…

Strategic Laziness

Our universe tends towards entropy and chaos.  As complexity of organization increases, resistance rises exponentially, like trying to force two opposing magnets together. (It’s always megafauna, T Rex or Mammoths that go extinct, not E. coli)  Looking at the natural world here on earth it’s quickly clear that every living thing expends as little energy as possible to persist.  Lions with full stomachs sleep most of the time, desert toads hibernate for years in between rains, birds with no predators lose the ability to fly over time. Nothing works harder than it must.  The more complex and energy-intensive the solution, the harder it is to sustain.

Trouble arises, though, when you’re a flightless, fearless dodo perfectly well adapted to your environment and suddenly humans show up. Or likewise, you’re a fit dinosaur species but prove unable to cope with a nuclear winter caused by asteroid impact possibly combining with volcanic eruptions to form a perfect disaster.  Evolution alone can’t plan ahead or anticipate rare catastrophic events.  This is why I think some living things have been pushed towards higher levels of awareness despite its massive costs, so they can be strategically lazy spending as little effort as possible while avoiding the dangers of only responding to constant, familiar stressors.

 The peacock’s tail is one of my favorite examples against the infallibility of nature.  It’s a natural pattern we see often in corporate, governmental, civilizational bloat.  All that sacred competition gets you something that maybe looks pretty but is a worse-than-useless burden sucking huge amounts of energy.  It teaches us that the patterns of civilizations and corporations are every bit as natural as the rippling of sand dunes.  Perhaps the most devastating doctrine of the enlightenment was to hubristically treat man and nature, not only as separate, but as opposites.

When I was about 12 years old, I was responsible for weeding the yard.  Trouble was, there were more seeds constantly blowing in from the desert and most of the lot was dirt and gravel that was perfect for them.  I well knew that even going over the whole yard with a hoe a couple times a week wouldn’t accomplish much.  In a few days, new sprouts were coming up everywhere.  In fact, killing everything just favored the worst sort of thorns that hugged the ground in choking vines, and dropped thousands of their sharp barbs that deflated basketballs and stuck in shoe soles by the dozens.
I noticed at the same time that a lot of the desert plants had pretty flowers, lacked thorns or sticky leaves, and had roots that were easy to pull up if I needed to.  I started what I then called “selective weeding” and let the desert weeds I liked flourish while punishing the thorn vines and the russian thistles that turn into tumbleweeds.
Before long, there was a colorful garden of desert flowers outside my bedroom window alive with the buzzing of bees.  The thorn plants were not even 1/10th of the problem they used to be once they had competition.
Of course my parents eventually asked me why I wasn’t doing my job.  I tried to explain what I was doing, but no one listens to a 7th grade kid trying to avoid work and I was told to take care of it.  So knowing full well what would happen next, I went out and uprooted my experiment.  Soon enough, the thorns were back in force despite our best efforts.
This was a formative experience that influenced my world view ever since.  I learned the futility of sustaining a vacuum against equilibrium.
I later saw the same problems I encountered doing childhood yard chores over and over again in 6000 years of failed human governments.  At some point there’s always well-intentioned policies that try to defy the equilibrium, end up favoring the thorns, and the rest is history.

I came to realize as I grew up in a frantically workaholic American society that nature in fact favors laziness.  An animal at leisure is well-fed and prosperous, a creature that must always work is failing at the game of survival.  It helped explain to me the widespread stress and misery of what should be by all rights a prosperous and happy land.  Constant labor tells us on a gut level that we are always on the brink of starvation, however many mansions and cars we may own.  Some of us become adrendaline junkies while others get ground down into burnouts that just go through the motions.  Whatever someone’s station, there’s just an interminable “job” never a tangible task that has a beginning and an end after which one enjoys the fruits of a job well done.  That I realized is the peculiar insanity of industrial civilization—a trap of Sisyphean futility most are stuck in until they’re dead.
As I approached adulthood I came to understand there was no luxury on earth greater than the power to simply do nothing.

The basic problem of modern civilization is that it favors extravagant solutions arrived at through extreme, specialized competition like the peacock’s tail.
A sense of minimalism, strategic laziness, yields simpler, more resilient, more adaptable solutions.  
Even when gatekeepers force peacock competition with a strategic bottleneck, the payoff for finding a low cost workaround or substitute is very high.

%d bloggers like this: