Friday, May 18, 2018

Well that blew up in my face

So there is this group chat on twitter between a whole bunch of reactionary accounts, including PT Carlo, Halifax Shadow, Eaton Anthony Grey, and and Nick B. Steves, and apparently this is an incredibly polarizing tweet, because I got kicked off the chat after objecting to some shit talking behind my back.

Note to shit talkers:

If you talk shit about someone don't invite them to join your group chat months before you talk shit about them, and then leave the invite open so they can see you taking shit in real time. It's bad manners. Instead, be a good little effeminate bitch and gossip about them behind their back only after you have checked that they are not part of the chat room. Do the right thing and look over your shoulder before you gossip.

Mr. Grey picked a fight with this tweet, and that's like being the only one who turns his head when someone yells "hey dumb-ass!" in a crowded room. If someone calls out people for having sadistic motives it is generally a bad idea to be the one who challenges them. It makes you look like you have sadistic motives.

It's a really bad idea to then prove them right by expressing sadistic desires.

And this is why the left will always win, because the pursuit of reactionary truth stops when we must look at our own desires, because so many reactionaries only desire to shove people in the wood chippers, and countless people on the right wing wear that desire like a bad stink.

Yes, people are unequal. But why do you care? Maybe you just want to operate a wood chipper.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

How to know if a theory is nonsense

Reality is like a metaphorical tree of knowledge, with all branches connecting eventually to mathematics. For example;

Modern dysgenics is based on female psychology + political incentives.

Female Psychology:

6. Female psychology is based in evolutionary psychology
5. Evolutionary psychology is based on the mathematics of gene selection
4. Gene math is based on biochemistry
3. Biochemistry is based on the laws of general chemistry
2. General chemistry is based on atomic physics
1. Atomic physics is based on quantum physics.
0. There is nothing below quantum physics, (that we have proof of).

Political Incentives2:

3. Political incentives are based on the game theory dynamics of democracy.
2. Game theory is based on the prisoner's dilemma.
1. The prisoner's dilemma is based on pure mathematics + maximizing gain under evo psych assumptions.

Thus, modern dysgenics has its root in mathematics of political incentives + quantum physics of evolutionary psychology.

The tree on knowledge has three trunks.

  • Quantum physics
  • Astronomy
  • Pure Mathematics

All of these are "math subjects" — that is — all is reducible to math. Math is the zeroth trunk of the tree.

Now here is an example of a bullshit theory.

  1. Male dominance is based in patriarchy.
  2. Patriarchy is based on systems of oppression.
  3. Systems of oppression are based on white supremacy.
  4. White supremacy is based on historical injustices.
  5. Historical injustices are based in patriarchy.

Wait a minute! Your chain of causality goes in a loop!

Or it might not be a loop. It might just be a web of ideas that all refer to each other, like this;

Not all bad philosophies commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. Some commit the fallacy of self-referential reasoning, where the pattern of logic is much more complex than simply going in a circle, but goes in a self-referential pattern nonetheless. Circular reasoning is simple, e.g.,
The Bible proves the existence of God.
How do you know?
Because God inspired the writing of the Bible.
Self-referential reasoning is vastly more complex. A random possible example is given below.
A is proven by B
B is proven by C
C is proven by D
D is proven by B
C is proven by B
B is proven by D
D is proven by A
A is proven by C
C is proven by A
A is proven by D
D is proven by B
B is proven by C

And yet, no matter how complex it is, or how many twists and turns it makes, it never connects to one of the branches of mathematics. It never refers to anything outside of itself. If feminism were cogent it would go something like this,

  1. Male dominance is based on the fact that equal societies fail, and are out-competed by male dominated ones.
  2. Equal societies fail because women sabotage them.
  3. Women sabotage because of hypergamy.
  4. Hypergamy exists because it is a holdover from tribal mating behaviors, (rape).
  5. Primate rape is the outcome of the mathematics of coercive mating strategies.
  6. Coercive mating strategies have their origin in the mathematics of gene flow.
  7. Gene flow maps to biochemistry
  8. Biochemistry has its origin in general chemistry
  9. General chemistry has its origin in physics.
  10. Physics has its origin in quantum physics.

All cogent theories connect with a scientific subject below them. Economics, anthropology, mimetics, and political science are all based on evolutionary psychology. Evo psych is based on biochemistry, which is based on chemistry, etc.

As already stated, there are three trunks; quantum physics, astronomy, and pure mathematics.

Quantum physics has molecular physics and Newtonian physics as its branches, and maybe other branches also.

All living systems are a subset of chemistry and molecular physics.

All humanities subjects should trace their origin to the math of living systems, that is, to chemistry or molecular physics.

Your theater arts degree is bullshit because it cannot trace performance to evolutionary psychology, which traces itself to biochemistry, etc., etc.

Science is a hierarchy while the "humanities" are a cluster fuck of disconnected subjects.

Reality is recursive.

  • A principle builds a system.
  • The same principle builds the brain that interprets that system.
  • The same principle builds the moral reasoning of the brain that is outraged by the implications of the principle.
  • The brains built by that system, build political systems based on their own psychology, and then fail to grapple with the principles that built them.
  • The brains commit genocide when they finally begin to (mis)understand the principle.
  • The brains develop a taboo against understanding the principle.
  • The brains built by a principle then have to unlearn their own taboo to avoid the next catastrophe.

Our tribal past has given us a capacity for make-believe. Make-believe gives your tribe cohesiveness in the face of existential threats. You have 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 grand parents, etc. As a result everyone in your tribe is a distant genetic relative. If you die for your tribe, but your tribe survives, your genes are still passed on in the other members. Individual death is thus preferable to the annihilation of your whole society, since there are more total copies of your genes in a few thousand relatives than just your own body.

Make-believe creates the Schelling point around which tribal unity occurs. It does not matter what you believe as long as it gives you unity. Make-believe, (religion) is more useful to genetic survival than reality itself.

Because the tribe is more useful than the individual, humans have,
Communist tendencies
Religion in adults, (make-believe in children)
Folk activism
High School Cliques
A sense of morality
Schelling points
Virtue Signaling
Story Telling/Entertainment
Desire for respect
Shaming the unusual

All of these traits persist in the modern era. Most college level subjects can be expected to be proxies for religion (Women's Studies, African Studies, Chicano Studies, etc.) , story telling, (History, Anthropology), exchange, (economics), trade, (accounting, quants), and other subjects. Most subjects relate to tribal nature more than the scientific tree of knowledge.

Because make-believe has more use than reality, humans act like morality is more true than reality. A famous example of this is Marx's labor theory of value, LTV, which pretends that what ought to be, actually is.

This is the most important lesson here, and the lesson is this; humans compulsively insert morality into reality, conflating the two with each other. Science is corrupted because the tribal always makes its way into the scientific. Scientific debates are heated because of folk activism. Genetics is taboo because of xenophobia. The humanities are left-wing because of communist tendencies. Theories that threaten the status quo receive punishment.

People actually have the nerve to say, "we can't study that because of moral consequences," as if science was the problem instead of tribal legacy genes. Morality itself is tribal.

So how do you know that a theory is nonsense? Because it goes in a loop, or forms a self-referential pattern, or has its origin in human nature itself, or because it presents moral assertions as factual ones, or a combination of these behaviors. And if it does not connect up to the tree of knowledge that is a dead give away that it is nonsense.

P.S. Self-referential reasoning is also the cognitive pattern of a schizophrenic.

Friday, May 11, 2018


Poor women deserve good genes for their babies, and society needs to reverse the massive dysgenics that threaten all the life on earth. SPERM COMMUNISM is the answer, dear comrades.

But you say, what is a the sperm communism?

Well, good question, frien. The sperm communism is where high IQ men joyfully donate sperm for the greatness of mother Russia! The sperm is gathered up in buckets, and given to low IQ women, and their low IQ husbands are forced to pay for the children that come out, because stinking Kulaks have to be educated!

  • Not letting all women get good sperm is discrimination, and a symptom of the cisnormative heteronormative, imperialist, capitalist, white supremacist, regressive patriarchy.
  • Social justice demands equally good sperm for all women.
  • The problem isn't too much redistribution, but not nearly enough!
  • Never mind that most of the good sperm will be white sperm, it's her body and her choice, and she can do with her body whatever she wants!
  • Reproductive empowerment means good sperm for all!
  • Notions of fatherhood are outmoded, domineering, and racist. Men should take care of whatever child a woman chooses to have.

Join us, oh brother, in bringing about the new Soviet Man!

Monday, May 7, 2018

A critique of charity

Halifax Shadow is right.

The customers of charity are the donors, and not the receivers, and thus charity does very little to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since the true target of charity are the wealthy benefactors that pay for it, and from their lofty position of privilege, these people have very little idea of what the poor actually need. Charity serves to perpetuate poverty by pretending to do something without doing much of anything at all.

As Alrenous points out;
"in a sense the charities with 80%+ administration budgets are less harmful, as they deliver less toxic side-activity."

This is true to an extent; if the poor have less fake help they will spend less time looking for handouts, and more time looking for a job. In a sense, then, charity is predatory: it distracts people from the real task of raising themselves out of poverty during a time in their life when they are most vulnerable, and wastes their time chasing money that is even harder to earn than a paycheck.

Prestige is why liberals hate vouchers, because it turns the poor into customers rather than grovelers, and ruins the prestige/schadenfreude of running charities. It also ruins the opportunity for liberal white women to display their virtue in front of wealthy men, and thus deprives them of the virtue signaling opportunity to meet a rich husband. Like Sailer's Law of Female Journalism, the real target of charity is the bank account of the progressive woman who runs the charity.

A communist wants to turn a whole nation into grovelers, because somehow making elites pander to customers is less equal than making people suck up to commissars. A Marxist nation is an entire economy turned into a charity writ large, so as to maximize the sadistic pleasure of the same types of smug virtue signalers that run our universities. "Here prole, here is your food ration given to you by your superior bugman." Needless to say, this has never really appealed to the proletariat, who would rather take their chances with the capitalist than live under the thumb of the academic. On some level all poor people realize the intellectuals just want to enslave them, and that communism is little more than a ploy to raise the prestige of academics. They have impure intentions towards proles, and their prestige will always require the proles be below so they can be above, and thus the promise of equality never be realized, and always a lie.

In a capitalist system an academic begs for money, but in a communist system the people beg their intellectual superiors for handouts. No wonder college professors like communism so much.

So what is the real cause of poverty? And what do we do about it? Well, poverty exists because some people are unemployable, and these people are unemployable because businesses operate on thin margins, and 1) some people either have so little skills that they are unable to produce at a high enough level to achieve employment, or 2), they are an active financial liability, or 3), the cost of living has been raised so high by artificial means that regular people have fallen into poverty.

Let us break down these three causes;

First cause: low productivity.
Or shall we say, low productivity relative to the cost of living. In this case the solution is to raise the skill level of the individual to what the market desires. Colleges pretend to do this but routinely fail to deliver because they receive so much money handouts that entire industries are vastly overstaffed, so getting a job in these industries is difficult if next to impossible, even with a degree. A person goes to college to study a subject like, say, psychology, and then graduates to find that they must complete numerous unpaid internships and have friends in the industry to get a job. Often, this is worse than having not gone to school at all, since it suppresses income by wasting time otherwise dedicated to career advancement.
A tuition diversion plan, as described by David D. Friedman in the Machinery of Freedom would have the effect of making colleges align curriculum more closely to market demands. To quote;
"It might be possible to reform our present universities in the direction of such free-market universities. One way would be by the introduction of a ‘tuition diversion’ plan. This arrangement would allow students, while purchasing most of their education from the university, to arrange some courses taught by instructors of their own choice. A group of students would inform the university that they wished to take a course from an instructor from outside the university during the next year. The university would multiply the number of students by the average spent from each student’s tuition for the salary of one of his instructors for one quarter. The result would be the amount of their tuition the group wished to divert from paying an instructor of the university’s choice to paying an instructor of their own choice. The university would offer him that sum to teach the course or courses proposed. If he accepted, the students would be obligated to take the course."
Abolishing subsidies for higher education would also produce a closer alignment with market demands since people would not waste their time studying subjects without knowing it will raise their income first. 

Second cause: active liability
There are only a handful of reasons why a person is an active liability:
  • They are a criminal (interferes with employment because they are untrustworthy)
  • They have mental health issues (also interferes with employment because they cannot follow directions, lash out at customers, etc.)
  •  Addicts/alcoholics (interferes with employment because they commit crimes to feed their addictions, are unreliable, create drama, etc.)
  • People with bad credit histories (interferes with finding an apartment)
  • Veterans with war-related injuries or mental health issues (again, interferes with employment)
  • Disabled people, (because they cannot produce to a high enough level)

Third cause: artificial restrictions on housing supply.
In cities like San Francisco, New York, etc., home owners have conspired with the government to artificially restrict the supply of housing, causing rental prices to rise dramatically. In such a situation people who are of an average skill level find themselves unable to afford any place to live, and ironically the very people who donate to charity are often the ones profiting from artificial restriction. Charity then serves as a kind of fee for bad conscience, as well as PR to conceal corrupt politics. The public housing policies of a city are never meant to replace the lost housing stock, as that would actually work and lower housing costs, which would defeat the purpose. Housing is expensive because the rent seekers who run the government want it to be that way, so anything that actually works to lower housing costs will be opposed violently by them.
It is recursive: a woman who runs a charity cooperates in the the production of poverty by selling charity/emotional masturbation to the guilty conscience of the wealthy people who conspired in the generation of that poverty, while providing access to her body to a wealthy male donor in the hopes of snaring a rich husband. She seeks to elevate her status by selling moral indulgences to wealthy men, and herself a marriage, because the divorce will produce a payout; symbolically mixing the politics of the Catholic indulgences with the business of gold digging.
There are many solutions to this: campaign contribution vouchers would take the power to elect politicians out of the hands of rent seekers. A living wage pegged to the cost of housing would create a tremendous incentive for the business community to put pressure on city government to allow more development — to lower rental costs — to lower wage costs. A cash payment to homeowners within a 5 block radius of new development would incentivize them to support increased traffic in their neighborhood from development, and ignore lost equity gains. A "social dividend" that pays a portion of the proceeds from new development to home owners might have the same effect. An authoritarian government would just ignore the concerns of home owners and build housing anyway.

I did not address active liabilities in the indented passage, and so will do so now. A person becomes an active liability because they threaten the company they work with, or because they are less profitable than an employee without their liableness nature. One solution is employment vouchers that pay employers to hire these people. This is dangerous and could create moral hazard though, since you get what you pay for, and if the payments are too high criminals would be more employable than normal people, and people might then commit crimes to become more employable. But if the payment varied by industry, excluded some critical industries necessary for safety, and was just barely enough to cover the costs of increased liability, or excluded criminals altogether, then it could provide a path to employment for these people. Capitalism is eager to lower costs and route around obstacles, and vouchers would spur innovation in the field of trustless institutions. The ultimate way to employ a felon or madman would be to have some robotic system, able to endure endless abuse, that only pays for objects/information reliably produced, and which is impossible for its human employee to cheat, so that no human interaction with these people is necessary. Such a system of totally trustless capitalism would spur innovations in many other fields, since institutions/systems advance by eliminating trust.

Friday, May 4, 2018

Sexcare, sexual socialism, (and a backdoor to restoring tradition?)


Imagine a world where everyone get laid, where you come home from work to find a girlfriend waiting for you, waiting to wrap her lips around your dick. Imagine that this is a regular occurrence. On Thursday nights you go over to Jill's apartment and fuck her doggy style. Jill likes back massages and her pussy eaten. You help out with the laundry and visit the son you have together with her. Typically you help out with the chores, read a bedtime story to the boy, and then fuck the mom.

On Monday nights you visit Stephanie and cook for her. She fucks you missionary style and likes it when you nibble on her ear lobes. Your relationship with her is more of a friends with benefits kind of thing. You have more in common with Stephanie and think she might be "the one." You can share your opinions with her easier and you both have the same values.

Tonight you are at Hallie's place getting a blow job. You do this every week on Saturday. In fact, everyone does this sort of thing every week. This is normal in America: all the men in this country — even the ugliest, do this every week. What do they do every week? They fuck three different girlfriends. What made this possible? Politics of course.

That Which Nobody Values

No body has an incentive to protect most modern women.

The problem of the modern era is cuckoldry on a massive scale. Men are forced to protect women they are not sleeping with. This incentivizes women to sleep with the worst dregs of society since they are sheltered from most of the consequences, or at least feel they are sheltered from consequences. It destroys male investment in society by creating legions of involuntarily celibate frustrated chumps. It allows male sexual predators to run wild and abuse women. It ruins the will to stand up to hostile foreigners. It creates legions of single mothers who hate men.

The morale of a civilization is built from the possession of women by men. If men feel the women of their own race belong to them they will fight for their society. If not, then they won't. There is a reason interracial relationships always show a Black man sleeping with a white women, or a white man sleeping with an asian women. The target of these portrayals is white men and asian men respectively. The purpose is to use Black men to emasculate white men, and use white men to emasculate asian men. Everyone knows this, especially the liberals who say "we're not your women." Like everything liberals do in pop culture it is designed to ritually humiliate the conservative/racist/white male because he poses a threat, and like it or not, all men of all races feel ownership over the women of their own race.

Making men protect women they are not sleeping with ruins society by forcing men to be cuckolds, and this is deliberate.

A lot of popular desires are actually wise. A living wage would push women out of the workplace as men tend to have higher earning potential than women. If you are forced to pay more then you are disincentivized from hiring anyone who is a waste of money, or who's level of production falls below what their wage costs + a profit margin. In other words, you are incentivized to hire white and asian men over groups, and hire men over women. This is good for both traditional values and reducing immigration. Conservatives, by opposing such measures, stifle a return to the nuclear family without realizing it, and keep women in the workplace. They think only of the primary consequences to the economy, and ignore the secondary and tertiary knock-on effects. Politics isn't just about economics. It is about how politics influences economics, which influences politics, which influences economics, which influences politics. Like Chess, it is about thinking several moves ahead.

If you can't directly create incentives for a traditional society, then how do you create the incentives, that create other incentives, that brings about traditional incentives? How do you change society's circumstances so that it becomes possible to engineer those incentives? Think recursively several moves ahead: what moves will get you to that final level?

A lot of conservatism inadvertently hamstrings a return to traditional values. Opposing a communist revolution has the accidental consequence of inhibiting a return to traditional monarchy, since the inevitable outcome of a revolution is either a monarchy (like North Korea or Cuba) or a fascist regime, (like China, Russia, Vietnam). There is no essential difference between a feudal monarchy and a communist dictatorship. In both systems an all powerful government owns all the land, controls all speech, and dictates all ideology. If Dubai is less oppressive than North Korea it is because it is a capitalist monarchy and not a feudal one.

Nothing is more right-wing than a king, and so the American right wing prevents society from racing around the horseshoe to the other side by inhibiting revolution. The outcome of communist revolution is always fascist government.

The mirror of this is leftists who oppose capitalism even though it is the true revolutionary force acting of society.

Now generally speaking, men want sex, and women want resources (resources = care, protection, money). Let us imagine this situation is a prisoner's dilemma, and there are three basic categories of sexual relationships between men and women;

  • Prostitution
  • Feminism
  • Marriage

Prostitution is a situation where women uphold their end of the bargain — sex — while men defect against them, by refusing to provide fatherly care to their children, love, and protection from other men. A minimum of cash resources is provided, and nothing more.

Feminism is a situation where men uphold their end of the bargain — resources — while women defect against them. It is cuckoldry writ large. Men pay taxes to support other men's children, pay child support, pay alimony, are tone policed in the workplace, and have to provide protection to sluts, female employees, etc.

Marriage (properly constituted) is a situation where both uphold their end of the bargain. Men provide resources, care, and protection while women provide sex and care. Contrary to what feminism asserts, marriage is not prostitution, but a good bargain for both sexes.

Our society is feminist, which means that women are defecting against men. The proper action to take in a tit for tat strategy is to defect against women. The way to do this is prostitution writ large, by turning all women into sex workers, and then use that position of strength to bargain them down to traditional marriage. Let me explain.

You give men "relationship vouchers." If you receive vouchers you cannot redeem them. If you redeem vouchers you cannot receive them. Most men will opt to receive vouchers and most women to redeem them (gays and lesbians being the general exception).

This pays, oh say $150 for a sexual relationship with a women. A woman can collect a maximum of 10 vouchers per month, ($1500). She is expected to provide not just sex but care. If she redeems vouchers from more than one man in a month she has to get regular STD tests because she is a sex worker. If she refuses to provide sex for a man and takes his voucher anyway she loses her right to redeem vouchers for ever. A voucher proves consent. In fact, a voucher has a "I certify under penalty of perjury than I consent to sex with the aforenamed," line on it. Any sex without a voucher is subject to feminist levels of scrutiny about consent. Basically, voucher sex is the only safe way to avoid prison.

This creates a moral climate where prostitution is everywhere and totally normal. Yes, some women might abstain, but every women is surrounded by women collecting vouchers from men. You may be repulsed by the idea of mass prostitution, but a society where all men have a minimum level of financial resources to offer women is a society where people treat each other more fairly. Read the following below to understand why.

The point is to create a more even distribution of sex in society so as to get men invested once more. The point is sexual socialism. The point is to create counter-leverage against feminism so women stop defecting against men, and the point is that once women's status is lowered by turning them all into whores white-knighting will vanish. Last but not least, the point is formalism. Modern women are whores — and vouchers formalize this fact. Beta males tend to worship vajayjay. Once even the ugliest man is getting laid every week his self-esteem will rise. And what could be a more popular campaign promise than "vote for me and I will get you laid!" ?

Indeed, the redistribution of sex is the ultimate culmination of the art of democracy.

If you can get 200 million men pussy you can form an army to overthrow the government. You have just bought yourself a thousand years of regime loyalty.

Bioleninism is the act of forming a political coalition on the basis of low quality genetics. Let us review what bioleninism is according to its inventor, Spandrell, in his orginal Bloody Shovel post. (The underlining here is mine).

"Say what you will about the Soviet Union: the Communist Party was loyal. They got things done. Every crazy and stupid thing that the Politburo approved got done. Yes, it took a while to achieve that result. Stalin had to kill a lot of people. But it wasn’t through sheer terror and cruelty that the Communist Party worked. The Communist Party had a system. Which worked. It still works today in China. You might have noticed how people in the West today talk about China in these same terms. China gets things done, it does them fast and cheap. China got the world’s biggest high-speed rail system in the time that it takes to dig a tunnel in Boston. And for not that much more money. That’s not a coincidence. That’s Leninism at work.

"Any country has a ruling class. What I call “loyalty” you could also call asabiyyah; the coherence of the ruling class as such. Their ability to stick with each other and gang up, keeping the structure of rule stable. Feudalism got that; the nobility was the ruling class, they formed a society very much separate from that of the peasants, and they took much care that their rule was never contested. The destruction of that world by enlightened liberals resulted in a ruling class which was orders of magnitude less cohesive and orderly. You might be a libertarian and think that is a good thing, and you may have a point. But any organization wants to fight entropy and ensure its stability and reproduction. Liberalism historically has shown itself incapable of that. Leninism was the first solution to that problem.

"Leninism is, of course, applied socialism. Socialism was huge before Leninism was even a thing, and that Marxism was and is still popular is not due only to Soviet patronage. Socialism works by hacking the Social Calculus Module that humans have in our brains. Remember, humans care deeply about status. Status is what drives human behavior. Everybody works to achieve more status, and to avoid losing status. Socialism of course sells egalitarianism. It tells people with low status that they can get some more. The Industrial Revolution had forced millions of peasants into the cities, and they all felt they had lost status in the process. Economists will tell you that the standard of living of industrial workers (according to some measures) had actually improved. And that may be so, but the workers didn’t think so, and they were pissed.

"So these socialists come by and tell them they have this plan to make them gain status, big time. That was huge. Yes, sure, Christianity had also started promising the meek that they were morally higher than rich people; they’d all go to heaven unlike those perfid rich guys. But that didn’t translate into actual, real-world status. Socialism was promising actual goods. And so it became huge. It’s still huge. It’s pretty much catnip for humans. It’s instant check-mate.

"Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.

"Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families. The same happened in China, where e.g. the 5 provinces which formed the southern Mongolian steppe were joined up into “Inner Mongolia autonomous region”, what Sailer calls “consolidate and surrender”.

"In Communist countries pedigree was very important. You couldn’t get far in the party if you had any little kulak, noble or landowner ancestry. Only peasants and workers were trusted. Why? Because only peasants and workers could be trusted to be loyal. Rich people, or people with the inborn traits which lead to being rich, will always have status in any natural society. They will always do alright. That’s why they can’t be trusted; the stakes are never high for them. If anything they’d rather have more freedom to realize their talents. People of peasant stock though, they came from the dregs of society. They know very well that all they have was given to them by the party. And so they will be loyal to the death, because they know it, if the Communist regime falls, their status will fall as fast as a hammer in a well. And the same goes for everyone else, especially those ethnic minorities.

"Ethnics were tricky though, because they always had a gambit which could increase their status even further: independence. Which is why both Russia and China soon after consolidating the regime started to crack down on ethnics. Stalin famously purged Jews from the Politburo, used WW2 to restore most of the Tsar’s territory, and run such a Russia-centered state that to this day people in Kyrgyzstan speak Russian. The same in China, a little known fact of the Cultural Revolution was the huge, bloody purge in Mongolia and the destruction of many temples in Tibet. After that was done with, the Communist party became this strong, stable and smooth machine. The Soviet economy of course worked like shit, and that eventually resulted in the collapse of the system. But as China has shown, central planning is orthogonal to Leninist politics. China, of course, had to know. It had been running a centralized bureaucracy for thousands of years. Leninism was just completing the system.

"So again, the genius of Leninism was in building a ruling class from scratch and making it cohesive by explicitly choosing people from low-status groups, ensuring they would be loyal to the party given they had much to lose. It worked so well it was the marvel of the intellectual classes of the whole world for a hundred years

"Meanwhile, what was the West doing? The West, that diehard enemy of worldwide Communism, led by the United States. What has been the American response to Leninism? Look around you. Read Vox. Put on TV. Ok, that’s enough. Who is high status in the West today? Women. Homosexuals. Transexuals. Muslims. Blacks. There’s even movements propping up disabled and fat people. What Progressivism is running is hyper Leninism. Biological Leninism."

How can we reverse engineer this? How can we create a system of biological conservatism? How can we create a system which commands total loyalty without dysgenics? How can we make it eugenic instead? All anyone care about is status, no? Actually, they care about sex a great deal more, since status is the vehicle humans use in order to get to sex.

Prositutional-traditionalism (not a joke) is the act of forming a political coalition out of average frustrated chumps (AFCs), by using sex as a literal weapon to command the electorate.

Nationwide voucher prostitution gives you leverage, and once you have that you negotiate for mandatory marriage. The system of mass prostitution is redesigned so that having one consistent partner pays more than having 10. A single woman with 10 boys gets like 150 each ($1,500 per month) while a married women gets like $2,500 per month for having sex only with one husband. If this bankrupts the government so what. You wanted to get rid of democracy anyway, right? Moreover you use the feminist greed for money to compel them to accept marriage. No doubt once the program gets started there will be constant attempts to increase the amount it pays. You refuse to pay more unless conditions are attached, (only one partner, child support must be abolished, no more community property, sex required, etc.) Your coalition is counting on you to produce a deal that is good for men. Unlike men in the past who were playing a game of defense, ("please don't take my money!") these men are playing a game of offence, ("we control the cash and will decide what we do with it"). It is the deference between extortion and bribery, between slavery to feminism and employment of prostitutes. You are essentially employing an army of whores to literally ride your voters, and you will damn well decide who get ridden, and why, and how much. You're the Pimpboss, and you call the shots.

And what could ruin respect for democracy more than universal prostitution?

The system begins as a bribe and ends as extortion. First you allow feminists to destroy the taboo surrounding sex work. They demand the legalization of prostitution and you "reluctantly" accommodate them; you make a big show of resisting the degeneracy. Later, you have a "change of heart" — embrace sex work as "empowering for women," and propose to fund it.

Now Spandrell doesn't believe you can build an organization out of white men, because they are not loyal enough. To quote;

"The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles. Those people may be very high performers individually, but in a natural society ruled by its core of high performers, i.e. a white patriarchy, they wouldn’t have very high status. So if you promise them high status for being loyal to you; you bet they’re gonna join your team. They have much to gain, little to lose. The Coalition of the Fringes, Sailer calls it. It’s worse than that really. It’s the coalition of everyone who would lose status the better society were run. It’s the coalition of the bad. Literal Kakistocracy."

Unless you only give vouchers to the people who vote for you. You actually can command the loyalties of white men, especially now that they have been marginalized by leftist power. You can command anyone through their loins, and there are literally millions of men out there that are sexually marginalized by feminism, leftism, and the lack of traditional values. Western civilization was built on sexual socialism (mandatory marriage). It is how the kings of Israel inspired their soldiers to fight with passion.. While the Babylonian kings were monopolizing harem's of thousands of women, the Israeli kings were forbidden to look upon another man's wife.

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
— 2 Samuel 12

The equal distribution of sex is the basis of all other Western traditional values. Complaints about democracy hinge on it being excessively prone to equality, but this equality in in status only, while the sexual marketplace is more unequal than ever. In the 1950's 30 % of men owned 70 % of the wealth, while today .01 % of men own 99.99 % of the wealth. Unsurprisingly, this has coincided with a rise in the sexual power of women.

Now an equal society is one where 50% of the men own 50% of the wealth. It is interesting that the society of today (2018) is farther from perfect equality than the monarchies of Europe were in 1770. (Source). It is also interesting that less time has passed between 1950 and today (68 years) than between 1950 and 1770 (180 years). The substantive event during that time was the sexual revolution.

Do it for the Children

When push comes to shove think of the children. With a little artful branding it can be called "child support vouchers," and be used to replace actual child support. Moreover, it would be discriminatory to limit child support vouchers to only those people with children. Merely wanting to have children should suffice as a prerequisite, unless some "principled conservative" get in the way. The rules are deliberately lax. It is called a child support voucher but it behaves like a relationship voucher; one does not actually need children to qualify to get or redeem them. "For the children" is always the back door to sexual revolution anyway.

Government programs always expand.

Then you ratchet incentives to your destination. . .

Milton Friedman predicting cryptocurrency back in 1999

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Go-ocracy: An Alternative Republic

When we begin to redesign democracy we see that majoritarian systems are an accident of history.

A republic can be conceptualized as a game consisting of three parts;
Constitution = rules
Elections = the game
Supreme Court = the referee

Typically, we think in terms of three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and rules, (habeas corpus, equal protection, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.), but the UK has no real written constitution, and its supreme court does not have real power like the US version does.

We may add to this the fact that a republic is based on the consent of the governed, but there is no reason the game has to take the form of elections. It can be based on the Chinese game of Go.

Yes, seriously.

The Constitution of Rules, 
and the Game Itself

First we must understand how Go works. To quote Wikipedia;

The playing pieces are called "stones". One player uses the white stones and the other, black. The players take turns placing the stones on the vacant intersections ("points") of a board with a 19×19 grid of lines. Beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards,[8] and archaeological evidence shows that the game was played in earlier centuries on a board with a 17×17 grid. However, boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard by the time the game had reached Korea in the 5th century CE and later Japan in the 7th century CE.[9]
Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board when "captured". Capture happens when a stone or group of stones is surrounded by opposing stones on all orthogonally-adjacent points.[10] The game proceeds until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and komi (points added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second, which is normally either 6.5 or 7.5 depending on the rule-set being used) to determine the winner.[11] Games may also be terminated by resignation.

Go-ocracy, pronounced go-ock-ra-see, adapts the game of Go to serve the function of elections within a republic, with little else changed constitutionally.

Imagine that each parcel of land is a square on the board.

Imagine that the inhabitants who own land (or mortgage it if mortgaged) constitute the "squares" that need capturing.

Then you capture them by getting them to sign a literal social contract to obey the laws defined by the player who is soliciting their permission. Basically, instead of political parties and congressmen you have players. Each player has his own legal code written by his firm. The player goes house to house in meatspace asking the inhabitants of a parcel for their delegation, (not their vote), or calls them on the phone, or whatever. He basically campaigns for delegations, the same way a congressman campaigns for votes.

The inhabitant is defined as the person, (not bank) who pays the mortgage on a property if the property is under mortgage, and the owner of the property if it is not under mortgage. With apartment complexes this is the landlord, and with houses this is the person who bought the house, the mortgagor. It has to be this way, otherwise banks would determine the legal system and control everything.

If one gets a series of delegations of properties that are adjacent to each other, with adjacent being defined as either (a) the property lines touching, or (b) the property lines being across the street from one another, then he begins to build a "ladder" which he can eventually use to encircle some parcels. Once parcels are encircled they are "captured" and fall under the legal jurisdiction of the the player and his laws.

To prevent gangs from terrorizing people into delegating to one player or the other, players are not allowed to have armies or police forces, and the cops are a separate part of the government. Players make law but do not enforce the law.

Also, to prevent the endless harassment of home owners by campaigners for their delegations, each home owners fills out a card which rank orders his his preferences like this;

First choice: Mayfield's legal system

If I am in jeopardy of being captured by any of the following;
Jim's legal system
Bob's legal system
Jack's legal system
And If it will get me uncaptured then my second choice is;
Mark's legal system
If the above is not available, and if it will get me uncaptured, then;
Ethen's legal system
Etc., etc.

This is a simple version, but basically one can program a whole flowchart of alternatives which says, "to avoid being captured by X, Y, or Z, I will choose automatically Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω in that order."

Every parcel of land on the board is like this, with rank ordered preferences of alternatives.

This makes the board fiendishly complex and can set off cascades of territory change.

To prevent the police from being confused, a snapshot of the arrangement of law-territory is taken once per year on September 1st and that becomes the configuration of the law for 12 months until August 31st of the following year. The game is played in real time 4 hours per day, 3 days per week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but the territory of law changes one year at a time.

No one player may capture more than 20% of the territory in a given county. In one state, up to 25 players per million inhabitants may play the game. If there are more than 10 applicants, new players are added on a first come first served basis.

A homeowner may update their rank ordered preference at any time with their local brokerage office. If a person does not make a decision by the cut-off date one is automatically assigned to a player by lottery.

The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.

Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive supreme courts. A supreme court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Let me explain.

Whenever there is a dispute between two players one brings suite against the other. But first they must determine which court it shall be tried in.

Say there are 100 supreme courts. Then each fills out a card with a rank ordering of 51 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (51). There is always at least one guaranteed overlap. The number of rank ordered preferences is equal to 50% plus 1 if the total number of registered supreme courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always 1 overlap.

The highest ranked preference, which is shared by both parties in the dispute, is the court in which the case is tried. All decisions are final. If there is more than 1 overlapping preference the highest mutual preference for both is the one chosen. If there is a situation where both parties have a total of 4 highest mutually agreed upon rank ordered preferences, then a coin toss decides. For example;

Now you may object and say, "but what is to stop someone from being tried in a biased court?" Competition. Think about it. Let's us say that you run a terribly biased supreme court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someone's list, but it will get you ranked at the bottom of their political opponent's list. The overlap is the one who gets the business, and so every court is competing to be as unbiased as possible in order to get business. The court that gets the business gets a voucher from the state, and gets paid. The one that does not get the business does not get paid. Thus, all referees compete on neutrality.

The Way Rules Get Made

Right now we have a House and Senate. The Federal government is only allowed to make game rules, and not laws themselves. The competitive supreme courts ensure that because they compete for business. Game rules are proposed in an elected House, but then they go directly to the people for voter approval. All approvals are temporary since they are additions to the existing constitution of rules. The length of approval depends on the level at which they are passed. Like this;

For each percentage above 50%, take the percentage above 50%, multiple by 100 and divide by 2 to get the number of years the new game rule is in effect, and round up.

For example;

A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.

65% - 50% = 15%

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = 7.5

7.5 rounded up is 8 years.

The new game rule shall be in effect 8 years, and then automatically expire.

This assumes you even want new rules to be possible. A different configuration is possible with owners rather than voters making the rules.

New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire.

Modeling the System with AI

Because this is a game it can be modeled with AI, and modeling it is a strength rather than a weakness. No doubt players will use AIs to model strategy. The benefit of this is that the results of game play can be anticipated in advance of creating any system, and the constitution of game rules can be adjusted to produce any kind of outcome or equilibrium we desire. That is the point: stability. Since game play can be simulated a game can be designed that reaches a stable but competitive state. The system remains dynamic without producing a single winner, and since both the players and the game rule makers use AI to model everything they can anticipate results of rule changes in advance. This means that whoever makes the rules has a pretty good idea of what they are doing.

The Ownership Alternative

There has to be some sort of point at the top where game rules get made. If that is a democracy then you still need a congress and a president, and that means you will still have a minimum of majoritarian politics. The alternative is to have congress elected by share holders rather than voters, or to have a king unify the whole system. Why would a king or share holders let ordinary people determine the laws they live under? Because they have an apolitical desire to create regime stability by invoking the consent of the governed. Granted that is a stretch though. A bad king may just destroy the game and opt for direct control. A congress will probably exceed its authority. Shareholders may put greed above the good of the nation, or serve private agendas. I have not figured out how to guarantee territorial unification without the federal government potentially over reaching its authority. If the federal government is nothing but the competitive supreme courts this would work, but how to maintain competition? How to prevent invasion? As usual the threat of eternal enemies presents a problem to internal freedom.

Monday, April 30, 2018

The Ascent of Afred

Blogger really doesn't want me to share this link, and won't let me connect it directly.

This is still way better art than progressives produce.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Anarcho tyranny, right wing style

Everyone is exactly what they need to be to guarantee social decay.

Conservatives could easily defeat the left by simply doing the exact same things back to the left that the left has done to them, forcing the left to attack their own actions.

How would liberals feel if White men benefited from affirmative action? What if there was a quota requiring universities to hire conservatives? What if conservatives were a protected class and it was illegal to discriminate against them? What if there was a "separation of ideology and state" that prohibited using tax dollars for teaching liberal/Marxist subjects? What if it was impossible to get a college degree without being subjected to eight semesters of conservative indoctrination? What if White people were a protected race?

How would liberals feel about that?

What if "affirmative action" gave Whites preferential hiring for federal jobs? 

What if the income of the left was redistributed to the right?

What if profits from "frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits" were taxed at 100 %? What if the language of the law was written in such a vague way that all sexual harassment laws were considered frivolous?

Why not destroy elite corruption by nationalizing the companies that employ lobbyists, then passing reform, the privatizing them again? You keep the free market and bankrupt the globalists.

You could practice sexual socialism by giving all men "relationship vouchers" that women could redeem. You could redistribute the means of reproduction, and your political party would have a solid lock on the beta male vote for the next hundred years.

What if you weakened manufacturing standards for birth control to the point where sugar pills could be sold as contraceptives? If you ban something you create a black market, but if you CORRUPT something then there is no way for the market to route around it. What if you make sure that both legal and black market birth control are totally unreliable? You make it impossible for women to safely ride Chad's dick.

What if the only way to get reliable birth control is to (a) get married, and (b) have 3 children, and (c) join the new Nationalist Party?

"Ok, well you have 3 children so now so it's fine." Our black market dealer will contact you."

Remember, governments don't have to enforce all the laws on the books.

And monopolies on reliability are perfectly legal.

You just make sure your party owns the only reliable contraceptives in the country.

"Gangs" occasionally pull over semi-trucks carrying birth control and swap the pills with sugar pills. Because the Highway Patrol was conveniently on out of range to respond. Drivers go to their destination as if nothing happened because they are party members. You make sure they are party members, or else.

What if you make it legal for porn companies to give computer viruses to their customers? Sure you can look at porn. It may turn your hard drive into a brick, but you can look at it. What if you deliberately infect their servers? What if you ignore their pleas for an investigation? Not everything in the economy needs to function well. The law does't have to be applied everywhere. Cyber laws don't have to protect porn companies.

What if you simply fail to enforce the laws against violent right-wing militias? What if these militias make it impossible to be a minority in the United States? You don't physically remove them, no. That would be unconstitutional. Citizens have rights I say! But you don't protect them either. You let private armies drive them out.

What if there was a tax on hiring non-Whites — to correct — "the injustice of progressiveism"? What if there was a subsidy to hire non-Whites — in Mexico?

What if there was a tax on renting to non-Whites in the US? What if there was a subsidy to rent to non-Whites, in Mexico? And what if public service announcements made it very clear that there were lots of jobs and apartments down south, but only for minorities?

What if Mexico was a vast dumping ground for undesirables because America invaded it and turned it into a territory?

What if there was a "terrorist attack" committed by the Mexican government that justified such an invasion?

Speaking of terrorists...

What if pedophile activist become terrorist, and this justified drastic action against them? Somehow a group of pedophiles was radicalized and proceed to go on a bombing spree because they want the legalization of pedophilia?

Hell, what if the Mexican government funded pedophile terrorists involved in a child sex trafficking ring? Because the Mexican government was getting kickbacks? Because the politicians were banging underage sex slaves?

I mean, it sounds like something they would do.

In the ensuing chaos, would not extreme measures be warranted?

What if you opened a few dozen "interment camps"? Because "pedophiles are a threat to our national security." You throw a few million pedophiles into the camps. Oops! There was a bureaucratic error. These feminists and social justice professors got classified as child molesters by mistake. Well they did try to destigmatize it, didn't they!

You feed the people in "internment camps" 1200 calories a day, and work them 14 hours a day, 6 days a week doing hard labor. They "accidentally" die, just like the people in Stalin's gulags.

Oops! The historical records seemed to get lost when the records building burned down! How sad! But don't worry! Our special committee has ruled that it was an electrical fire. Yes sire-ree, what an unfortunate accident. Nothing to see here.

I guess we will never know just how many social justice warriors perished in the camps.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

1.1 on the Scientology Emotional Tone Scale

Part 1: The Genetics of Female Aggression

Did you hear that? Ugly men are "monsters" from this woman's perspective. Also, social stigma is "force," whereas market equilibrium under birth control is "non-aggression"; "you do you and I'll do me."

Though I am not a Scientologist (even though I was raised as one), I can't help but instinctively go back to the religious education I received growing up. It's the first place I go when I am confronted with a problem that has no easy explanation, or a human behavior that defies comprehension. This comment is dripping with an overwhelming entitlement, and a violent contempt for most men. She implicitly asserts that an entire subsection of the male sex is unworthy of her, as if one must be worthy of sex, as if men are somehow beneath women, as if she is worthy of them, as if she is above them, as if any man could tolerate her, etc. A whole series of assumptions are being made here.

Evolutionary psychology has its answer, and Scientology has a completely different answer. In fact, Scientology hates psychiatry, and views it as a destructive materialistic delusion. Evo-psych prescribes a factual basis for this woman's behavior, while Scientology prescribes both a factual explanation and a normative prescription. Unlike evolutionary psychology, Scientology tells us what to do about it. Let us first talk about the evolutionary reason, and use evo-psych to knock down the legendary BS known as the "non-aggression principle," or as I call it, the principle from which all conservative cuckoldry flows.

Simply put, the NAP is impossible. If there are two groups, one that is aggressive and one that is not, the aggressive group will out-compete the peaceful one. If there are two races, one with high birth rates and one with low, the one with high birth rates will overrun the later. If there are two religions, one with fanatics and one without, the one with fanatics will invade the one without. Non-aggression falsely assumes a stasis between two groups, when in reality, even the most mundane differences can impose themselves on others through market dominance, even if those differences represent a suboptimal equilibrium. Purveyors of the NAP believe without substantiation that whatever wins deserves to.

Just like there is no nonaggression between groups, there is no non-aggression between lifestyle choices. If one society wears the head scarf it legally imposes modesty on women. This benefits older women, (who are the majority) at the expense of younger women, (who are the minority, and who will one day become the majority). It decreases intrasexual competition between women, just like all the other prohibitions against immodesty.

A society without laws forcing women to cover up is not a society without conflict, sexism, force or inequality. The absence of a law is not the absence of force. In a permissive society where women are allowed to parade their bodies half-naked. The result is that women who refuse to show off their bodies are at a severe disadvantage in sexual competitions with other women. The same applies to sex. Women who refuse to have premarital sex in a society with widespread promiscuity are disadvantaged relative to those that do. The competition to show ones body — and open ones legs — has all the force of law without any law being made. It imposes itself as a compulsory lifestyle. The alternative is to become a desperate female Christian 40 year old virgin.

The point is that one lifestyle always crows out another. Purveyors of the NAP probably know this and are disguising force as choice, or at least deceiving themselves by refusing to understand that the absence of government forces does not equate to the total absence of all force.

Since various market equilibriums are not the absence of force, but the presence of a different kind of force, people are justified in regulating markets if their version of freedom demands it within their patch of sovereignty. This regulatory right extends to sex.

Nonaggression cannot exist because genes program behaviors that favor conquest and aggression. Those genes that spread, propagate the characteristics of aggression that cause their spread. Obviously.

Basically, genetics renders the NAP impossible.

So coming back to our topic: where does this profound attitude of female entitlement come from? Answer: the genetics of aggression in women. Hypergamy is aggressive — even violent. It is in fact the way violence expresses itself within the female sex, or another way of saying this is, the intrasexual competition between women for a small pool of alpha males, is to women, as intrasexual violence is to men. Women backstab over the one alpha just like men fight with each other over the distribution of women, and hypergamy produces a secondary violence of male sexual drought which has just as much force as if a law had been made.

Part 2: Covert Hostility

In Scientology 1.1 is pronounced "one one" or "one point one," hence the title of this essay. Being "one one" is probably Scientology's biggest taboo, and rightly so. It is again to the Christian prohibition against covetousness, "Thou shalt not covet." — Exodus 20:17. It should matter more in Christianity that it does.

The first place I go when stressed or baffled is my Scientology training, since it came first, and I learned it as a child. Only after, do I reach for the evo-psych logic I learned later in life. But Scientology has an answer for why some women are promiscuous, and why a woman would prefer a life of barren promiscuity to a life of stay-at-home motherhood. In the below extended reference I have changed words like "he" "him" and "his," to, "she" "her" and "hers." I have substituted the masculine for the feminine, I have sprinkled in some other notes in parentheses. Basically, I have rewritten some parts to change the gender of the subject from male to female. All references are stitched together from the book Science of Survival, and are L. Ron Hubbard speaking. He is talking about the emotional tone scale, a scale of emotions from Total Failure at the bottom (-40.0) to Serenity of Beingness at the top (40.0). The tone scale is not about a person's temporary emotional state but their chronic emotional tone, that is, the dominant emotion they feel every day. It is also meant as a moral judgement, as you will see.

I have underlined crucial parts relevant to perverse behaviors in this society and its screwed up attitudes towards the second dynamic. I find reading this like taking a bath because it lifts my mental fog and eliminates confusion. L. Ron Hubbard is just so incredibly certain of what he is talking about, and methodical in his presentation.

Below anger we go into a slightly sorrier level, covert hostility. Here is a woman who hates but is afraid to say she hates, who deals in treachery and who yet expects to be forgiven (demands tolerance) At the lower end of covert or hidden hostility we have the continually frightened person, (suffers from anxiety) the individual ridden by fears, the person who is afraid to be or to own anything. 
Around 1.1, we reach the level of covert hostility. Here the hatred of the individual has been socially and individually censured to a point where it has been suppressed, and the individual no longer dares demonstrate hate as such. She yet possesses sufficient energy to express some feeling on the matter, and so what hatred she feels comes forth covertly. All manner of subterfuges may be resorted to. She may claim to love others and to have the good of others as her foremost interest; yet, at the same moment, she works, unconsciously or otherwise, to injure or destroy the lives and reputations of people and also to destroy property. Below 1.0 we reach fear, which is expressed on its highest level as acute shyness, stage fright, extreme modesty, being tongue-tied among other people, being easily frightened by proffered affection. Here also we reach the strange manifestation of the individual attempting to buy off the imagined danger by propitiation. We have an interesting example of this in processing.

(Processing is just another word for spiritual therapy, which is just another word for auditing)

Widespread covert hostility can be produced by censorship. You know that feeling of "being dead inside" that public school tends to instill? What is that, fear? (1.0), or covert hostility? (1.1).

Cases which are far down on the tone scale will, when they reach 1.0, (fear) quite commonly offer the auditor presents and attempt to do things for (her). A crude description of this was once contained in the idea of transference. At this level we have withdrawal from people. At 0.5, (apathy) we reach the level of grief, wherein we have supplications by the individual, (her) pleas for pity, (her) desperate efforts to win support by tears. We may even have at this level extremely strange perversions of truth intended to achieve the pity and support of others. For instance, the rejected sweetheart, reaching this level of grief may invent all manner of odd and peculiar incidents of cruelty on the part of the last lover in order to win the sympathy of those around her. (This paragraph was unmodified. He actually uses the term "her" here).
Possibly the most exact borderline between sanity and insanity would be that between knowing that one was imagining what had happened and not knowing that one was imagining. All recalls can become short-circuited through the imagination, so that the “I” is led to believe that it is recalling an actuality when really it is having furnished to it from the memory banks an imaginary sequence. When ARC (affinity-reality-communication) is very low on a case, usually below the 2.0 (antagonism) range, the condition obtains with the case that many of his recalls (of past lives), no matter how authentic “I” considers them, are imaginary. As an example of this, consider the person in an anger state who is recounting a conversation or a quarrel he has had. People who are angry almost never tell the truth. People who have sunk to the covert hostility range become so confused between reality and imagination that even their small talk is utterly untrustworthy, and yet these people may believe they are telling the truth. This is a case of recall being short-circuited through the imagination and “I” being furnished imaginary data which is yet labelled as authentic data. Possibly the most flagrant breach of truth occurs in the apathy range or slightly above it, where fear, mingled with grief can cause the wildest perversion of recall.
Below this level, before we reach 1.1, the individual sinks into stubborn silence, sulks, refuses to talk. He will not listen to any communication of any kind from other people, except that which encourages him in his attitude. At 1.1, we have lying, to avoid real communication. It takes the form of pretended agreement, flattery, or verbal appeasement, or simply a false picture of the person’s feelings and ideas, a false facade, an artificial personality. Here is the level of covert hostility, the most dangerous and wicked level on the tone scale. Here is the person who smiles while he inserts a knife blade between your vertebrae. Here is the person who tells you he has stood up for you, when actually he has practically destroyed your reputation.
Here is the insincere flatterer who yet awaits only a moment of unguardedness to destroy. The conversation of this level is filled with small barbs which are immediately afterwards justified as intended compliments. Talking with such a person is the maddening procedure of boxing with a shadow: one realizes that something is wrong, but the guardedness of a 1.1 (covertly hostile person) will not admit anything wrong, even as, all the while, he (or she) does her best to upset and wreak havoc. This is the level of the pervert, the hypocrite, the turncoat.
This is the level of the subversive. From such a person one should never expect an outright frontal attack; the attack will come when one is absent when one’s back is turned, or when one sleeps. Any luckless person married to a 1.1 is, literally speaking, in danger of his life and sanity; for such a person is incapable of any real affection; such a person is so introverted that any demonstrated affection is a hectic sham. Such a person will opportunistically take any avenue which leads to his own security and will leave in the lurch anyone he has pretended to call his friend.

I have to interject at this point because the gender theorist and lesbian dyke Judith Butler wrote a book called Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity where she actually advocates the subversion of traditional sex roles — I mean she literally — says basically says, "we have to subvert gender," over and over again in different ways. I mean my god, it's in the title of the book. Look here, straight from the horses mouth;

"This text continues, then, as an effort to think through the possibility of subverting and displacing those naturalized and reified notions of gender that support masculine hegemony and heterosexist power, to make gender trouble, not through the strategies that figure a utopian beyond, but through the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of precisely those constitutive categories that seek to keep gender in its place by posturing as the foundational illusions of identity." Page 44.

These people are so conforming to Hubbard's classification system they are like a goddamn parody of themselves. When a Scientologist reads Gender Trouble — if he even reads it — he rolls his eyes and goes, "well that's 1.1."

At 1.1 (covert hostility) is the most dangerously insane person in society, and is likely to cause the most damage. Because of the covert nature of this insanity, it is completely beside the point whether such a person is pronounced insane by any agency. On this level there is no concept of honor, decency or ethics; there is only desperate, death-bent thought of self and of damage to others. Society can handle the angry man; it knows what to expect from him. Society can handle the apathy case; his/her insanity is obvious.
But the 1.1 is a skulking coward who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to give warning. Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family’s loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate. A 1.1 can be accurately spotted by his conversation; since he seeks only to enturbulate (shake up emotionally) those around him, to upset them by his conversation, to destroy them without their ever being aware of his purpose. He listens only to data which will serve him in his enturbulations (attempts to shake people up emotionally) Here is the gossip, here is the unfaithful wife, here is the card cheat; here is the most undesirable stratum of any social order.

Or why there is no such thing as "ethical non-monogamy" because there is no such thing as a promiscuous person who is not subversive towards society. Just like there is no such thing as an non-subversive adulator, non-subversive practicing homosexual, etc.

First some terminology.

"Restimulate" roughly describes a feeling that one has related to a traumatic moment of pain. A person who is "restimulated" is reminded — even if only unconsciously — of a moment of pain in such a manner that the dread/hate/fear/negative emotion comes rushing back to them. I you have ever walked into a room where you were abused and felt a sudden sense of panic you have experienced "re-stimulation." If an object or facial expression has ever caused you terror or instant hate for reasons you cannot explain you experienced "restimulation."

In Scientology, to "destimulate" is the opposite. When you walk though a field of tall blades of grass and feel your hands brush through the grass you feel "destimulated." When you go hiking and feel totally refreshed you feel destimulated. When your head is completely clear and you live in the moment you are destimulated.

Preclear roughly translates as "spiritual patient,"

Auditor means roughly "spiritual therapist." It has nothing to do with accounting.

Presenttime is spelled as one word on purpose, since in Scientology it refers to a person's ability to experience the present moment. A person's ability to experience presenttime is a measure of sanity. People who cannot come to presenttime are unconsciously stuck in traumatic past incidents. After the end of a spiritual therapy/auditing session the therapist may ask "are you in presenttime?" And snap his fingers and say "come to presenttime." This is because auditing is all about reliving past lives, and the auditor needs to make sure you have returned to the present before letting you walk out the door.

No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of 1.1’s. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst. The 1.1 is so low on the tone scale and yet so active mentally, as a rule, that he is very difficult to process. The longest and most arduous course of therapy may still leave the auditor baffled by a mind which is so full of circuits that no real desire for improvement on the part of the preclear can make itself felt. The auditor may feel that only an offer of an obvious presenttime advantage, like being let out of confinement, would tempt this preclear into genuine cooperation. The auditor may feel that this case is just not salvageable. But if, in the case, the auditor can manage to remove some of the circuits or destimulate them he may be able to make progress. It takes a very clever Dianetician (practitioner of Dianetic spiritual therapy) to do anything with a chronic, computational 1.1.

That is really complicated so I will translate.

"No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of covertly hostile people. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst. The covertly hostile person is so low on the tone scale and yet so active mentally, as a rule, that he is very difficult to treat with spiritual therapy. The longest and most arduous course of therapy may still leave the therapist baffled by a mind which is so full of irrational mental processes that no real desire for improvement on the part of the analysand can make itself felt. The therapist may feel that only an offer of an obvious immediate advantage, like being let out of confinement, would tempt this analysand into genuine cooperation. The therapist may feel that this case is just not salvageable. But if, in the case, the therapist can manage to remove some of the short circuiting mental blocks, or remove enough compulsive anxiety from them he may be able to make progress. It takes a very clever therapist to do anything with a chronic, computational, chronically covertly hostile patient."

Regarding the position of free love on the emotional tone scale.

It will be noted, in observing the behavior of human beings, and on this chart of the tone scale, that promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices fall far down the line. Free Love falls, also, in this very low band; since man is relatively monogamous and since it is non-survival not to have a well ordered system for the creation and upbringing of children, by families. A society which falls into this 1.1 band of the tone scale can be expected to abuse sex, to be promiscuous, to misuse and maltreat children, and to act, in short, much in the way current cultures are acting. It is of vital importance, if one wishes to stop immorality, and the abuse of children, to de-aberrate this dynamic for the whole group of the society, to say nothing of individuals.

Aberration means deviation from a straight line, perversion, neurosis, insanity, etc. To be aberrated is to be less sane than one should be. A person receiving the spiritual therapy known as auditing is called an "aberree" among other terms.

In Scientology our society is considered covertly hostile at most. I remember my cousin who was on staff in the Church once saying that they did a survey to try to ascertain the emotional tone level of the public, since knowing people's tone level would allow for better marketing. He said that they concluded that America's chronic tone was fear, or 1.0, which is slightly below covert hostility.

At the highest (physical) point of the tone scale, 4.0, (enthusiasm) one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. At 3.5 (cheerfulness) on the tone scale, we have a high interest in the opposite sex, and constancy, but we do not have so great a sublimation. At 3.0 (conservatism) on the tone scale, we have some falling off in sexual interest, but we have an interest in procreation and children. At 2.5, (boredom) we have some disinterest in procreation, not for any reason beyond a general failure to be interested in much of anything. The sexual act can be adequately performed, given the physical ability. At the band of 2.0, (antagonism) we begin to get a disgust for sex, a revulsion toward sex, mostly when irregularly practiced. At the 1.5 (anger) band of the tone scale, we find sex appearing as rape; we find the sexual act being performed as a punishment.
At 1.1 (covert hostility) on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices. We have no enjoyment of the sex act but a hectic anxiety about it. The sex act cannot truly be enjoyed whether performed regularly or irregularly. Here is Free Love, easy marriage and quick divorce, and general sexual disaster. People at this level on the second dynamic are intensely dangerous in the society, since aberration is contagious. A society which reaches this level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went the Romans, as goes modern European and American culture. Here is a flaming danger signal which must be heeded if a race is to go forward.
At 0.5, (grief) we have impotency and anxiety about sex, with only occasional efforts to procreate. On the second dynamic we get occasional resurgences, from 0.5 (grief) up the scale, which quickly relapse.

Now Hubbard talks about the attitude of people towards children at various different levels on the tone scale. The term "dwindling spiral" refers to the cycle of spiritual decline that happens both within a life and across many lifetimes of reincarnation. It is a spiritual cycle where the individual "spirals downward" through a series of traumatic experiences that happen again and again, life after life. The dwindling spiral is caused by the abuses one receives, and by the sins one commits. The term "second dynamic" refers to sex (2DA), and the product of sex, which is children (2DB). Death is considered a point on the tone scale corresponding to 0.0.

"It is interesting to note here the application of the principle of the dwindling spiral to the second dynamic. On any of the dynamics and on any column of this chart, when the individual sinks below the 2.0 (emotional antagonism) level, the dwindling spiral rapidly carries him down through 1.5, (anger) 1.1, (cover hostility) 0.5, (grief) to death (0.0). This is particularly evident on the second dynamic (with regards to sex). The 1.1 (covertly hostile) individual, engaged in frantic pseudo-sexual activity today, will in a very near tomorrow, much nearer than he suspects, find himself or herself at the 0.5 (grief) level of impotency and anxiety.
The organs of sex, at the 0.5 level, become relatively useless; indeed, this second dynamic tone scale is closely applicable to the endocrine activity of the individual and the form and condition of the physical body. The woman who in her teens was at the 1.1 level of the scale will not have a well enough developed pelvic structure or endocrine system to permit her bearing children with ease. Difficult births are a normal result of too long a residence in a low band of the tone scale during the formative period of the body. Easy births can only be expected with women who are relatively high on the tone scale.

"Pretended death band" is a term that refers to those points on the emotional tone scale in the negative numbers. For example "worshiping bodies" is a tone level of negative 5.0, "being objects" is -10.0, and "controlling bodies" is -1.5. Even sex is on there at -6.0 and it is called "sacrifice." Yes, sex is a tone level.

It is noteworthy that the 1.1 to 0.5 area of the tone scale finds the muscles, particularly the sexual muscles, without tonus. The nymphomaniac and the satyr are extremely slackmuscled, (loose lips) and the tonus around 0.5 is almost non-existent. In the pretended death band there is, of course, no effort to procreate. Along the -1 band, where the organism as an organism is dead but the cells still survive, it is interesting that ejaculation and sexual activity occasionally take place immediately after the death of the individual, which gives some index of the strength and force of this dynamic.

Now here it gets really interesting.

Life is defined, in cytology, as an unending stream of protoplasm from the beginning of life itself until now. Down through the ages as a continuous genetic stream, this protoplasm is modified by natural selection and environmental conditioning, as well as by what seems to be outright planning, from generation to generation. Because life is so dependent upon this lifeline, it is very easy to place too great an emphasis upon the sexual act, the thing which keeps this lifeline in a continuous stream.
The second part of this dynamic concerns itself with children, the product of sex. There is a gradient of reaction toward children, from the top to the bottom of the tone scale, which the auditor (spiritual therapist) can use in order to place his preclear properly on the chart.
At 4.0 (enthusiasm) there is an intense interest in children, which extends to both the mental and physical well being of the children and the society in which these children will live. Here are efforts to add to the culture so that the children will have a better chance for survival.
At 3.5, (cheerfulness) we have a love of children, a care of them, an understanding of them.
At 3.0, (conservatism) we have an interest in children.

Conservatism, a term which is normally considered political in nature, is considered a relatively high emotional tone in Scientology.

At 2.5, (boredom) we have a tolerance of children, but not a great interest in their affairs.
At 2.0, (antagonism) we have nagging of, and nervousness about children.
At 1.5, (anger) we enter the band of brutal treatment of children, heavy corporal punishment, the forcing of the child into a mould with pain, breaking his dramatizations, upsets about his noise or clutter.
At 1.1 (covert hostility) on the tone scale, there may be two reactions to children. There may be an actual and immediate desire for children, as a manifestation of sex. But we also may have the use of children for sadistic purposes. And we may find both of these in the same individual. We have a long-term general neglect of children, with an occasional sporadic interest in them; we have very little thought for the child’s future or the culture in which the child will grow up.At 0.5, we have mainly an anxiety about children, fear that they will be hurt, fear of this and fear of that concerning children, and a hopelessness about their future.

So neglect is a feature of covertly hostile parents, as well as indifference towards the condition of society, the future of the nation, etc.

At 1.1, a mother will attempt the abortion of her child; and any woman who will abort a child, save only if the child threatens her physical life (rather than her reputation), lies in the 1.1 bracket or below. She can be expected to be unreliable, inconstant and promiscuous; and the child is looked upon as evidence of this promiscuity.

In Scientology women who get abortions for any reason other than to save their own lives are considered covertly hostile, at most, or even worse.

At 0.5 (grief) we have abortion with the specious reasoning that the world or the future is too horrible to bring a child into. With the parent at 0.5, all the natural gaiety and happiness of the child will be suppressed, and we have as unhealthy an atmosphere for childhood as one could postulate.

Note that the idea that "the world is too horrible to bring children into" is a standard left-wing line fed to White people by progressives.

At 0.1, (victim) there is not even awareness of children.
It is notable, as one glances down this column, that an interest in children includes an interest not only in the bearing of the child but in the child’s well being, happiness, mental state, education, and general future. We may have a person on the 1.1 (covertly hostile) level who seems very anxious to produce a child; very possibly this person is following an engram command to have children. Once the child is born we may have, in this 1.1 bracket, an interest in it as a plaything or a curiosity, but, following this, we get general neglect and thoughtlessness about the child and no feeling whatsoever about the child’s future or any effort to build one for it. We get careless familial actions such as promiscuity, which will tear to pieces the family security upon which the child’s future depends. Along this band, the child is considered a thing, a possession.
A half tone above this, in the anger band, the child is a target for the dramatizations which the individual does not dare execute against grown-ups in the environment -- a last ditch effort to be in command of something. Here we have domination of the child, with a constant warping of its character.
The whole future of the race depends upon its attitude toward children; and a race which specializes in women for “menial purposes,” or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying. We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women: it is a statement of bald and basic fact. When children become unimportant to a society, that society has forfeited its future. Even beyond the fathering and bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, then woman must rise with him, or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as today she is being misled into rising -- as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men which men themselves have become. Men are difficult and troublesome creatures -- but valuable. The creative care and handling of men is an artful and a beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at last realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but the men and the children as well. This is too great a price to pay for being “modern” or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex.
The arts and skills of woman, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which, here and there in isolated places in our culture, she still manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life. These arts and skills and creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.

Science of Survival is the one Scientology book you actually should read.