Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us

Posts tagged as: democracy

Making the world safe for corruption

After writing the last post on Burma's opening, it just came to me why are Western governments always promoting democracy. I mean, democracy is a pretty crappy way of government, particularly in the Third World, where for tons of reasons, historical, cultural, biological even, it never works. Democracy also is generally bad for the economy, and Western governments are ostensibly obsessed by trade and economic growth.

Yet they do promote democracy with a fervor that is almost religious. It makes no sense. But wait. Roman judges used to say that about cui bono. Then I read this news: George Soros opens an office in Burma. Well, that's it. Soros bono. Bankstas bono.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="468" caption="Business is goooood"][/caption]

There's a recurrent theme at Steve Sailer's about the paradox that, although the US is the world hegemon, many Third World plutocrats laugh at just how cheap it is to buy an American politician. It's true, and it applies also to Western Europe. At first glance it makes no sense that lawmakers in a rich country would sell themselves cheap, while lawmakers in a poor country will as...

Making the world safe for corruption - Primaries edition

Say there is a power struggle in some country, and you don't like who's winning. How much should you spend, and how much influence can you buy?

Let's say North Korea.

There's the little fatso Kim Jong-un, and the elder fatso, Kim Jong-nam. Jong-un was the frontrunner, but he's too young, and many people would like Jong-nam to be the new king. What can they do?

Nothing. Kim Jong-nam has long been an exile in Macau, where he is survives only because China, t protects him against his brother's assassins. China being the guarantor of the NK regime. Kim Jong-nam has many friends in high circles in China, but even that didn't get him in power. Nobody can influence the NK power process.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="304" caption="I spend a million every day in meals"][/caption]

Now let's say the USA.

See there are this primaries thing going on. Obama doesn't look too good so there's a lot of attention in the Republican nomination. So far there is a Ned Flanders-went-investor guy as the frontrunner. A loaded Mormon. Fuck that. Let's say you've got some spare dough and you wanna spend it in anyone but the Mormon. How much would you need to spend to make a difference?

Continue Reading →

Panem, putas et circenses

One of the big steps towards political adulthood is to understand the relation between fascism and leftism. The eternal question of whether fascism is the antithesis of leftism, or just a flavor of it. The official view of the question is that fascism is the remnant of the Old Regime, the evil dark ages, who still lurk in the shadows to fight against Progress. Then there's the occasional smartass who says that Fascism was a leftist movement. And they oppose modern capitalism to it.

Well that's not it either. Mencius Moldbug made himself a name by reminding people that Fascism had nothing to do with the old aristocratic order. Fascism was a popular movement, a movement of the masses. It was all about public opinion. Mussolini grabbed power simply by getting a mob and walking to Rome. Hitler also made himself a militia, then mob-ilised the population. The old kings didn't care about mob-ilising the people. They ruled because they had a right to do so according to ancient laws, and that was it. They neither needed nor expected the people's consent.

Of course all that changed over the years. In the beginning the check was aristocratic privileges, but then arrived the printing press, the Reformation, later the railroad, the newspaper, the radio. In a manner of speaking, all there is to power, political power, is the ability to raise a mob, organise technolo...

Try harder

Liberals dominate the West, and Japan sort of, but they are small minorities in all other countries. And that's harsh. Because being a liberal in any country, you see how cool the West is, with human rights and fancy cars and women in mini skirts, yet your own country sucks. But what can you do? Well let's look case by case.

Case 1

Egyptian liberal A: Damn, this country sucks.

Egyptian liberal B: It's all that damn Mubarak prick, we should kill him.

Egyptian liberal A: Yeah, but how?

Egyptian liberal B: Let's go out on the streets and ask for democracy. People dig that.

3 months later: Mubarak is dying inside a cage, the Salafists own Parliament.

Case 2:

Libyan tribesman A: Man, that damn Gaddafi is bringing chinks and niggers to work in here while we got no jobs.

Libyan tribesman B: Yeah we should just put a knife in his ass and beat him to death.

Libyan tribesman A: Wait, I have an idea.

Libyan tribesman B: What?

Libyan tribesman A: Let's go out on the streets and ask for democracy.

Libyan tribesman B: WTF is that?

Libyan tribesman A: I don't know. I think it's a secret code to make NATO give you bombs and money. I got a cousin in Egypt and he tell's me it works.

Libyan tribesman B: Ok let's do it.

6 months later, Gaddafi got a knife in his ass and died.

Case 3

Moscow hipster A: Damn, it's cold.

Moscos hip...

Soros bargain watch

I've made the argument that democracy is just a conspiracy by the plutocrats to push down the price of buying political influence.

George Soros being the best player on the market. You know, buy cheap, then profit.

Well he sure knows a bargain.

See on BI:

George Soros Is Giving $2 Million To Democratic SuperPACs

So he's buying up leftist grassroots activist organisations. Astroturf is a booming business.

But of course the real point is not Soros buying influence. It's that he's spending a whopping... $2 million! Which is like his weekly income. Or the amount of tax breaks he can get after buying Sarkozy a beer.

We shouldn't be ofended the plutocrats are using money to influence the government. We should be ofended that it is so cheap.

A biological case against democracy

This one's not about IQ. Listen up.

All human traits are normally distributed, with few people on each extreme. I don't know to what degree character is inherited, but it sure as hell is innate.

A human trait, like any other, is the thirst for power. Call it sociopathy to get a better image. It's probably not the same thing, but think of the evil striver who lies, fools, scams and does any manner of evil in order to climb the ladder of power and get to lord over others and enjoy riches gained through the exploitation of the people.

Think of Clinton, say. Any of them will do. These guys have an edge. They're driven. They really really want power. And money. Lots of money. Apparently the Clinton's are worth $100 million. Why do they want so much money? Isn't $10 million enough? 20? No, they want more. That's what they do, they seek power, money, and everything that is nice, they seek it in infinite amounts. Why does Hillary want to be president? What for? The satisfaction of power. That's who she is.

But she isn't the only one. There's lots of people like her, in any country, in any institution. Jerry Pournelle had the Iron Law of Bureaucracy: every organization will always end up being led by people devoted to the benefit of the organization, not to doing whatever purpose the organization originally had. Which is another way of saying that any organization will eventually be led by people who only think of benefitting the people who lead the organ...

Trump and the GOP

A short reminder that the GOP would obviously prefer to lose the election rather than have Trump win. It's an obvious principal-agent problem.

By "GOP" I mean the GOP Establishment, Conservatism Inc., the pundit and election consultant industry, etc. All those people have cushy jobs, good incomes, fancy lifestyles and some degree of mainstream respect (or at least, toleration) from the Left.

Trump winning the election will give them absolutely no personal benefit. The politicians would have to deal with a brash and aggressive outsider, which is annoying. But think of the pundits and consultants. They are livid, and for good reason. Trump is obliterating their business model. He's winning the primary without spending a dime on them, and saying exactly the opposite of what they get paid for saying. Jeb Bush spent 150 million dollars on them, and he went to hell. Now think about that for a minute. 150 million dollars. That's a lot of money. That money went somewhere. It paid for lots of houses, cars, clothes, school tuition, restaurant fees, etc. Thousands upon thousands of people live off that sort of money.

Trump may be nominally part of the same thing, i.e. the "Republican Party", but what's in a name? Trump is a direct threat to all these people, and a not trivial threat to politicians who have made a career of being the tolerated opposition of the Progressive Soviet. If Hillary wins the election, these people will suffer nothing. Well, some of their ...

Real News and Fake News

Look at this page:

Two important pieces of news here.

One is that the Austrian presidential elections have been postponed. These elections are the repetition of the elections done in May. Why are they repeating them? Because of massive electoral fraud. Electoral fraud done to give the election to a leftist candidate, against an anti-immigrant rightist one.

This sounds trivial but it's the first time in... a 100 years? That fraud is a thing in European elections. This is how bad things have got.

And they're worse still, as the elections are being postponed because of tampering with postal votes! This is how bad things have got. If something happens to democracy it won't be because of the persuasive powers of reactionary writers. It'll be because the left realizes it's not in its interest anymore. Kinda like the fall of the Soviet Union.

This other piece of news is also interesting. Stop your Ad-blocker for a minute and look at the bottom right corner.


In this world of today, where all print media is effectively bankrupt, and surviving only due to public subsidies or the whims of billionaires, Reuters is still honest enough to relegate its sponsored content, i.e. it's corporate propaganda ...

Nobody rules alone

So this video has been doing the rounds. You should watch it. It’s very well done. And the book it refers to, The Dictator’s Handbook, is also a great book. I read it a while ago. Hell, I should have done a book review. It’s a really good book. It’s analysis of government in general, and how dictatorships work, is brilliant.

Alas, the book flounders when it talks about democracy. Which it basically posits as the Great Solution, the final End of History where everyone is happy because the selectorate is big and blablabla. Well of course you’d expect a book by an American academic to say that democracy is awesome and magical and sacred. How else would he have a job? But it’s quite a shame, as the book is really good. And he could have analyzed democracy quite well using the very same theory he created. He just needed to get his hands a bit dirty. Talk about ruling classes, political factions, networks of connections, pork barrel and all that stuff. But of course he didn’t. He couldn’t. He has an academic job and he’d rather keep it.

Well I don’t have an academic job, so I’ll do it myself. And I have a blog somewhat focused on East Asia, so let me refer to this piece of recent news. The finding that the President of South Korea, Ms. Park Gyun-Hye (pronounced Pak Kune), Continue Reading →

Epistocracy and Moral Intellectualism

Ever since it became obvious that Trump had a chance of winning, the junior minions of the Cathedral, those mediocre status-seekers waiting for breaks on the status hierarchy so they could scavenge some point for themselves, started to come up with some long-winded arguments against democracy. Which was a lot of fun to watch.

Less fun to watch was the particular argument that they came up with. We need "epistocracy". The rule of those who know. That's mean to exclude those Trump voters. Those are ignorant. Shouldn't vote. Only those who know, those who are not ignorant, should vote. Hence epistocracy.

This is a fairly old idea, obviously, and it reflects a very old and basic misunderstanding that the Western philosophical tradition has about knowledge. We tend to think that knowing more stuff makes you a good person. Socrates used to say that evil people were just ignorant of the good. If we only could teach them, have them understand, they will quickly and resolutely change their evil ways.

But that's bogus. Knowing a lot doesn't mean shit. If you can even measure that properly. The question is what you do with your knowledge. Of course ceteris paribus it's better to know stuff than to be ignorant. But we're talking politics here. The wise guy isn't necessarily the good one. Evil is not about ignorance, evil is about evil. Lack of empathy, selfishness, impulse control, whatever. Evil is a personality trait, most likely inborn or socialized in early in...


I made the point in the last post that having smart people on top as a principle doesn't necessarily help things because they might very well be evil. Here Jordan Peterson makes the same point in a more forceful way.

If you can, take a look at the whole thing. I think it's not hyperbole that this is the best interview ever. This guy is good. I think he's got a new religion in his head and he did it all by himself. What a man.

If any of you are reading this: Please, somebody set up a chat between Moldbug and Peterson. It would be epic.

The Economics of Democracy have Stopped Working

Everybody reading this blog may have noticed that I was ecstatic about Trump's election. I was really happy. I went out that night and spent days giggling with a MAGA hat on watching the progressives melt down.

That was of course a tribal feeling. I used to look down on people who behaved like that when their soccer team won. "It's not your team, dumbass, it's just a bunch of overpaid foreigner jocks". But the same way that most middle class men in the West put their identity in sports, I've always put mine in politics, and having Trump, the closest thing in decades to be close to my thinking, win the election to the highest office in the world, was a huge, huge piece of validation. Progressives say that all politics are identity politics. And it's true. Human is a social animal, said Aristotle. And the core of human social behavior is forming identity groups (i.e. tribes) and fight each other. And a guy who appeared to be of my own tribe had won. So of course I was happy.

I was also kinda confused. The core part of neoreaction's theory is that the contemporary political game is rigged so that our tribe just can't win. The game is set up so that the "Cathedral", the power base centered on the US bureaucracy and satellites and it's PR apparatus in the media and universities just control everything. And yet Trump won, with a platform set up by Steve Bannon who is by any accoun...

Biological Leninism

This is the first of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the second part here, and the third part here. I also gave an interview with some more thoughts on the topic which you can read here.

It's 100 years now since the Russian Revolution. The Soviet Union. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Leninism. It's been 100 years already, but you realize how present the whole thing remains when you look at the press these days. People are still praising or damning the revolution. As if it mattered anymore. As if it were something more than history. As if the left and right of today had remotely anything in common with the left and right of Lenin's day.

I won't praise Lenin, an evil man. But great men are often quite evil. I'm not very interested in Lenin, the man; but I'm very interested in Leninism. Lenin is very dead (if not yet buried, I wonder what Putin is waiting for); but Leninism is quite alive. And the Western press has just realized that China, the second power in the world, in place to become the first in a few years, is a Leninist state. It's taken 5 years of Xi Jinping shouting every day about the Leninist orthodoxy of the Communist Party of China for people to realize. N...

Bioleninism, the first step

This is the second of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the first part here, and the third part here. I also gave an interview with some more thoughts on the topic which you can read here.

Some things I said in Twitter yesterday. Man, 280 characters feel *way* better.

Bronze Age warfare used to be about great lords going around in their chariots, shooting arrows here and there, then getting on foot and engaging in Single Combat. Early Samurais also did that. They'd go around on their horses, shouting who they were, their house, their pedigree.

But eventually somebody figured out that winning a war is really profitable. So they'd just raise a big army of common people, give them cheap weapons, a cheap shield, drill them into having rock-tight discipline. And they'd win. A disciplined team always wins against the most talented man.

The theory of democracy was that rich people, with the leisure to educate themselves about public policy, and a financial interest in the government of the nation, would run for individual office, represent their constituency, be reelected if they did their job well, replaced if they didn't. But laws are p...

Leninism and Bioleninism

This is the third of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the first part here, and the second part here. I also gave an interview with some more thoughts on the topic which you can read here.

Happy New Year everyone. I left a bit of a cliffhanger on my last post, which I intended to resolve in a few days, but I've been pretty busy, not really in the mood to write long form.

I am sorry about that, but do note, this blog is a free service, so I hope you understand it doesn't quite take the priority of my time. Again, there's a Bitcoin address at the sidebar, so if you want me to write more, I'm sure we can arrange something.

2017 has been a quite eventful year. I guess the overall mood was disappointment. Trump didn't get anything done. Doesn't seem like he'll ever get anything done. Europe slowed down the refugee invasion but not by much. And China has realized that AI makes state control so much easier. It's showing the way in censorship and crowd control. All China is doing will be done on the West in a few years, with the aggravating factor that Western states will use Orwellian tools to ...

Interview on Bioleninism

A few weeks ago, a great artist who runs the blog Parallax Optics was kind enough to ask me for an interview on Bioleninism, to follow up on a great piece he published recently where he interviewed the man responsible for the Twitter account Woke Capital. That interview was great, and I had never done an interview before, so I thought it could be a good idea to try this new format. As it happened, the interview went great, and I very much enjoyed the process.

What follows is the whole text of the interview for those who missed it up at Parallax's. Let me use this chance to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and happy year end holidays. 2018 has been a quite eventful year. Hopefully it has been good for you personally as well (unlikely if you're invested in the stock market, but nobody's perfect). A lot has been going on in the reactionary sphere, much of it good. Bioleninism has become a widely known concept. Here's for a great 2019.

Bioleninism has widely been acknowledged as perhaps the most important contribution to reacti...