Toxo and Marx

It’s interesting to watch Sapolsky in this video describing how toxoplasmosis can rewire the brain, shutting down amygdala fear response, keeping in mind the discussion of free will versus biological determinism.


From Discovery, Parasite Infection Linked to Road Rage:

People who display frequent bouts of extreme, impulsive anger, such as road rage, are more than twice as likely to be infected with a common parasite than are individuals who do not exhibit such explosive behavior, according to a new study.

“Our work suggests that latent infection with the Toxoplasma gondii parasite may change brain chemistry in a fashion that increases the risk of aggressive behavior,” senior author Emil Coccaro of the University of Chicago said in a press release.

Free will? Knowing that our brains may be rewired to alter our perception of the world around us, it tends to cast more and more doubt upon the idea of free will.

This just in from Curt Doolittle:

On this one point, Locke was Wrong and Hobbes was right: as a member of a polity, man is reducible to a ‘mechanical’ engine fed drugs by his genes as reward and punishment for advancing their interests. And those interests are advanced through acquisition, retention and reproduction of all sorts of things.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy the fulfillment of our genes interests. It’s the whole purpose of existence.

To make the most of it.


This further confirms to me the theory proposed in my Language and Genetic Self-Interest piece. We are moist robots and we are wired to serve the interests of our genes (until a pesky and precocious parasite like toxoplasmosis figures out how to rewire our neuro-pathways). We imagine that we are freely thinking thoughts and making arguments which are simply logical. We are doing as we are programmed. Our ancestors found a competitive advantage in truth and logic, so the machinery of truth and logic is built into our people. We are acting in service of our genes and our genetic self-interest (our reproductive strategy). We found a competitive advantage in universalized belief systems, and so we are prone to universalism. We found competitive advantage in reducing our ethnocentrism, so we are prone to openness to other ethnicities.

The men of the West used truth and logic, universalism, and reduced ethnocentrism to build large, productive orders of humans. There is a lot of accumulated capital. Of course, just as toxoplasmosis exists and can parasitically rewire our brains, other parasites exist and can rewire and hijack our systems. Marxism is such a hijacking. People with a parasitic reproductive strategy and a high-verbal IQ can manipulate our brains by repeating half-truths with high frequency and high volume. All they needed was majority control over a centralized communications network to reinforce their messages. Combine this with the incentives of democracy and you have a recipe for disaster: a machine built to eat the accumulated capital of the West.

The internet has broken the monopoly control over the communications network. We are in the process of rewiring ourselves (see ‘deprogramming’ in relationship to cults). We are building antibodies to the parasites. This is what I mean when I talk about being a ‘memetic warrior’. I mean engaging in the work of deprogramming the cult members who share our reproductive strategy. We can never convert those who do not share our reproductive interests (incompatible ethnicities and to some extent even our women). We can only change their calculation of genetic self-interest.

That’s what I think, which I think must mean that I intuit it to be in my genetic self-interests. Luckily, I share genetic self-interests with the most dominant men on the planet. That gives me hope.

Brin and Gray

I just re-read David Brin’s NeoReactionaries drop all pretense: end democracy and bring back lords.

If I may summarize his argument, it is that those who oppose the Enlightenment want to create a New World Order of Monarchies to rub their hands maniacally and guffaw maliciously as they stamp their Nazi jack-boots on the faces of the oppressed. Did I get close enough there? Well, hysterical, might be a more succinct label.

He praises the Enlightenment, dubbing it the Enlightenment Miracle. He denies that Democracy and Communism are kissing cousins. Of course he references anti-NRx posts, with precious few references to actual NRx thought. Why should he bother to actually intellectually disprove the assertions of the Dark Enlightenment, when you can simply slander and ad hominem it? He employs the typical racism and sexism slanders, though does not stoop to fascism. The article is a commonplace attempt to evoke an emotional response while posing as intellectual commentary. I won’t bother re-hashing any arguments against the Enlightenment, just read the Neoreactionaries themselves for definitive debunking of it.

I think that Brin should read False Dawn by John Gray.

The book cover itself is interesting, the initiated will recognize the seal on the back of the one dollar bill, with the banner reading Novus Ordo Seclorum, translated as New Order of the Ages. Some see this as New World Order symbolism. The image is often used as an Illuminati reference by the conspiracy-minded. I personally see the pyramid simply as the graphic representation of human order: hierarchy. The eye is known as the Eye of Providence, which is they eye of God. I don’t find the image particularly frightening or sinister, but I think it currently represents an idea, and it is fitting that this idea is symbolized on the US dollar bill: the idea of global capitalism.

This is the false dawn, where a Western capitalism is universalized around the globe, and a new Utopian age of peace and prosperity rises over the horizon to bath us in the clear bright light of the Enlightenment. Anyone at all familiar with Neoreactionary thought, as David Brin clearly is not, will understand that Univeralism is one of the key pillars of Enlightenment thought, along-side Egalitarianism and Individualism. I express individualism as [1], and egalitarianism as [1=1], and universalism as [1=1=1=1…∞].

Only a believer in the Enlightenment could conceive of a New World Order of Western global capitalism enrapturing the entire world. Reactionaries cannot. We understand that Market functions must be built around the needs and worldview of the populations they serve. Markets must take the shape of their containers — the civilizations in which they are cultivated.

Perhaps the best way for you to get a feel for the book is a few quotes from a hatchet-job book review by the Libertarian Cato institute which dubs it “a relatively sophisticated version of reactionary globalphobia.” The article also appeared in the Libertarian masturbation journal of choice, Reason Magazine:

Now he rejects not just free trade, not just liberalism, but the whole “Enlightenment project”—or at least his caricature thereof. (In The Future and Its Enemies, Virginia Postrel identifies Gray as a leading voice of what she calls “reactionary stasis.”)

Hmm, a reactionary denial of the Enlightenment project?

Indeed, at the bottom of Gray’s hostility to the world economy is its supposed Enlightenment pedigree. “A single global market,” he writes, “is the Enlightenment’s project of a universal civilization in what is likely to be its final form.” In an invidious and oft-repeated comparison, he portrays global capitalism and the now-defunct ideal of collectivism as two sides of the same rationalist coin: “Even though a global free market cannot be reconciled with any kind of planned economy, what these Utopias have in common is more fundamental than their differences. In their cult of reason and efficiency, their ignorance of history and their contempt for the ways of life they consign to poverty or extinction, they embody the same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism that have marked the central traditions of Enlightenment thinking throughout its history.”

Let’s be clear about this: A single global market is the Enlightenment’s project of a universal civilization in what is likely to be its final form. I don’t expect in-depth knowledge or logical consistency from David Brin on these matters, though I would appreciate it.

Fukuyama made the Enlightenment argument for liberal democracy and global capitalism in 1992 in The End of History and the Last Man. He subsequently came to a more moderate position in 1995 in Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity where he came to realize that culture and economics are co-evolved, or as I stated above: Markets must take the shape of their containers — the civilizations in which they are cultivated. He still labors to make the Enlightenment functional, as many conservatives do. He will have a tough time of it until he realizes the majority of his assumptions are pseudo-scientific Enlightenment nonsense.

Read John Gray if you would rather have a dose of reality.

Because, in reality, who is it that has the plans for global domination? It is the deluded followers of the Enlightenment. John Gray says nothing other than what is patently obvious: that dream is dead. It was still-born because it cannot possibly function — Universalism is a false god of the Enlightenment. When David Brin is looking for the evil jack-booted thugs with plans for global domination, he needs to look in the mirror: it is Enlightenment Utopians like him that have that plan, not us. Read Gray’s words again, it is those like Brin who “embody the  same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism“. We reactionaries understand that we must build walls around our civilizations and keep the pagan barbarians at bay. Running a civilization is a full-time job. We understand how hard it is to keep our own little civilization alive, and are busy working on that project. We will leave the plans for global domination to Utopian Universalists like Brin and his allies.

Reaction viewed from the Left

This is what Reaction, Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment look like when viewed from the Left. Loki is the Arch-Reactionary (evil to the core, sadistic and cruel), the old Jew is the ideological center of the Left (brave and selfless, standing for the freedom of the underclasses) and Captain America is the Red Terror (handsome, brave and ready to violently defend the righteous cause of the Left). This is pretty much the 20th century in under 2 minutes, except in this Fairy Tale the Cheka doesn’t rape, torture and murder Reactionaries for fun (See Republican Marriage). The Left always sees Nazis under the bed… this commie propaganda is what passes for entertainment in modern America. This is simply a morality play for Leftists: Kings are Evil. The End.

A Republican Marriage:

How the Reds really treat their enemies:

Hong Kong has too many poor people to allow direct elections

From Quartz: Hong Kong has too many poor people to allow direct elections, leader says.


You have to go pretty far from America to get some straight talk on democracy. Here’s what CY Leung, Hong Kong’s top city official, had to say about it:

“If it’s entirely a numbers game—numeric representation—then obviously you’d be talking to half the people in Hong Kong [that] earn less than US$1,800 a month. You would end up with that kind of politics and policies.”

Ya think? So let me get this straight: if a country lets a bunch of poor people vote, then that country will inevitably get a bunch of wealth-destroying, wealth-transfer policies?

Well, I’ll be darned. Whodathunkit? It’s not like that is perfectly obvious. Or is it?

Let me rephrase: Democracy is retarded.

As an aside, Curt Doolittle wrote in Neo-Reaction in a Nutshell: We Are Ruled By A Theocracy – An Evil One:

The central problem of any post-hunter-gatherer society, engaged in production, is to ensure that the fecundity of the unproductive does not eradicate the increases in productivity of the creative – but that those increases are accumulated as a competitive advantage against the fecundity of not only our own relations, but of those who would replace us. Otherwise all innovation is translated into population expansion rather than advancement. Northern European civilization succeeded faster than all others, in no small part because it concentrated reproduction in its upper classes, not in expanding the burden of its lower classes.

It seems that Hong Kong is wrestling with that problem as we speak, Curt.

Insane Conspiracy Theories

“Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.”


Of course, a few weeks ago, yours truly stated why it would not be in the interest of ISIS to start a hot war with the US and NATO allies. It just doesn’t make sense.

Now, Naomi Wolf is attacking the Pravda (NYT) on their lack of journalistic integrity and is raising the idea that the videos might actually be (gasp!)… propaganda. Imagine that. Of course, the initiated will recognize Vox’s faux-scandalized pearl-clutching. Mind control is the most powerful tool of those in power, at least when those in power have to maintain the illusion of democracy. Without democracy our leaders wouldn’t need to care so much what the man on the street thinks and wouldn’t need to stage elaborate hoaxes or false flags. But, this is the world we live in, so it is wise to take the red pill and consider that everything we see on the “news” is very likely to be complete bullshit.

A Quick Critique of Democracy

This article is a quick overview of the main reasons why democracy is not only unworkable, but is a complete sham. 


1) The Electors: Stupidity outweighs intelligence

You should know what an IQ distribution looks like: it’s a ‘normal distribution’, a bell curve. The median changes in various populations, but it remains true that half the population is dumber than the other half, and a small percentage of the population is very smart.

What level of IQ do you need to make a reasonable decision about who to elect as the ‘leader of the free world’? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that it is above average. If my assumption is true, then there are far more people who do not have the intelligence to make this decision properly, than there are those who are intelligent enough to have this responsibility.

2) The Electors: Volume of information exceeds human capacity

Let’s say that your IQ is high enough to make a good decision about whom to elect, if you were provided the information. We are provided this information, plus a mountain of disinformation, to wade through. Who has time to adequately study and decide upon every voting possibility from local, to state, to federal? I contend it would be a full time job just to attempt to perform it adequately, which would leave little time for Honey Boo Boo episodes, rap and Lady Gaga concerts, or twerking that average voters would rather be watching or doing, or working a full time job.

3) The Electors: Humans are social animals

The evidence is insurmountable: humans make decisions socially, meaning they decide to do what everyone else is doing. If you add the point about IQ (the first point) to this point, then the obvious result is that most humans will decide to do something stupid, such as elect a fashionable leader over a qualified one.

4) The Elected: Federal legislative throughput exceeds human capacity

Have you seen the size and volume of the laws that federal legislators must vote on? It’s a huge volume of information that your average human simply could not read and process in the time provided. This means that Federally elected legislators are not really reading, considering, changing, or debating the bills on which they are voting. The PPACA (Obamacare) alone was 2000+ pages. Once you factor in the changes to each law and that it must be re-evaluated after each round of changes, then it becomes obvious that a single human (a federal legislator) cannot accomplish the task.

5) The Elected: Legalese

Have you ever read a bill? The legal language alone can make the process difficult. What percentage of federal legislators are lawyers? Currently, it’s about 25%, down from a high of 50%. Thus this call to elect all lawyers. That’s right, the overwhelming majority of those being elected to vote on laws that they don’t have time to read, probably couldn’t handle the legal aspect anyway.

6) The Elected: Problem domain inexperience

Do you have any clue about the best way to manage fisheries? Neither do those who are elected to Congress, yet they are supposed to vote on laws that they don’t have time to read, that they probably couldn’t understand if they did have the time, which cover problem domains that would take them years or decades of study to understand adequately enough to make a wise decision.


In short, ‘democracy’ is a sham. The majority of electors (and we are talking about majority rule) have neither the IQ, time nor interest to make decisions about their leaders. The legislators that are elected, have neither the time, legal training nor problem domain experience to properly perform their nominal function.

Isn’t it about time that we have an honest discussion about how we should run our country, once we can come to the hard truth that we live in a post-democratic illusion?