Philosophy of Activism

There are a limited number of memes that a person can promote at a time or because of within their head at a time. If there are a limited number of memes that a person can promote at a time or because of within their head at a time, then one trick that you could get used to get people to stop promoting means that you don’t like is to infest with different means that you are neutral to or like better.

Bringing Up Issues It is important to bring up any issue that is worth resolving. Bringing stuff to attention doesn’t really take focus away from other issues unless it’s truly not important. Bringing attention to something does not need attention takes attention away from the more important stuff that really matters.

Hitler had some interesting ideas about propaganda. He viewed the masses as always being manipulated by one side or another, and so propaganda was essential. He believed that the German propaganda had been terrible in WWI, compared to the other side. So, he had an awareness of human irrationality and mob psychology, but didn’t see that he was caught up in a delusion himself. One of the dangers of using propaganda to manipulate others is that you start believing it yourself.

People that are looking to persuade others are almost certainly not open to having their minds changed on that particular topic. Most people tend to be open-minded on a personal selection of topics, and closed-minded on others.

A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one. This may be to carry out a social change, or to resist or undo one. It is a type of group action and may involve individuals, organizations, or both. Social movements have been described as “organizational structures and strategies that may empower oppressed populations to mount effective challenges and resist the more powerful and advantaged elites”. They represent a method of social change from the bottom within nations. On the other hand, some social movements do not aim to make society more egalitarian, but to maintain or amplify existing power relationships. For example, scholars have described fascism as a social movement.

Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics. Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movement examining things such as scope, type of change, method of work, range, and time frame.

Some scholars have argued that modern Western social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature) and increased mobility of labor due to the industrialization and urbanization of 19th-century societies. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture are responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. Many of the social movements of the last hundred years grew up, like the Mau Mau in Kenya, to oppose Western colonialism. Social movements have been and continue to be closely connected with democratic political systems. Occasionally, social movements have been involved in democratizing nations, but more often they have flourished after democratization. Over the past 200 years, they have become part of a popular and global expression of dissent.

Modern movements often use technology and the internet to mobilize people globally. Adapting to communication trends is a common theme among successful movements. Research is beginning to explore how advocacy organizations linked to social movements in the U.S. and Canada use social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.

– Wikipedia: Social Movement

What else can talentless low-IQ people do, when they still want to do activism, yet have low intelligence? Most often, they tend to do mindless protesting like idiots, or talking to people because that’s how or what works best with their emotions, especially when their emotions are caught by the parasitic activism that they were pursuing, etc. Some somewhat smarter people may write a blog that some people look at, but their activism outreach is still limited by their intelligence and abilities.

More capable people are often able to do more effective and farther-reaching activism. They tend to write books, run YouTube channels, speak on college campuses and public events, and they tend to be public figure is that many people know about. What I’m trying to get out of here is that the activism that any person is capable doing depends on their intelligence and their skills.

Converting / Persuading people to a different ideology should be thought of as a numbers game. You probably won’t convince most people, but if you spread the ideas out to enough people, eventually you will have a large audience if the ideas are reasonable good, and there’s a decent supply of people who are particularly receptive to them.

Creating A Strong YouTube Following: Probably the most effective strategy for gaining a YouTube video would be to make a lot of religious videos, similar to Cosmic Skeptic and Genetically Modified Skeptic, who appealed to atheists who hate christianity because they grew up with it and grew to resent it. WhatIfAltHist has managed to gain an impressive following by making videos about the human condition. Copying his strategy would be a good idea for Blithering Genius.

Not everybody has to be an original thinker to make important contributions. There’s also a lot of value in doing other things. Most critics are worthless. Real legitimate criticism is a valuable thing.

2:51:34: To some extent, I see myself as an original thinker who’s came up with some ideas that were uniquely conceived of by myself. 2:52:25: It’s almost impossible to think of ideas by oneself these days, because the Internet, books, etc are always there. It’s difficult to independently come up with things that nobody else has ever thought of, unless you burrow very deeply into things, ideas, and concepts that not many other people (if anyone else) thinks about. 2:53:15: Yudkowsky isn’t as original of a thinker as he portrays himself to be, within his Less Wrong cult.

i

Examples of ideologies more thing into less intelligent and less complex understandings of the world:

• Race realists becoming race idealist and racists
• Intelligence is mainly genetic becoming IQ fetish sizing or IQ obsessing
• Demographic equality morphing into demographic quotas and woke propaganda
• i
• i

Potential political policies I could see widely debated within 20 years:

• Reforming age of consent laws to include age gaps.
• Ban on Factory farming.
• Ban on Embryo selection .
• Ban on AGI research.
• Deflation of higher education credentials.

See: The Modern Problems with Conformity.

We no longer live in a homogenous society. In a sense, we live in parallel societies (or cliches) that are engaging in memetic warfare. One is a post-modern society, and the other is pre-modern.

Most people only have a small bubble of the world that they care about, stay updated about, and conduct activism about.

In my opinion, most people in first world countries or more perhaps more specifically my home country of the United States,lack awareness about all the other problems in the world. It seems that for many people issues that happen outside of their tiny little corner of the world I will never get their attention but I know they absolutely should be aware about it.

i

i

The language barrier matters more when trying to do activism on a global scale. Multilingual countries are probably more aware of it than monolingual countries, like the United States.

Freedom of Speech - Blithering Genius.

When there is sufficient social rationality, it is counterproductive to censor (irrational) ideas that the society would ignore anyway. When there is highly insufficient social nationality, censoring irrational ideas could make the society more rational. For example, in East Germany, most East Germans believed in Christianity in the late 1940s, but East German education and culture corrected this. By the late 80s, most East Germans were atheist.

Leo Strauss Was a Theorist of Counterrevolution Born 125 years ago this year, political philosopher Leo Strauss became a patron saint of US conservatism. Strauss was one of the sharpest enemies of equality — and his work is an education in the antidemocratic spirit of the Right.

i

Hypothetically, we could create an imaginative set of information on the world, and then trained a human mind so that it makes inferences and decisions based on the dynamics and mechanics of the imaginative world, even if it was not nothing like reality at all. The black pill that most people don’t realize is that to a great extent that’s what we’ve already done with the modern world We have all this ridiculous imagination and animation stuff that people fill their minds with from the media. They have absolutely no awareness or realization that they are polluting their minds with fake information and impairing their own ability to understand reality. They thus don’t understand that we are all products of evolution, entropy, physics, and chemistry.

i

The most important thing to remember is that these temper tantrums are too idiotic to be effective. They don’t hurt Israel in any way, nor do they help Hamas or Iran in any way. On the contrary, they rally people who support Israel to their cause.

More importantly for those of us not in Israel: they kill the brand of institutions which tolerate them. The leftist universities which allow this thuggery are losing credibility, and influence over Western society, with every headline you see about this. And that’s great news. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

Criticism is about engaging in logical arguments. Cancel culture is about bypassing the logical argument by attacking the people making the logical arguments. Cancel culture was created because the left cannot survive in the “free-market” of ideas.

• i
• i
• i

To some extent, cancel culture is not a new phenomenon, since boycotts have existed throughout history. Cancel culture is just more prevalent and notable nowadays since social media and historically unprecedented moral dogma (coupled by a loss in the power process) have amplified it. There are arguably two aspects to cancel culture:

• The canceling of historical figures who did something that is immoral nowadays (e.g. Christopher Columbus and the American Founding Fathers who owned slaves). I’d argue that this one is always counter-productive.
• The canceling of living people who did something that is immoral.

Canceling people who’ve done something bad can be “good” in many cases according to the Pragmatopian perspective (e.g. the #MeToo movement canceling rapists).

Canceling people who’ve said something objectionable could be used to lessen a person’s influence, which can be a “good” thing if we don’t like them (e.g. canceling Inmendham for speaking in favor of child porn). I dislike any influence that Inmendham has, but canceling him just for being in favor of child porn makes it harder to draw attention towards more rationalist critiques of his worldview. Like, I don’t believe we should condone child porn, but I also think it would be more productive to explain why Efilism is irrational or not uniquely rational. Ignoring Inmendham’s other arguments just because he supported child porn is either an Ad Hominem Fallacy or a Red Herring Fallacy.

Canceling Richard Stallman for having said inappropriate things or behavior may be good for condemning behavior that we don’t support. But I don’t think it makes sense to cancel someone who has been so important and influential for helping the Free Software Movement. It’s thanks to Stallman that we have the gcc compiler, GNU Emacs, GNU software, etc. In spite of all his personal flaws, he was probably the perfect guy to lead the Free Software Movement.

Other cancel culture attempts limit free speech, which hurts society. Canceling a person with relatively small influence will hurt them a lot, especially if it hurts their employment opportunities, whereas canceling someone who’s rich with a lot of influence may just relegate them to a normal middle-class NPC life. Cancel culture and the threat of it contribute to social isolation and why many people have fewer friends in society. Cancel culture is most effective in its objectives if it causes a person to be imprisoned or face heavy legal penalties. Other times, it doesn’t seem to hurt famous people in the long-run, especially if they have enormous influence, and if what they said/did was harmless enough for people to forget about it over time (e.g. Donald Trump and the Access Hollywood Tapes) So, one reason for the arguable ineffectiveness of cancel culture is that many (political) events just get memory-holed over time.

Doxxing an anonymous person’s in-real-life identity may cause them to get canceled and face serious consequences in real life. Cancel culture is one of the main reasons, and perhaps the biggest negative consequence of getting doxxed.

The Cons Of Cancel Culture

• A punishment proportional to the wrongdoing is not guaranteed to be done.
• Sometimes cancel culture punishes people who would be more appropriately punished by the legal system instead.
• Canceling historical figures for doing things that were acceptable during their time and culture but would not be acceptable by today’s point of view (ethical blindspots), even though they were otherwise good people who did great things overlooks the nature of our deterministic, cause-and-effect universe, while simultaneously x
• Accepting cancel culture has the potential to cancel ourselves in the future if the future society vehemently rejects us for having ethical blindspots in our present-day societies.
• i
• i

Most of the ideas that people come up with for fixing things like fixing the academy, raising the birth rate, boosting, economic prosperity, etc. are ideas that seem to work within their frames of thinking. They don’t expand their frame of thinking to realize that it may not be necessary to have so many academics in the first place, a low birth rate could be okay, or there are actually deeper economic issues which caused the effects that were seeing. People don’t think on higher levels.

They are only proud of their ideas because the ideas seem to give them moral superiority, not because they’re well-thought out. And if they think their ideas are well-thought out, it’s only because they haven’t thought enough, are just ignorant, or are too dumb to think more deeply. Some examples:

• People may say that politicians should lower taxes to boost economic growth, but they ignore that taxes can’t be low for everybody, especially when government spending is high, there is a high government deficit and government debt, and there were actually better ways to boost economic prosperity.
• People may also say that the country should do more fracking, but they ignore that the world has a finite oil supply, and that it would be better to stop relying so much on cars.
• People often say that Congress should get funding to this for that, but Congress wouldn’t need so much emergency relief funding for natural disasters in the first place if people would just stop building urbanizing and living near hurricane, flood, or earthquake prone areas. This would be easier to accomplish if Congress didn’t subsidize insurance for natural disasters, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

It’d be nice if we could have a society that fixes problems before they happen, instead of after they happen. Unfortunately, most people are only inclined to do the latter since the former option requires thinking on a much higher level than what most people can do. We live in a determinsitic, cause-and-effect universe. Since people have selective attentions, they tend to only focus on things after they happen. For most people, there has to be something that causes them to think about those problems in the first place.

It’s really stupid to create jobs for the sake of people having jobs. But what’s even dumber than that is when someone says that we should create jobs for the sake of people having jobs, and they complain about how work is necessary for a society to function.

i

Unfortunately, most people live in echo chambers nowadays due to the modern problems of conformity. From personal experience, I hypothesize that there are probably some receptive people who are trapped within in various echo chambers who are capable of escaping them if they are exposed to the truth. If we want to have an elevated chance of persuading those people (however few they may be), then we might need to try popping some bubbles and echo chambers for the greatest social outreach for our movement as possible. We may get censored for doing so, and it may not be worth the effort since the chances of persuading people is always so low. But it is something that could be tried.

If this strategy is attempted, it may be most effective to write essays and create videos for persuading people who are trapped such ideologies.

It depends on how this method is done, what/which groups are being penetrated, etc. In most cases, this is probably an ineffective tactic. i

There might be ways to make this tactic more effective, but I’m not sure what they would be. I think about this a lot, since I know that it’s a major barrier to activism. I used to believe that this is ought to be an effective strategy for that reason. But now I’m not so sure after gaining more personal experience and becoming more black-pilled. The black-pilled truth might be that there is no general, effective way to get around it.

Common methods used for activism include:

• Community building
• Artivism
• Communities of practice
• Conflict transformation
• Cooperative
• Cooperative movement
• Craftivism
• Grassroots
• Guerrilla gardening
• Transition movement
• Lobbying
• Media activism
• Culture jamming
• Hacktivism
• Internet activism
• Peace activism
• Non-violent resistance
• Peace camps
• Peace vigil
• Moral purchasing
• Petition
• Political campaigning
• Propaganda
• Guerrilla communication
• Protest
• Boycott
• Demonstration
• Direct action
• Performance Theater
• Protest songs
• Sit-in
• Strike action
• Hunger strike

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. - Buckminster Fuller

How Does Technology Create The Illusion Of Moral Progress?

../civilization/technology

Preference Falsification seems related to astroturfing.

Preference falsification is the act of misrepresenting a preference under perceived public pressures. It involves the selection of a publicly expressed preference that differs from the underlying privately held preference (or simply, a public preference at odds with one’s private preference). People frequently convey to each other preferences that differ from what they would communicate privately under credible cover of anonymity (such as in opinion surveys to researchers or pollsters). Pollsters can use techniques such as list experiments to uncover preference falsification.

The term preference falsification was coined by Timur Kuran in a 1987 article, “Chameleon voters and public choice.” On controversial matters that induce preference falsification, he showed there, widely disliked policies may appear popular. The distribution of public preferences, which Kuran defines as public opinion, may differ greatly from private opinion, which is the distribution of private preferences known only to individuals themselves.

Kuran developed the implications of this observation in a 1995 book, Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. This book argues that preference falsification is not only ubiquitous but has huge social and political consequences. It provides a theory of how preference falsification shapes collective illusions, sustains social stability, distorts human knowledge, and conceals political possibilities. Collective illusions is an occurrence when most people in a group go along with an idea or a preference that they don’t agree with, because they incorrectly believe that most people in the group agree with it. – Wikipedia: Preference Falsification.

i

Video is a powerful medium. People respond to it emotionally and intuitively. Seeing is believing, so to speak.

A person viewing the George Floyd death video would naturally empathize with the dying black man who appeared to be begging for his life. They would naturally see him as a victim, and the man kneeling on his neck as an oppressor. The man kneeling on his neck was white, and he acted in a way that seemed cruel or indifferent. It was easy to interpret the event as an instance of “racist police brutality”, especially since (1) the video only showed the end of the encounter, and (2) people have been conditioned to believe the myth that blacks are unfairly targeted by racist police.

Video is an important type of evidence, but unfortunately it can be very misleading. You experience video as if you are experiencing the event yourself. Watching videos creates a false impression of direct knowledge, and that impression is subconscious. You feel that you know something by direct experience, when in fact you have acquired fake knowledge from fake experience.

The problems with video are amplified by mass media and social media. For a video to be propagated, it must engage our emotions. Our brains evolved to learn abstract general knowledge from the information of direct experience. Our brains did not evolve to process information from videos that have been cherry-picked to generate emotional reactions.

Direct experience is a good source of information about reality, or at least about the aspects of reality that you interact with. Fake experience is not a good source of information about reality. If we feed fake experience into our brains, we will acquire fake knowledge.

As a medium, video almost always gives us a biased sample of specific events. If you wanted to get an accurate view of police interactions with black people, you would have to watch an unbiased sample of videos of such interactions. If you watch 10,000 randomly selected videos of police interactions with black people, then you will have accurate knowledge about such interactions. If you only watch a few videos of such interactions, and those videos were cherry-picked to support a narrative, then you will have false knowledge, but you will feel very confident in that false knowledge.

For most things, including police interactions, it isn’t practical to watch 10,000 randomly selected videos, or even 100. Luckily, there is a better way to develop an accurate understanding of reality: statistics. If you look at statistics on police interactions, you can acquire accurate knowledge about them (as long as the statistics are accurate).

Unfortunately, most people aren’t very good at abstract thought. Many don’t even understand averages and percentages. They will care more about a single death captured on video than a million deaths in the abstract.

– Blithering Genius, George Floyd and the Madness of Crowds

Likewise, there are many reasons Muslims care more about Israel/Palestine than about Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs aside from the alleged hopelessness of the latter situation:

• Arabs are the same ethnicity and speak the same language as Palestinians.
• Arabs have lost several wars to Israel and consider this a “humiliation”.
• Israel is located at the heart of “Dar al-Islam”, the region of the world Muslims have traditionally ruled.
• Israel maintains control over the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, generally considered the third holiest site in Islam.2
• China prevents incriminating videos coming out of Xinjang, whereas we regularly see footage of Palestinian victims.

– Noah Carl, A response to Richard Hanania on Arab militants

The Selfish Gene was published by Richard Dawkins in 1976. Unfortunately, it is largely responsible for making a majority of educated people (especially people who are educated about biology) believe in kin altruism. Although Blithering Genius released a response book, Debunking the Selfish Gene, in December 2022, it is so far failing to become popular. More could be done to promote its popularity, but the window for changing people’s minds on this may be too late. It doesn’t seem as if there’s enough time to promote selfishness before the collapse happens.

Chaos by James Gleick was released in 1989. It shaped how a lot of people think about Chaos Theory.

The Bell Curve was published by Charles Murray in 1993. It promoted a lot of discussion about intelligence.

i

Hypothetically, future landmark books may be able to shape public opinion. However, this is much harder to do in the Internet Age. i

i

Matthew Archer: Why do these idiots devalue their currency so readily? The Nazi/fash/racist accusations actually work if you use them sparingly.

The technology of the modern world also makes censorship easier than ever nowadays. This censorship may be obvious (e.g. getting banned on social media, removal of videos from YouTube, etc) or it may be less obvious (e.g. messing with search results on YouTube and Google, automatic censorship, etc)

Each political faction, e.g. environmentalism, has different jobs within it. Just like each army whether American or Russian has different jobs within it. A hot woman holding <ideology> flag is a very obvious role. Just like how Kiara holding a Communist flag gives a lot of power to the Communist ideology faction for spreading its influence. Or Lauren Chen and Lauren Southern bringing power to right-wing groups.

Reagan once gave a speech in 1980 that fooled people into thinking he didn’t use a teleprompter. It impressed a lot of people. Obama was nothing without his teleprompter.

Bloggers can avoid getting negative comments on their blogs if they do not share their blogs or places to receive overwhelmingly negative and unproductive comments. Besides avoiding notifying a user multiple times, another reason why it’s better to edit existing reddit comments than to make multiple comments is that it could give dissenters and idiots multiple opportunities to downvote your comments, which would decrease your karma faster.

See: Thoughts On Democracy: Big Tent Strategy.

The kayfabe of “appearing to lose” is big. https://www.psandman.com/col/account.htm

For years, the McDonald’s restaurant chain had been under pressure from environmentalists to serve meals in something greener than the polystyrene clamshell. Suppose McDonald’s had decided unilaterally one day to make the switch. “This is an example of our deep environmental commitment,” the company spokesperson might have announced. “Paint the Golden Arches green!” As always happens when companies claim credit this way, the activists would have been furious and the public would have been skeptical.

Instead of following the typical course, McDonald’s entered into negotiations with the Environmental Defense Fund (now called Environmental Defense). They negotiated an agreement under which McDonald’s committed itself to abandon polystyrene, and EDF committed itself to police the switch, to hold the company accountable. At their joint announcement, the McDonald’s spokesperson said relatively little, while the EDF spokesperson called it a victory for the environmental movement. When reporters asked the McDonald’s rep if he agreed that this was a victory for environmentalists over his company, he said – the words almost catching in his throat – “yes.” Others at the company let it be known that they weren’t even sure the switch was environmentally desirable. But they were sure that environmental groups and the majority of customers wanted them to switch, and McDonald’s intended to respond to their demands.

The result: Environmental groups that might otherwise have attacked the change as too little too late, as more symbolic than real, as “greenmail,” took credit for it instead. More than a decade later, McDonald’s still ranks high on lists of environmentally responsible companies.

Right to repair signed into law in Minnesota - we won! - Louis Rossmann woah watching this i just had an amazing idea he said, the manufacturers hate it when each state has different laws so he said, when they fuck his law in one state, he passes it in another state [reminds me of how there’s the this product has carcinogens warning from california in every state] The theory is that if you even get one state to pass a right to repair law even some nobody like alaska then it would be so expensive for a business to satisfy that state separately that they would essentially be forced into supporting it nationwide wouldn’t it be funny if every iphone was slapped with a huge smokers-style warning of “this product contains components known to the state of alaska to be anti right to repair” the mindshare of that california warning ishuge everyone recognizes it and what if a 2nd state, like hawaii passed it and then they had to reprint all the labels and then people saw the change and were like woah now it’s known to the states of alaska AND hawaii?

Endorsements can help any activist, but they usually aren’t something that the activists can control themselves. i

When people (especially politicians) endorse a candidate who is running for political office (e.g. Trump for president of the United States), sometimes they’re doing so not so much to voice support the candidate (if at all), but moreso to virtue signal to people and their voters about their political positions and supposed beliefs. Many Republican congressmen actually hate Donald Trump, but they still endorse him anyway because they know that that’s what a majority of their voters and constituents would favor.

Examples Of Political Candidates Or Figures Who Were/Are Opposed By Their Family Members:

• Tim Waltz’s family opposing his run as vice president
• Robert F Kennedy’s family opposing his run for president
• Barack Obama’s brother opposing his presidency
• Trump’s niece opposing his presidency
• Ronald Reagan’s son opposing his father’s politics
• Ann Coulter or some other conservative woman and her husband and daughter all had radically different politics

i

See: The Will to Power or the Will to LARP?.

The key to opening the Overton Window is to have good arguments and present ourselves as reasonable, intelligent people acting in good faith. This is the best way to fight the Culture War.

---

Blithering Genius has multiple essays where he stresses how people and life in general our selfish. However, two of the most important essays that stress the importance cooperation and nuance on this topic: are Game Theory And Society and Family And Society. They explain that life is cooperative because it is selfish, and how cooperation and selfishness actually go together, rather than against each other. These are important, since the knee-jerk reaction to “humans are selfish” is often “okay, but why should we care about others?”

i

Much of the black pill is about realizing that the potential set or pool of people that we’d actually want to communicate with isn’t very large. I personally want to believe that there’s a lot of people who just don’t have the right knowledge for figuring out the Truth. Due to the experiences that I had before and when I had first discovered Blithering Genius’s content, I want to believe that there are still many others out there that are similar to me that just need the right spark, before they adopt and build upon a similar worldview.

Maybe I could become black-pilled and gain a more realistic perception of how unlikely I am to persuade people if I recognize that most people are Normies and idiots and that culture is mainly created by Normies and idiots. Normies and idiots are mainly the way they are due to genes. So, trying to persuade someone of pragmatopian/pragmatospherian ideas is futile because you cannot change a person’s genes. So, it’s not worth trying, and it will almost certainly be a waste of the time for ~98-99-100% of people and on ~95% of attempts.

Not only is it a complete waste of time to debate topics with people who are too unintelligent (too low IQ) to understand them, but it’s also waste of time because they will assume ideas about my beliefs and positions since they won’t bother reading everything that I’ve written beforehand to understand my positions better. Simply put, my positions and beliefs are too different from the average normie to effectively debate anything because they don’t bother to read everything first, and they can’t be forced to.

The amount of intelligent life out there that would ever be interested in most of the ideas that we write about is probably really low.

Most people literally believe that the truth is evil, hence why most people reject it. Or they believe that the implications of the truth are evil.

Pushing and pulling values onto other people:

• People like people who help them satisfy their values or their delusions.
• At the same time, people hate people who try to push their values onto them.
• Unfortunately, the values that most people have are not aligned with the values of a rational and sustainable civilization.
• Hence people hate ideas that would make society more sustainable, since those ideas do not align with what they think would be best for society, due to their delusions.

Regarding YouTube videos, it becomes clear why a Pragmatopian YouTube channel is unlikely ever be widely popular or successful. Such as a channel would be advocating for values that most people don’t want. People are only going to listen to YouTubers that say what they want to hear, or things that will reaffirm the values that they already have. In order for such a YouTube channel to be wildly successful, it might have to somehow trick people into hearing what they want to hear. But it must do so slowly to make people overcome their delusions, while subconsciously implanting ideas and values into the irrational unthinking normie masses.

---

As hopeless as it may be, I still believe that there are many reasons why we should be somewhat optimistic, and why there is still hope that we can still persuade a sizable people. It is true that we will probably never persuade most people, but we have to keep trying anyway because a global civilization collapse is unrecoverable and extremely undesirable. I believe that any number of people that we can convince is a positive win, especially if the people that we convince have power to do actions that will positively benefit society, slow down the collapse, or even prevent the collapse. Convincing any possible number of people of any good ideas if you can is a good idea because it’s about making the best of a shitty situation. The more people we can convince, the more likely it is that we can persuade everybody to travel, congregate, and create a community of like-minded people who could withstand any foreign threats or create a functional community that could potentially outlast the collapse of civilization. Of course, this would require people who specialize in many different professions. For example, having people who specialize in nuclear reactors to keep eternal or basically eternal energy source forever. We also need people who specialize in all the different branches of engineering, people who specialize in education, legal systems, and essentially any specialization they require an intellectual and higher IQ mind. NOTE: Elaborate more on these thoughts, if you think of anything.

---

I also believe that there are many things to be hopeful, as of 2024 July 2. For example, I believe that Trump winning the election will probably be better than Biden winning the election in most regards, aside from how he would support Ukraine less against Russia, and how he’d expand fracking to increase the inefficient use and depletion rate of the world’s natural resources, and maybe a handful of other things. But overall, I believe that a Trump presidency and deep state would probably be better than four more years of Biden and the Democrat deep state, even if he doesn’t do too many considerable improvements to the current condition.

---

I also still believe that there are many people that we have the potential to reach out towards. There are still many people out there who have never heard of ideas of Blithering Genius and Zero Contractions. Many of them may initially be skeptical of some of the content, like I initially was back in late 2021, but if we can figure out a way to effectively advertise these ideas and spread them to as many people as possible, that would still improve the condition to some extent, especially if we could get one, two, or a few more notable intellectual thinkers on our side to spread our ideas among the public much wider than we can.

---

Additionally, the ideas of Blithering Genius and Zero Contradictions are only written in English. The language barrier is another great obstacle to spreading our ideas that we will have to overcome in order to spread our ideas to even more followers. There are still many other languages that we should translate these ideas into in order to mass more support and gain a greater chance of persuading more people towards our cause. Of course, we are lucky that most of the world’s smartest people speak and use English, so our writings are available in the world’s most popular language with the most intelligent population. We are also lucky that the more intelligent people of any society tend to be more likely to learn and speak English than languages. The advancement of AI translation of many different languages will also reduce the language barrier, but it still won’t be enough for optimal activism. Search engines still favor webpages that are written specifically for the search user’s preferred language, rather than being available in only one language and unavailable in others without the assistance of AI translation.

---

We won’t need to convince 100% of humanity to steer society away from global collapse. For that matter, we don’t even need to persuade 100% of countries to join our movement. Of course, the people that we were the best chance at persuading are going to be people from the highest IQ countries. And within those countries, we don’t have to persuade 100% them. If we could persuade anywhere between 20 to 80% of the public to accept these ideas, then that would can be a sufficient political force to do real changes that could positively affect the destiny and future of humanity. We can get away with persuading lower percentages of the public if we manage to attract people with more power to our side. On the other hand, if we attract mostly people with comparatively less power, then we will need to persuade much more of the population, hence the persuasion percentage range of 20 to 80%. The power of the people is very diffuse, but any number of people that we can get onto our side is still a positive benefit for our movement.

---

Additionally, the outlook on Western fertility rates currently seems grim, with the Great Replacement ongoing. White people in the West are gradually being replaced by less intelligent and less individualist demographics who are less likely to fix modern civilization. Nevertheless, after several decades or so, there might be a rebound in favor of more conservative-minded individuals who are more likely to support right-wing policies rather than detrimental left-wing policies.

---

Encouraging the most intelligent members of our community to donate sperm and their gametes will also have positive contributions. Of course, only a small percentage of the children born every year are born to sperm donation, but again if we can get hundreds or thousands of babies who are more likely to have intelligent genes, that is still a positive benefit for our movement.

---

I also suspect that we may have better chances of persuading more people, as humanism and other delusions continue to break down, and as it becomes more and more evident that these ideologies cannot accurately predict or fix the future. As people continue to lose hope in critical things like democracy, dating, altruistic beliefs, and other humanist causes, there may be more potential to persuade hopeless and disillusion people towards a more Social Darwinist and Pragmatopian worldview. Of course, we unfortunately cannot count on this, since changing demographics over the next few decades will cause more people to have genetics that are less likely to see through all the bullshit and finally accept more of the hard truths. Eventually all the (humanist) gaslighting will finally run out of gas to burn.

---

Once the scale of technology and civilization both decline, people will have to deal with lower standard of living. People will have to spend more time doing household chores, and less time watching TV shows, movies, and video games. People spent more time doing homemaking tasks before new household technologies were popularized in the 1960s and the 1920s, because the new innovations freed up people’s time to do other things.

If people watched fewer movies, TV shows, or video games, then society would probably become less deluded. And honestly, I would rather live under a society where most people did more housework, rather than filling their minds with fake knowledge that doesn’t describe how reality actually works. Perhaps if society collapses, and when people have to do more labor on a daily basis to sustain themselves, they’ll watch fewer television, movies, and video games, which could make people think more rationally about the world. So that’s another feature that could help fix society and its culture, as we get closer to the event horizon of the collapse. If we’re lucky, this could help prevent a worse and irreversible collapse from progressing, and maybe even reverse it.

Question: What else could society do to get people to fill their minds with less fake knowledge?

---

If we don’t try (to persuade people), then we’re all going to die from the collapse of our civilization and its consequences. More laconically: If we don’t try, then we’re all going to die. More laconically: If we don’t try, then our civilization is going to die.

---