I'm on a roll baby, aaaaaaaaaa

I have been wondering for the last month or so about the nature of the new order, as described so well in Rollo Tomassi's 4th work, The Rational Male: Religion. A good interview of Anna Khachiyan crystallized this for me (though this should be abundantly obvious from Rollo's existing body of work in retrospect):

What we’re really talking about here is a shift in governance styles: from the “prohibitive” paternal superego which sets the parameters in advance and punishes you in kind if you defy or violate them, to the outwardly “permissive” but latently punitive maternal superego, which enforces no terms or boundaries ahead of time but retaliates arbitrarily and disproportionately after the fact — in part because it doesn’t know what it wants until all is said and done. Roughly speaking, this describes any number of events that can be filed under the #MeToo movement and/or “cancel culture.

The consequences of this societal shift to a Maternal governing ethic over the last century has had far-reaching consequences; religious changes are but one aspect of this transformation in our society.

The important questions left to me are:

1. Is our government's change into a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy a cause or effect of this shift to maternalism?
2. Can Market Anarchy (or any other alternative to our oligarchy) address the system's hysteric karen-ism which prevents good governance?

For anyone who has seen familial dynamics at work, this becomes quickly clear. It's just a side-effect of our society's transformation. If Breitbart was right about anything, it's that politics is always downstream of culture.

In our world "As below, so above" eventually becomes the rule. Like our families are now, the government is largely rudderless and on autopilot due to lack of strong male leadership. It's not for a lack of trying, but mostly because of Threat Point at the individual level. Similarly, we see restrained to non-existent male frame at the macro level out of fear they'll be cancelled or worse.

As such it should shock nobody that our government has become faceless, unaccountable and beyond incompetent (acephalous, really). When it's not brainlessly applying edicts coming from long dead politicians like the vacuum from Idiocracy, it's hysterically overreacting and thirst trapping congress (notice my program senpai uwu). Imagine an ahegao face mask covering the face of humanity forever.

It really makes sense why .gov is so relentlessly hostile to "family values" when you understand the dynamic of how it works in practice. The bureaucracy are subs to the 365DNI gangster trigger pullers at the pointy end of the state. You end up with a spectrum from BTK government when evil has to get done (as that's the most gorilla pimp response demanded by the hysterical) to ineffectual Karenism when it's time to do "good"; scolding to win favor with their peer clutch (but not do much else).

In short, hurry up and burn them babies at Waco, days of our lives is on.

You may have noticed that neither approach is good governance. Nevertheless, most current phenomena make a lot of sense under this framework.

• Of course you can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich and send it to the chair. "High-Tech Lynching" by Impossibly hungry judges is the norm in the courts.
• Of course we got the most hysterical and useless response possible to a virus with a 99%+ survival rate for the healthy.
• Of course we are diplomatically insulting most nations of the world with "not accepting yes for an answer" as a sort of shit-test writ large.
• Of course we are flipping out over white nationalism that has killed less than a handful in living memory, while the power elite are sitting atop pyramids of brown skulls right now.

There are many more examples practically anyone can think of off the top of their head. We should expect non-stop hysterical overreaction to anything that provokes fear or outrage, and total neglect of anything that doesn't fire up the hamster wheel (such as anything which actually materially improves our lives, as that's boring shit). He talks like a fag too, your honor.

Can we fix it?

The betas who built our civilization certainly can't. They are fucked so long as they have more to lose than gain by doing the unpopular and boring work of improving our lives in the face of opposition. Their future is either become John Galt or Sisyphus.

The only path out left is internalizing game; Pimp or Be Pimped. The government would not hysterically overreact if it had a strong leader providing the rock of stability it needs. Instead, they would actually fall into said leader's frame, and get validation from accomplishing his mission of good governance. Rather than being mindless, purposeless and nihilist bureaucrats whose only thrill comes from corruption, they could actually do something good for once in their pathetic lives.

Which leads inexorably to Moldbug's (and my 90 year old Grandma's who lived through FDR's reign) conclusion. Regardless of what you call it, the only way to make the current system actually achieve good governance is with a dictatorship. I of course think this is limited thinking; why do we need to preserve the system at all? Beyond keeping the peace I can't think of a great reason.

So the questions then become: Will this system degenerate to the point where market (or other?) alternatives can just gradually replace the system peacefully? Will that system actually correct the underlying issue preventing said paternal governing ethics from taking root?

Given lack of strong male leadership, the former can be taken as a given. Practically everyone capable of righting the ship at this point is so disgusted with the system's pervasive bias against them they would rather pop a cold one than lift a finger in its' defense. At this point, vengeance is reason enough.

So, will market anarchy result in both paternal and maternal governance organizations? This is obviously the case; many paternalistic organizations persist to this day despite the overwhelming trend in corporate. What really matters is which will the market choose? This is where I am pessimistic.

A single look at the freely chosen preferences which our search algorithms (e.g. big tech) reflect back upon us show outrage bait and hysterical nonsense gets the best engagement even from men. Granted, much of this is thanks to public schools teaching our boys to be defective women (and vice versa. Egalitarianism, yay!) However, this means that the new dispensation will likely backslide faster than your head can spin.

At the end of the day, I don't actually see an answer other than the one offered by the various "Masculine Empowerment Networks" out there in the red-pilled world. None of this gets better until men get game, and impose frame in their lives comprehensively. That's actually a hard problem, so don't expect it to get solved unless there is literally no other way to get laid. ...Which to be fair is essentially how things are working out by and large.

There's your white pill for the day. Your Welcome (TM)

Another good progrockfarmer interview with Romanian author Alex Kaschuta:

Millennials & Zoomers, especially the urban ones, are another species entirely and are for all intents and purposes about as mindwormed as kids in the West, especially after this year in the screen bunker. It's not surprising. They're just as attached to the global dopamine mainline streaming out of the US as everyone else. Even the kids who, for some incomprehensible reason don't speak English, get the same slop one trough down the waterfall in all the Romanian copycat Youtube & TV shows and dimestore influencers.

The interview with Anna Khachiyan is also good:

What we’re really talking about here is a shift in governance styles: from the “prohibitive” paternal superego which sets the parameters in advance and punishes you in kind if you defy or violate them, to the outwardly “permissive” but latently punitive maternal superego, which enforces no terms or boundaries ahead of time but retaliates arbitrarily and disproportionately after the fact — in part because it doesn’t know what it wants until all is said and done. Roughly speaking, this describes any number of events that can be filed under the #MeToo movement and/or “cancel culture.

I’d respect it more if it were consciously cynical. The fact that these imbecilic media cretins and career State Department and CIA functionaries actually believe themselves when they say that they’re deeply offended by the repression of Putin or the CCP or Iranian mullahs or Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro — right after they get off a call about the latest U.S. arms shipments to the Saudi monarchs or cash transfers to Egyptian despots or support for a coup against the democratically elected government in Bolivia — is frightening. How could anyone believe that the U.S. actually opposes domestic repression? That kind of self-delusion means humans can get themselves to believe literally anything. That’s more frightening to me than if they were knowingly lying for power.

In which Greenwald shows he really gets it. Bravo.

Or perhaps this new taste for censorship is an indication of Democratic healthiness. This is a party that has courted professional-managerial elites for decades, and now they have succeeded in winning them over, along with most of the wealthy areas where such people live. Liberals scold and supervise like an offended ruling class because to a certain extent that’s who they are. More and more, they represent the well-credentialed people who monitor us in the workplace, and more and more do they act like it.

Excellent work. As such, it has the BlueAnon kooks in full 360 head spinning mode.

On how the US is shooting itself in the head with it's tax policy

One of the more impactful books I've read over the years is Charles Adams' For good and evil: The impact of taxes on the course of Civilization [Free podcast covering much of the same at mises.org]

All empires eventually succumb to collapse, and the story is universally the same. Bad fiscal policy leads to worse tax policy, which leads to mass flight by productive capital when it can no longer be employed profitably.

Most Americans are not alarmed by this (as I have been for over a decade) as they don't understand both how truly extreme the level of flight from the USA has become and how American "Allies" are doing everything they can to gain from our loss. They also do not realize that the American bureaucratic regime is blindly blundering into the exact same traps which doomed their predecessors.

I see plenty of people talking about the signs and aspects of this de-industrialization (which, given all of our societies are industrial means this is actually collapse). Some are mad at the places that offshoring benefits. Few put together that there has to be a compelling reason why the nation with the most productive workers in the world wouldn't also have the most production in the world. There has to be a pretty high level of mitigating factors that make it not worth the trouble.

The hottest topic for this last decade has been Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS for short). The ability of US multinationals in particular to avoid taxation via clever and lawful use of small NATO satellite states (whom are also OECD and WTO members) has lead to great consternation among our elites, but only because of it's first-level effects (lowering of the US Government's revenue).

The reality is that the second level effects are far, far more dangerous. The mitigation efforts applied to combat BEPS have all had the unintended? consequence of offshoring the actual productive capital to a third jurisdiction, which has essentially created a (near) perpetual stalemate in this tax cold war.

Both the haven and the 3rd Jurisdiction (usually with cheap labor) profit from this and will frustrate all efforts at stopping it save measures they would regard as more profitable. Unlike the majority of concerns with "globalism" this requires no shadowy cabal, just a bunch of people acting in their own self interest.

There are only two options from here for the US Government.

1. Lower expenditures, so that existing taxes even with avoidance is acceptable (or lower them such that avoidance is mostly unnecessary)
2. Impose a global financial panopticon, bribing and cracking skulls the whole way

I'll give you one guess which one they're gonna go for. The crisis point will most likely be losing a war due to the supply chain breaking down thanks to this distortion in where capital is employed thanks to bad tax policy. It sounds like the "Mothership" over at the CFR and all the pentagram types are all busy working on getting into a war with China sooner rather than later, so this might come within a decade or so.

In Adams' book, he described my second option as essentially being what the Romans imposed. Diocletian went so far as to outlaw paying taxes in cash, and insisting in being paid in kind (as it could not be debased, and was infinitely harder to smuggle than coinage). One can hardly see the "global tax cooperation" measures done by the OECD (where all bank account activity of signatories' subjects are 100% available to all other members) and the idea of outlawing cash as being little more than a high-tech Diocletianism.

This will simply accelerate the existing capital flight, as no sane person wishes to live in a cashless society. The possibility of having your funds easily seized to prevent you from funding your legal defense is quite simply a non-starter. This is why FATCA resulted in such a huge uptick in citizenship revocations (but which has fallen off now that we have this OECD global FATCA). Things like Operation Choke Point have not soothed fears in this department; instead it has made it clear the threat to capital is very real and serious.

If you really want to get down to it, this is the Bear case for the US Dollar, and the Bull case for crypto. However, this will play out over a far longer timeframe than anyone can remain solvent. This is essentially going to result in a century of crisis at the least for America. Personally, I'm laughing (all the way to the bank) because it's so obvious. Hedge accordingly.

PS
Yeah, I know it's worse than just tax policy. Regulatory policy is an equal (if not worse in many market sectors) reason for offshoring. People can want manufacturers to build in things the market won't bear all they want; it won't change the fact they'll have to drop some other features to accomplish that at the market clearing price. "Made in the USA" is the primary feature that was dropped.

Regulatory was also an important factor in many other Imperial collapses, including the Romans. This was because all regulation is essentially a minimum-price control. As you might imagine, outlawing production of non-substitute goods at the market clearing price is real smart. The 100% failure rate of wage and price controls continues.

I accidentally lost billions. YOLO. This is the first victim of the covid crows coming to roost.

It turns out, it's not just "reason enough". The most interesting reading in a while. Yet another piece of evidence in the "no social technology really works at scale" pile.

In which the inevitability of revolution becomes clear.

It's really just a civilizational collapse because we're out of ideas to increase production.

Treat us like all them enemy combatants overseas. Empire comes home.

Sorta buys the argument libertarians are inconsistent because "they're a private company, hurr durr". Look, I say let 'em. These big tech companies are well known .gov collaborators and absolute rascals. I encourage them fully to engage in as much anti-market behavior as possible, in order to hasten their march into the grave. Evolutionary things like libertarian free markets require strong signals, and "get woke, go broke" is the best.

You love it, slave

Extreme authoritarianism works, because viruses aren’t magic. Extreme libertarianism works, because a naked, completely unleashed market can adapt as fast as any virus. We have inductive evidence for authoritarianism. We have to deduce libertarianism. We can still argue about the moderate window between them—but we know it sucks.

Moreover, what if even these concepts of libertarianism and authoritarianism trap us within a simplistic frame? They seem to be opposites—but they both work. Suppose we could construct some kind of five-dimensional political geometry under which they were actually one thing? Libertarian authoritarianism might work even better…

Maybe, just maybe the deaths are good, and you shouldn't try to stop it? Maybe evolutionary pressure is the answer to retroviral phenomena? Nobody wants to hear this take, it's too real.

Great stuff, will BOLO for investments in this vein going forward.

Greenwald says mean things about us waa

That journos are not just Pravda.

His most important point is essentially this: You don't cut out cancer and then ask "doc, what do I replace it with???"

The rogue process-driven organizations directing society calling themselves government are cancerous. Just cut them out and don't worry about what will replace them, because they don't need to exist in the first place.

Gurri predicted throughout that entrenched authorities would be unable to distinguish between legitimate criticism and illegitimate rebellion. Once they lost control “over the story told about their performance,” they’d denounce clearly factual evidence of public discontent as lies. Gurri would later talk about centralized authority being “institutionally unable to grasp that it has lost its monopoly over political reality.” This in turn would stimulate even more “distrust and loss of legitimacy.”

We can all see how the sausage is made at process driven bureaucries and realize we're fed a bunch of shit. I will do a more long-form addressing of this soon.

5 year plan scam

That which is not seen...Save some tiny amount of boomer lives which are close to over in exchange for huge numbers of babies never, ever born. Probably the intended effect from the population control loving criminals in charge.

Pretty much sums up the current era. Boomers Uber Alles. It's not even conscious, just their typical solipsism.

No idea is dangerous. Many ideas offend power. It always turns out that the ideas which are illegal, because they are dangerous, are the ideas which offend power. But since power is powerful, to offend it is not to endanger it. Nothing can endanger it.

Therefore, when in the spirit of glasnost we state these ideas, we have a special duty not to state them as if they threatened power—for truth is not treason. Glasnost is the right to express any idea—and the duty to express it in the coziest, most harmless way. Actually, when you suggest that your idea is dangerous—you are a collaborator, for this is exactly the official thinking of the regime.

There is no information war. If there was, it is over. The regime won. It always does. The end of war is peace; and in peacetime, no idea is a bullet. When I have ideas that remind me of the bullets of the late war, I go out of my way not to cast them in brass. In particular, I never advocate anything at all.

This is the spirit and strategy of glasnost: not one of tension, but of relaxation. We are entering the peacetime of ideas. But how can we have peace, when some d00d stole Nancy Pelosi’s podium? Surely Belzec is just around the next bend in the tracks… the peacetime of ideas is when nothing matters. We cannot avoid this fate; it is already here.

Do we dare even hope for peace at this point?

Many ideas do offend power. No ideas threaten the powerful—because the powerful, having power, have nothing to worry about. The closest ideas to being dangerous are ideas that the strong should abuse the weak. Power can do nothing about these ideas, because by definition the strong have power.

Globocop do-gooder-ism is essentially the rationalized form of that which is currently en vogue. It is for precisely this reason I am skeptical any party involved even wants peace, save for us cranks. Nevertheless, the path to peace (perestroika) is discussed:

Certainly the easiest way to turn a bottom-up, unaccountable organization into a top-down one is to fire the former and hire the latter. This is not always the best way, but it is often the best way. It is especially likely to be the best way after a prolonged period of unaccountability. If it’s not an option—perestroika isn’t real.

It's funny. For years my grandma has said "we need a dictator" and she's not wrong. At this point there's no alternative way to cut out the cancer.

Perestroika cannot work, and cannot even happen, as a way for one side in America’s class war to dominate the other. It can only happen as a peace measure. Its purpose is to end the cold war by installing an authority that is dedicated to serving all classes. This can only happen if both sides consent to giving up their real or apparent power.

One of the most deeply-held beliefs of Americans is that unless they hold power, they will be oppressed. This is like a cokehead believing that unless he has cocaine, he will be depressed. While it is not evidence of reasonable thinking, nor is it necessarily untrue. And our thinker can marshal plenty of empirical experience to make his case.

Yet another reason I am skeptical of the prospects for peace; we aren't even close to the level of "rock bottom" misery these power junkies would have to experience to even think about throwing the ring into Mount Doom.

If both sides of the public mind can realize that their quarrel is the consequence of a political structure that gives each of them a good reason to fear each other; that they have little or no substantive conflict; and that they have the same principal interest, an effective and accountable government that treats all groups and classes fairly—they have at least the abstract basis for a mutual and stable peace.

Wouldn’t that be nice?

Yeah, sure. Keep dreamin'. Peace is not the goal, but failure in the public's mind. We're far from 100% war exhaustion yet.

It does matter which side the perestroika comes from. But it doesn’t matter a lot. While Trump’s CEO has a huge wave of anti-elite sentiment at his back, he has another huge wave of elite resistance in front of him. Our elites are not violent, of course—but they can still be a quite pain.

Biden’s CEO is more like Gorbachev—since he is a legitimate figure, the sea is calm before and behind him. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. You might object that he’s a lib. It doesn’t matter—the job creates the man. Lee Kuan Yew was a lib. While the lib inherently has more to learn, what he learns is inherently fresher and more thorough.

I can very much agree with this part. It's funny that the libs themselves jawboned about "transparency" back in the Obama era. Of course without accountability, it's just brazenness but it was at least an acknowledgement that something is very wrong with the administrative state coming from the elites themselves.

Which I think is the only way this can work. The elites themselves have to realize this is not working and decide to do something about it. Can the auto-glasnost strategy actually pull this off? Time will tell.

Their talking points are pretty much spot on (regarding the current crooks in Berlin):

These pigs are nothing other than marionettes of the victorious powers of the Second World War, whose task it is to keep down the German people.

That said, it sounds like scamming (as with libertarianism here) is rife in nonmainstream politics over there too. That said, it's still less of a scam than voting and thinking taxes actually help any citizen, lol. This is what I always emphasize -- if normal politics weren't an obvious criminal conspiracy, hardly anyone would fall for the absolute nonsense out there in the alternative media. "Alternative Medicine" wouldn't exist if mainstream medicine worked.