About political ideologies


One misconception is that politics "is just a matter of opinion" when in reality we can get conclusions regarding what we ought to do given a particular situation.


That however does not mean there is one true political ideology, instead what's ideal will depend on your society and its interaction with the rest of the world. What was a good idea 200 years ago might now be a very bad idea.


Leftism and secular humanism
Leftism — or Progressivism, if you prefer — is a belief system. It is based on secular humanism and relies on Critical Theory
for its understanding of society. This means that, despite claiming to value reason, the only real use of “reason” is to reject religious faith. As soon as that is done, reason is itself discarded, and Critical Theory — storytelling — comes in.

As Leon Festinger described, when a person who has deeply held beliefs encounters evidence or argument that contradicts his beliefs (called “disconfirming evidence”) he experiences cognitive dissonance. This is extremely unpleasant, a kind of mental distress. It can be resolved only in the following ways:
  1. By abandoning or changing the deeply-held belief. This is painful, especially when — as in the case of Lefitsts — the belief is part of their identity.
  2. By finding new information (or argument) that contradicts the “disconfirming” evidence. This however, takes work. It’s also nearly impossible if your belief was irrational in the first place.
  3. By persisting in the belief, despite any evidence; this cannot be done alone. It requires social support, especially from new converts (“proselytes”)
However, you can avoid all three of these difficult or unpleasant outcomes, if you merely avoid encountering any “disconfirming” evidence. In other words, if you avoid hearing or seeing anything that you disagree with.

This is why Leftists like echo chambers, even more than “conservatives.” They avoid reading things they disagree with. And censorship on Reddit is just another way to do that.

Leftism is about taking care of everyone including ones that do not want to be 'helped' in the first place
• locking up teens against their will "for their own good" even though they didn't even do anything illegal.
• involuntary psychiatric treatments "they are mentally ill so they do not know what's best for them".
• compulsory schooling.
• preventing people from killing themselves.
• not allowing people to just buy any drug they want.
• banning medical quackery.
• making it illegal to con people out of their money.
• giving big welfare checks to people unwilling/unable to work.
• free healthcare to keep unfit people alive.

If we let people be free they will do stupid decisions and thus the left prefers the government controlling most aspects of our life "for our own good" instead of allowing natural selection. Some people might actually make better decisions than the government would make for them but that will not be tolerated in a lefty society, everyone needs to be kept down to the same level.

Enforcing high taxes will require totalitarian control over the population, the taxes are needed to pay for the giant ineffective welfare state. Unfortunately over time high taxes and welfare will create a bad mentality among the population where people become increasingly irresponsible.

The left may sometimes promote liberal values to get elected but it's just about getting votes, they do not actually care about LGBT people or sexual freedom, instead when they are in power they add totalitarian control over human sexuality. If a teen has sex with a 25-year-old male the left will view it as awful exploitation that needs to be stopped.


Humanism vs societal survival of the fittest
The issue with humanism is that then instead of doing whats best for society you do what you view as 'humane' even if result in a societal liability. This means that societies heavily based on humanism will find themselves as a competetive disadvantage against societies who do not care about that and said disadvantage will depend on how much better other societies can do.

One potential issue with leftwing-humanitarian societies is that they will end up with a growing welfare burden including economic immigrants, it's not really a sustainable system since you end up with more and more people you are 'morally obligated' to take care of.

Good luck winning war when you have to do it as humane as possible against an opponent who doesn't care about civilian casualties.


From humanism to veganism
Once you have bought into the dogma that "all humans have moral value" (unclear what that even means) the natural step is to expand it even further to animals, there is no end to this.

Vegans have won many debates against humanism using the "name the trait" trick even though the answer was already in the question (the answer is human).

But still there isn't any good reason to care about all humans and not give considerations to animals. There are many humans who are bad for society and there are many animals that provide value (such as nice tasting meat).


Why Veganism is nonsense
Vegans often claim that we ought to care for all sentient beings and therefore we shouldn't eat meat. There are 2 big problems with that.

First off there is no real reason for us to be particularly altruistic towards other sentient beings we are not related too "Hamilton's law". Even in the case of other humans altruism is often not beneficial when it comes to survival and reproduction.


but there is another problem vegans like to ignore. The killing of animals by humans is not a requirement to eat meat, all animals die naturally eventually so why not eat them?

There is also many animals killed in the production of plant-foods.

In order to actually examine if veganism is good we have to look at the impact on society. Most land used for meat-production is ill-suited for the production of plant-food.


Animal products are generally more nutrient-dense than plant-products and you cannot get all nutrients you need from just plant-food without supplementation (B12, etc).


About anarcho-promitivism
Of course a lot of claims made by Ted Kaczynski are correct.


For example thanks to technology it's now very easy to share nudes/pornography against the will of the people in said videos and due to internet it's near impossible to stop that spread. If you send a nude and regret it there will not be any way for you to undo that. Today even young teens have access to phones and they can easily take pictures or film themselves, that can actually land them in legal trouble in addition to the fact that they might regret that later in life.

For better or worse however societies will be pushed to progress farther with technology to get an advantage. A primitive society is very easy to invade.

Even if the entire world is primitive that will not last forever since there would be evolutionary pressure gradually increasing the intelligence of humans, that is why we ended up where we are today in the first place.

While the primitive period may have been better in many ways not that many people were alive back. Even if it would be fun you would not be likely to be alive at that time-period anyway.

We do not actually have that much time left to leave earth behind. The sun is gradually getting hotter which may kill all life on earth long before the sun becomes a red giant. If we cannot conolize other planets then we are all doomed and all of our struggle for progress would have been largely for nothing.


Pagan primitivism
Varg Vikernes is a prominent pagan primitivism.

He got deplatformed but you can still find his videos on bitchute.

He thinks civilisation is going to collapse which is a clear case of wishful thinking. In reality If one society fall some other stronger society will takeover instead, thus societal survival of the fittest make these primitivist ideologies unviabile.


Generally people advocating for what they view as socialism are liers or they are delusional. They are very unwilling to give a proper definition of capitalism and socialism.

Socialism is collective control of the means of production. The most successful form of socialism is corporations, some corprations are fully ownes by their workers.

Capitalism is private control of the means of production, this is how many companies are started, one individual having full control (except for some government regulations.

The issue is that socialists like to promote shit forms of socialism like worker co-ops.


Here Richard Wolff lied claiming you have no rights as a shareholder. You do have rights even if you you do not own enough to control the company, the majority owner is not allowed to screw over any minority owner.

All countries are a mix between socialism and capitalism.

If you complain about a corporation behaving badly you are technically complaining about socialism.


Egalitarian socialism
Often when the word "socialism" is used it specifically refers to egalitarian socialism meaning that instead of an elite having control over a company it's controlled in an egalitarian fashion or you have companies owned by a democratic government.

Full egalitarian socialism means that that all humans on the planet collectively own the means of production and get to vote in democratic elections.

Worker co-ops are not really egalitarian since the workers of one co-op might do far better than the workers of some other co-op.


About egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is emotionally appealing to a lot of people since it appeals to primitive instincts

Humans are not as primitive as monkeys so we for the most part realize that not everyone can be paid the same, a company insisting on that would have a hard time competing against less egalitarian companies, not even worker co-ops insist on equal pay generally.

In reality however for society some people are far more important than others, the reason USA was more successful than other countries in the past was because they recognized that.


Secular christianity
A lot of values promoted by secular people from the west stem from christianity were the weak, pathetic and self-sacrificing were held up as virious while the powerful were viewed as bad.

According to secular christianity we need to support the palestinians since they are pathetic losers implying that instead of defending themselves israel should just hand over their land to the palestinians giving them full citizenship (likely resulting in a new holocaust since jews would become a minority).

Of course israel has already adopted these values to a very large extent, they go very far trying to minimize palestinians death while they fight against hamas terrorists but that does not prevent the left from viewing israel as evil obviously. By going so far trying to prevent civilian deaths israel puts themselves at a severe operationan disadvantage, they can afford that against gaza but that would not work against a stronger enemy.

USA lost to vietnam since they were unwilling to do what had to be done in order to win, similarly israel is unable to put a permanent end to the terrorism due to their unwillingless to go all out against hamas. Bombing civilians can very much be justified

The notion that civilian lives would be more worthy of protection than lives of soldiers does fit into the secular christian dogma "weakness is a virtue" ignoring the fact that civilians are very often not innocent (they often support the state in various ways) and the fact that many soldiers are forced to participate via draft/conscription.


Feminism is built on 2 unsound premises

0. The notion that we ought to seek gender equality
1 .the notion that males are privileged

This however does not mean that policies feminists push for are all bad, far from it, it's just that when these policies are good they do not have a proper reasoning for pushing these policies.

The issue with promoting egalitarianism as a way to advance females is that then you also need to convince people that females have it worse and here we start seeing problems.

It's not even clear what "gender equality" should even mean. Should we put more females in jail to make it more 'equal' ? should we have homeless shelters specifically for males to get gender equality among the homeless?

Feminists often push for gender quotas when it comes to important positions of power (governments, corporate executives, etc) which is very problematic since it isn't meritocratic and it's not really great for the females who wouldn't have needed that to get into these positions (then a lot of people think they got to that position because they were female).

There are of course other forms of equality like trying to give people equal/similar rights but why should you be happy with shit treatment by society because other people also get treated poorly?

Who should be counted as female?
One issue with giving special treatment to all people of one sex/gender is determining who should actually be counted as female. For example many transphobes calling themselves feminists have various excuses for excluding trans females, of course these excuses doesn't make logical sense but they don't care about that since they dislike trans people.


This just further illustrate how we need to judge people as individuals rather than trying to group them together in large arbitrary collectives like race or gender.

You can make the laws themselves gender neutral and then give courts a lot of freedom to favor females over males, this without ever having to formally divide people into sex-categories.

Issues with adopting feminism as a personal philosophy
It does not seem to me like believing "it's a really bad thing to be objectified/sexualized" is going to help you live a functioning life, you end up in a war against reality which you have no chance of 'winning'.

Furthermore many feminist promote ideals a lot of cis/trans females really shouldn't bother living up to, not all females can be successful and independent. There is nothing wrong with accepting help from people around you, while having to rely on other people probably isn't ideal some people just cannot do any better unfortunately.

If you actually want to become independent you probably want to accept all real help you can get since that will make it much easier. Everyone start out helpless (as a child) and you will always have to rely on other people to a degree (such as not having a court take freedom away for you).


You yourself have the greatest incentive to look out for your own well-being, other people around you do not have the same incentive.

Unfortunately however just relying on yourself is not possible, humans start out in life as weak and in need of support for others. It's only when you get older that you gain the abilities to actually take care of yourself.

Even if you are capable however you still end up as a victim due to factors outside of your control, for example you may go to court having the law on your side and still lose due to the jury making a mistake, then you will suffer the consequences for that.

Even if you (somehow) manage to become a dictator gaining full legal countrol over your country you will still depend on other people, for example you need other people to keep things going if you are asleep, you may also have to rely on alliances by other countries.


Instead of relying on just one individual or trying to involve everyone (democracy) an elite is relied upon. Having an elite in charge is the only way for humans to be able to instantly make majority decisions, as long as a majority is always ready an instant majority decision can be made at any time.

An elite can together be more reliable than any individual human


The picture above is the probability for probability for an elite of 15 making a decision relative to probability of an individual senator making said decision. This illustrates how an elite can have super-human decision-making ability.



When people feel like the system is working they will be less willing to rake risks with reforms, especially not in the entire country.

The issue with this thinking is that while it may prevent some changes to the worse it will also prevent changes to the better.
Furthermore the fact that something worked in the past does not mean it will keep working. For example giving a lot of power or all power to just a single individual will often work out just fine but it's a really dangerous way to govern a society.


About bodily aotonomy
It's a very valuable right but also a right that is very hard to fully secure partly due to the fact that a lot of humans are simply not capable of making their own decisions (such as infants).



There isn't any clear way to divide humans into races, any such attempt will be arbitrary and thus race is actually a social construct in the sense that we as a society have created arbitrary categories for it that.

Since race socially is defined largely by appearance changing your race is very possible and this may also improve your quality of life. People being able to change their race means that race itself becomes less meaningful since it's more of an identity/presentation and less about what you were born as.

Of course people into toxic identity politics may very much oppose transracialism since it goes against their toxic ideologies but society itself do benefit very much from judging people by their actual abilities rather than the color of their skin.

Changing the color of your skin is very common, all you need to do is go out in the sun and tan. The difference between tanning and transracialism is just a difference in degree.


There isn't any clear way to divide humans into gender, any such attempt will be arbitrary and thus gender is actually a social construct in the sense that we as a society have created arbitrary categories for it that.

Since gender socially is defined largely by appearance changing your gender is very possible and this may also improve your quality of life. People being able to change their race means that race itself becomes less meaningful since it's more of an identity/presentation and less about what you were born as.

Of course people into toxic identity politics may very much oppose transgenderism since it goes against their toxic ideologies but society itself do benefit very much from judging people by their actual abilities rather than legal sex, especially when changing legal sex is easy (such as self-ID).

Medical transition will however in some cases prevent reproduction, this is especially a problem with FtM transition since even if eggs are banked a womb would still be required to make a baby. There is however no shortage of males being able to reproduce and sperm can be banked prior to transitioning, in addition fertility can often be restored by stopping HRT.


Medical transition from male to female could also be useful for social control since MtF HRT will feminize the brain


The following study showed that MtF transexuals were 20% less likely to get convicted of violent crime than comparable cis males but that was not statistically significant and this was also back when transgenderism wasn't as accepted socially.


We need to do a randomized Controlled Trial to examine of transition would be particularly effective in making people less criminal, in any case it's very likely that social factors are more important than hormonal factors when it comes to criminality.

Encouraging MtF transition specifically make sense if there is a very big portion of males unable to find a partner, unfortunatily voluntary transitions are unlikely to be enough to deal with involuntary celibacy and similar issues, most people are not at all willing to change their sex just to improve their dating options or even when transition would provide them with many other benefits as well.


while it is nice to have rights it is often not in your interest or the interest of society to give other people the same rights.


A weak government allows other actors to gain power instead and this is good for these other actors but it's not really a system that can last too long. You do need to initiate violance towards people in order to keep society stable. If the police is ineffective you end up with criminal gangs controlling people instead extorting them.

You do need the government to be in control over key infrastructure like the basic monetary system and social media.

This is what happens when you let private companies control social media:



Female supremacism
Females are simply more valuable in a modern society, males are becoming largely obsolete due to technology.








Why the government cannot be too big
The bigger the government the more there will be for government official to manage. There are too many decisions to make which requires a huge bureaucracy. Even if the people highest up in the hierarchy are good, there will still be a lot of problems further down.

For example, sars-cov-2 could initially be spread because the Hubei government did not handle it properly and once the Politburo's standing committee took over, it had spread throughout the country and they were forced to take very far-reaching measures to get it under control.

From version 28 of the vintologi bible (end of page 116):

Central planning & control
It takes effort and competence to govern over something, this is true both for countries and corporations. The governance burden will grow with the size of the company/government and this is why a government has to restrict itself when it comes to control.

Governments can control companies successfully but then they will have to spend time governing these companies and that brainpower could have been used for other things. The ability of a government to control things is however not fixed, technology such as computers will give a government entity more computational power allowing them to take on a bigger burden when it comes to governance.

Making the government bigger create the need to introduce more decision making entities, this can be local governments or specialized boards and the central government will not have time to properly watch over these entities, thus as the government grow there will become an increased number of critical decision making entities that all have to maintain a high decision making reliability.

Since corporations are also limited when in their ability to govern they might not actually be able to take over society completely since the difficulty in managing a company grow with its size, there have been successful cases of companies relying a lot on central planning 277 but these companies are still small relative to the entire economy.