Copyright is Rebellion Against Gnon.

If it were truly unprofitable for a printing press to make copies of a work, for whatever reason, it should not have been produced. Unprofitability is one especially clear way Gnon tells you something is a bad idea. Copyright is contrary to natural law.

You may have noticed that in the present day, publishers lie all the time. I suggest to you: in past years, publishers lied all the time. In reality copyright was never necessary for profitability, but instead a successful attempt to seize an unnatural, artificial, human monopoly.

Thaumaturgically, copyright is the banning of an act of creation. Guess what kind of person* is attracted to this sort of act.

Correcting the pricing is trivial. It does not take a world-spanning genius to solve this puzzle. If selling an artifact is also to sell the blueprint for that artifact, then price the blueprint into the artifact, genius. Have you considered stockpiling the artifact before it's released, thus expanding the first-mover premium? That's two, from a dilettante. An expert should be able to hand you a buffet of a dozen solutions.

Property rights are founded in security. When printing presses were rare it wasn't entirely unfeasible to secure every press. Still stupid, but not entirely stupid.

A computer is functionally a printing press for every kind of data. Not only does everyone have one, most have several. Attempting to secure them all is ludicrous on a good day. Rub this point in.: every Twitter account is a publisher; a combined printing press and broadcaster.

The Riots Were For Fraud

I was fairly puzzled by the riots. Why riot in cities you already own? Isn't that counterproductive?

I get it now. I knew in 2016 they were planning to fraud the hell out of this election, and they did too. The riots were a preview of what would happen should these cities not fall into ideological lockstep on the post-fraud gaslighting. 

By the way.
Remember when multiple states paused counting state-wide all at the same time or thereabouts? If you don't think there's an orchestrator for these things, you have brain damage. 

Antifa is protesting Trump's lawyers. Just in case anyone thought the Enemy might win in the courts.
Broke: intimidating the witnesses.
Woke: intimidating the witnesses' lawyers.
Again, orchestrator. Again, orchestrator isn't an idiot, unlike their poor minions. The orchestrator planned for their minions to be idiots, but the e-right didn't plan on the orchestrator not being an idiot. Pwned. The inelectronic right, meanwhile, was never right at all. The term [outer party] is exactly apt. America is a one-party Communist state. (It would be great if someone could properly explain why the outer party is so content with staying out in the cold. That's some impressive submission technology. Are they all masochists?) 

Don't forget they could have foregone deep-sixing their own elections if they could manage to wait four years. Term limits are a bitch, but unfortunately they employed too many panicky morons. There's only so much you can control when your position's responsibility is fully laundered.

Proggies Fear Court Attention

Correctly, it is a confession. Every time the Progressives try to avoid looking at the vote counts, they admit there is something to find. They're saying they believe they would lose in the courts, else they would welcome the challenge. When they demand you accept the election they confess they cannot defend against those who reject it.

For completeness they could also be claiming that Trump owns the courts, but let's simply laugh at that counterfactual and move on.

Imagine someone challenged you to a duel and then said, "It's wrong to shoot at my feet." You just learned how to win the duel, now didn't you? 

Trump's legacy shall be that regular Americans realize they're living in a banana republic. Sorry North America, you did it first, South America was merely following your lead, as is meet for subject principalities of the Empire.

The Leadership Drought

Moldbug's usage of Brahmin was correct, and Yarvin's usage of Noble is not. An aristocrat is a kind of phenotype, not a culture. You can't become an aristocrat by drinking the right kind of beer, no matter how fervently this is commonly believed. Not even Harvard-brand beer. Nor going to Burning Man.

Under conditions of population growth, the peasants vastly outnumber the aristocrats. The lower classes breed faster. Peasants generate wealth and problems. Aristocrats solve problems. When the ratio decays from (say) 1:100 to 1:200 or 1:1000, problems outnumber solutions and the result is degeneration. America is full of peasants, so it is wealthy and degenerate.

Further, the Modern™ system is designed to deal with this leadership drought. In other words it actively punishes and interferes with aristocracy, because peasant-tolerant systems are incompatible with leadership. Bureaucracy is hostile to responsibility. This means, even if you have 1:1000 aristocrats, you can't solve 1/10 of problems, because they can't be arsed to wrestle the system. They are encouraged to leech off it - it's not like a peasant could stop them even if they noticed the problem. Sipping poolside etc.

Yarvin can call the members of Burning Man [noble] if he wants, of course, as per nihilism. However, they generate problems, not solutions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Progressives are problematic precisely because although they have a few nobles at the top, they are largely composed of peasants. Again you need approximately a 1:100 ratio for sanity, and proggies are more like 1:2000. They can keep any 5% under control at any one time; the rest are on autopilot. E.g. Twitter has Jack and maybe one or two other aristocrats, but 5000 employees. When you're banned it's by one of the thousands of idiots over whose shoulder Jack is currently not looking. Also fun: when a foreign tyrant pokes her head into the dark side of Twitter and demands Trump's tweets get warnings. Then, if Jack tries to revoke this (once he notices), it's like declaring war on this competing tyrant. Let's gloss over the heresy angle, and the fact Jack would dearly like to resign his tyrancy.

Deviancy and deception? E.g. ruining the family so there's more single mothers, who vote left? The peasants can handle that. They have to cause problems but they can choose the form of the destructor.

You can see this particularly in the ""justice"" system. Judge is a kind of person, not a job description. Rightly speaking, the Law is a record of the kind of things a true Judge says. Judges routinely use skills the peasants can hardly even imagine, which render at least half of [due process] a farce. Consequently there are many atrocious judgments entered into precedent. The peasants can't tell the difference. A peasant adjudictor is called a magistrate or something, useful for dealing with routine cases and freeing up limited and valuable noble time. Due to the leadership drought, even if every qualified American Judge was drafted, there wouldn't be enough to populate all the open positions in the ""justice"" system. The compromise is to lie, and Satan loves America for it.

I'm not sure if your classic king's court is due to irresponsibility driving out the true aristocrats, or if it's due to the irresponsibility corrupting the existing aristocrats. Either way the source is the fact monarchy is centrist due to its reliance on coercion. If the peasant can't sell his subject-hood, then the winning move is for your aristos to suck and betray the country.

Capitalism is to the Right of Monarchy

Paraphrased: "It is outrageous but getting outraged will only make you sick."

The proper Nihilist, passivist, Gnonist, rightist take on the outrages is that they are not outrages. The fact the government is doing them is proof that they can do them, which is proof they have the Mandate of Heaven to do it. All you can do is accept it or resent it.
Or: Formalist Manifesto is still Yarvin's best work.

Is it your America? Could you sell it to someone if you wanted? Can you issue executive orders? No? What USG does is none of your business. USG 'gives' you the vote, but this is exactly like handing you a flaming bag of dog poop. "Yeah...uh...thanks." Pat the poor retard on the head and quietly drop it behind your back. Whether you vote for Trump or Biden, you still vote, you still invest yourself in the system, you still validate the voting Game per se. The only correct vote is the vote to end voting, which is so far beyond the possible that it's literally more likely that aliens will ride to our rescue on unicorn pegasi.

Fun fact: leftism is obviously not entropy. What stops incremental rightism from working is that responsibility is not a winning move in the Fascism game. Leftism wins the totalitarianism game. Haven't you ever heard of consolidation? March forward, consolidate, repeat. It works. Unless there's a strong force, such as game theory, opposing the strategy.

Leftism has historically been a difficult infection because even monarchy is, at best, centrist in an absolute sense. More on this later.

Moldbug is obviously not a passivist. (See also: Scott Adams never tricked anyone about his plan to vote for Trump.) Yarvin has very particular goals for the evolution of American politics. The problem is he is completely correct about Mensheviks; they support the regime, as per Nietzsche. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

In fact, Moldbug may have convinced me that Trump is the accelerationist candidate. Biden will starve their funding? Vote Trump. Fund them as hard as possible. The Empire has a finite amount of total energy, and it will fall when it runs out. The more activated and excited they are, the better. The red star metaphor is extremely apt. Burn the fuel.

Moldbug's proposal is to overthrow the government by electing Biden. Wu Wei might be my favourite kind of (ironic?) activism, but it is still activism. Hermitix happily skewered Yarvin's central point. "If you remove the active resistance, won't they go looking for resistance?" Moldbug's Impact. If they can't get Impact for free, they will trespass. Push and push until you can't help but resist.  

America is ruled by a usurper. Democracy is a coup engine.
As with all usurpers, they are a tyrant. (Perhaps say 1000 jockeying tyrants.) However, unless you're proposing a way to recruit a shadow army with which to militarily seize DC, you cannot overthrow a tyrant. That's kind of the thing with tryants. They're not democratic. 

What does this mean? It means you accept your government is inherently illegitimate, and then you put it out of your mind and go about your day.

There are indeed specific outrages. The idea is to not have them impact you personally. Then it's particularly easy not to be outraged by them, now isn't it?
What can you do to accomplish this?
When someone's first proposal is to overthrow the government, then maaaaaybe they're not being entirely sincere. In reality they love being outraged precisely because it gives them an excuse to defect. If they ever finish defecting on the government they will find an excuse to defect on you. Ref: every revolution ever.

Proposing governmental overthrow is doubly abominated because it is unnecessary. Rescue, mythical aliens or otherwise, is unnecessary. Insulating yourself all but perfectly from the outrageous is not only possible, but I've already done it. As previously, if you're not a deviant then you think going Benedict is swell. I personally went techno-Amish. There's a disallowed list of technologies and practices, but the internet isn't on the list obviously. No car, no TV, no smartphone*, no processed foods. No beds either but that's because they don't work for me. Bagels are on the list to remind me not to take it too seriously.

If you want to propose to me that every State should be a coercive totalitarian theocracy, we can have a discussion. When you hide and obfuscate your central thesis, then I conclude you yourself don't believe in it, and are instead after ulterior motives. Naturally my first move would be to point out that coercion is deviant, thus irresponsible, thus leftist, but NRx in general likes to pretend this argument can't be proposed. Hiding is a form of surrender.

As with all Twitter rightists except Nick Land, Moldbug's actual thesis is that totalitarian theocracy (but I repeat myself) is perfectly okay, except America went with the wrong religion. When he supports various [traditional] American practices, it's about endorsing the fundamentally totalitarian nature of the government. Much as when he pretends to be a moral nihilist and then condemns lying, here he endorses totalitarianism and then plumps for Augustus' revocation of politics. As pointed out in a later podcast with Greer, totalitarianism means politicizing even drinking straw material. "The government can and should involve itself with individual lemonade stands - or gas station attendants, as the case may be, but unpolitically." Does not compute.

I am particularly amused by the idea that you can force chavs to do things for their own good, but you can't force the blue state university professor to do things (such as regime change) for their own good. "They have beliefs that benefit their own caste, often in counterintuitive ways." Wait, who am I paraphrasing here?

A genuine nihilist prince's ruling philosophy is: "I rule because I can, suck it." However, he is not totalitarian; he rules as little as possible because it's a pain in the neck. Totalitarianism is the peasant's foggy delusion of what a pure aristocrat is like. The prince doesn't have to pursue Impact because it's already well clear he's in charge. He makes it as difficult as possible for the citizens to challenge his rule. He does not allow choosing a plastic drinking straw, or importing a plastic toy from China, to be an act of sedition. He does, however, maintain lese majeste. The peasants are a bit dense and often need beating with Reality's teaching stick.

As previously, monarchy is centrist. Capitalism is rightist. Under capitalism, you can legally and openly buy your way out of whatever outrage you find outrageous, instead of having to do it on the sly. In other words democracy would be fine if you could sell your """human""" rights, and all that implies - as indeed you almost could in 1300s England. (I propose a thing that already happened.) You can spot the true aristocrat because he buys an indulgence against lese majeste, but his son inherits it because he never used it. If he wants to criticize the prince, he does it the responsible way, by making an appointment and doing it face to face.

What's wrong with capitalism? It's inhuman, so socialites (e.g. all Americans) don't like it. It rewards autists, for example. (Eww!) Yeah okay we have riots in the streets, science has stalled, our warfighting potential is in terminal decline, our daughters are whores, our crime rates are 50 times higher than necessary...but at least those damn autists know their place. That's what's important. Whew!

I repeat: as a proper nihilist I don't care whether you desire totalitarianism, or if your whim instead extends to revoking politics. However, Gnon forbids the pursuit of both at the same time. 

Still, as tyrants go they're a bit lame. They want to be totalitarian but are too exhausted and cowardly to properly manage it. As I have, you can insulate yourself from the tyrant's outrages. Ensure the tyrant isn't aware of your lack of obeisance, or at least ensure they always have bigger fish to fry, and you don't have much to worry about. Keep your passport handy if it looks like they'll go full gulag, that's all. If you don't dawdle you'll have plenty of time to GTFO before they close the borders.

Election Predictions and Model of DNC Strategy

As with anyone respectable, my twitter account gets locked regularly, so election commentary goes here this time around.

"Current [2016] prediction: Trump is going to win the vote but lose the competitive fraud playoff. Trump gets the mandate of people, but not heaven."

I was wrong that time.

They learned better for this time. Don't try to guess how much fraud they need. Measure, then cut. Last time they guessed and Trump overperformed so hard it wasn't enough.

I wasn't really wrong! I was just jumping the gun, right guys...

"I keep saying it. The reason there isn't a vote fraud conviction in the news every election is because they get away with it." Gonna say I called that one.

Okay, here's my model of the play:

1. Run whoever, it doesn't matter. The votes are made up. Save any good candidates for later.

2. Riot. Show that if someone protests the election, it will get violent. Demonstrate they can put plenty of boots in the streets. 

3. Blatantly steal the election. Dare the electorate to contest it. 

Trump may start fight back with like moves instead of wordy words, but I don't know what he will think a reasonable response is, so I can't make any concrete predictions about how his response will work out for him. I would have spent 2017 severely tightening voting security, ref: my previous post. I can't properly understand the mind of someone who just lets this happen to him again. 

"Trump's candidacy is going to break "Consent of the Governed" one way or another. Elect Hillary. Or not. Or fraud her in. Democracy is over."

Even Trump will have realized that contesting this election has a high chance of bringing the house down. And he's a staunch American patriot. Will he also realize it could well be even worse not to contesting it?

"Short story about 2016. Pundits predicted Hillary. And they were right to do so. Usually Demobrat vote fraud is almost cancelled by Republicant vote fraud. However, Rs certainly weren't going to bat for Trump."

"I still [2019] think Trump will lose due to overwhelming voter fraud."

That said, my track record for predicting things like elections is not great. For elections in particular it's downright bad. Though what's life without a little risk, you know?

"On one hand, it's been [September 2016] proven to my satisfaction that American elections are fraudulent. On the other, competitive fraud vs. divine right."

Aristocracy Playbook: Preventing Colour Revolutions In Three Steps

The term comes from the Communist Red Revolution of 1917, and likewise all colour revolutions are explicitly pro-Fascist. Ironically the name became currency during the anti-Soviet feminine-Fascism revolutions starting in the 80s with the Yellow Revolution and continuing to the prominent Orange Revolution.

Eisen explicitly admits that aristocracy is more popular, and thus concedes he deserves to lose. At once the anti-Eisen regime is both popular but the incumbent is unpopular. Standard Fascism #4: the Plot of the [Eisen] Enemy that is, as convenient, overwhelmingly strong and pathetically weak. An unpopular leader who won the popular vote, who is autocratic but not so autocratic as to shut down protests or the media.

This is dogwhistling, by the way. If you're on-Eisen-side you decode this nonsense into what he really means. Eisen is a Fascist Autocrat. Everyone on-side is an Autocrat. He calls you autocratic because he is autocratic. As an Aristocrat, you are his natural predator. His fears are justified. You could unquestionably think of everything in this playbook yourself, but why bother when I'm willing to do it for you?



Point One: foreign interference is in fact bad, outlaw that shit.

"One of the leading organizers of the Orange Revolution [...] received grants from the [...] Canadian International Development Agency." What business does Canada have in Ukraine? If they're funding a politically-relevant agency, it is criminal. If the law doesn't say it's criminal, change the law to match reality. Strategy: demand all political organizations have open books. If they try to hide the funding, you won't even need a warrant to discover their wrongdoing. With open books, such discovery can even happen by accident.

If Eisen tries to claim his protests aren't political, then it's not a political process to suppress them, now is it? Normal law and order stuff. If someone blocks the road you charge him with obstruction. If he does claim they're political, then you can strip out his funding. His strategy is lose-lose; all you have to avoid is being so pathetic that you lose harder.

Eisen exploits the Homestuck Principle. Someone already in your country wants to do what Eisen wants to happen. All Eisen has to do is find them and fund them. By cutting off this unquestionably corrupt funding stream, you have instantly reduced his force projection by 90%.

In America this is slightly more difficult, since he's not, technically, foreign. However, the same open-books strategy works. If you can trace the money you'll find it's against campaign finance law. If you can't trace the money, remember to forget presumption of innocence, because it doesn't apply to KYC rules. Journalists are experts at avoiding libel law. Eisen will try to label your true accusations as libel, so elegantly hire a journalist to pre-emptively dodge his accusations.

Any politically-useful protest is funded and if that funding is not public, the protest has something to hide. Without this oil well, Eisen can at best have profs offer course credit and other such indirect subsidies. Such tactics fly under the pleb radar, but don't lead to workable protests. You will find that it's not even necessary to win the lawsuits against Eisen. Simply publicizing the allegations regarding the shifty funding will be sufficient to spook everyone who needs to be spooked, which is important when Eisen finds a technically-legal edge case.

On the plus side for America, it fails McFaul's point 7. America lacks sufficient division among the police and military, division necessary to support a proper colour revolution. The only significant division is between the military and Eisen himself, as the military is aware Eisen wasted their lives in Iraq and so on.

Point Two: be democratic for real or not at all.

Vote fraud for your opponent can be used against the process almost as easily as vote fraud for yourself. If Eisen's candidate gets in, then he doesn't pursue the rest of the revolution. If his candidate fails, he can attack the process he himself besmirched. Strategy: don't use a besmirchable process.
Either go all-in on fraud with >90%, or play completely honest. Eisen assures us you're popular; you will win the fair fight.

Use independent verification and tamper-evident seals. (Don't try to make them tamper-proof.) Take inspiration from the banking industry, which has a very strong incentive not to get things wrong.

Some specifics for flavour:
If voting physically, use the tally-stick method, where the voter takes home a matched copy of their vote. If using electronic voting, hash the voter ID and post the hash and vote online, for real-time counts. Keep a public (hashed) register of who has voted and who hasn't. Allow anyone with a suspicious vote, such as a tampered seal, to correct their vote. Use cryptographic signatures to prevent unauthorized vote changed. They can hash their own ID and double-check the vote themselves, so if they are changed, it can be caught. Et cetera. Bonus: anyone going to the polling booth to pick up their voter ID to ensure their vote isn't stolen might as well vote while they're there, so it should increase voter turnout.

Allegedly Democracy is Scientific. Make your vote replicate. Make it fully reviewable by peers. If Eisen tries the process-attack anyway, use accounting at him. Count up the incorrect votes and see if his complaints add up to any difference in outcome. They won't, so offer him the ridicule he has earned. Any cryptographically secured voting system will have error margins below the victory margins, which is all that matters.

If instead you're going full fraud, then be completely unapologetic. Brazenly claim it was all aboveboard and democracy was served, while quietly siccing your secret police on Eisen's operatives. If the plebs complain, pat their back and laugh like it's a joke. It's fine if they know, just don't let it appear openly in the papers. The plebs need to be aware that pointing it out is breaking the rules, but as long as they are aware, even a slap on the wrist is overkill. Put up the online voter registry and then simply refuse to change incorrect votes, as a prank. "We don't change votes because the complaints were fake trolls. We got it right the first time." It's your country: act like you own the place.

Point Three: impeachment institutions are not democratic, so either make them democratic or go full Nork.

Democracies include ways to involuntarily remove an incumbent. This is pointless, because nobody is ever impeached, unless it's part of an attack by Eisen or his copycats. Impeachment processes are cruft and can be pruned. Why does an alleged democracy need a non-vote method of changing leaders? It does not. Strategy: clean off the exploitable cruft. Consider it dirt in which germs and parasites can hide.

If you can't make this argument fly, then again require these processes be as properly democratic as possible. Anyone ought to be able to verify the proceedings. This means making it fully transparent, such as posting a summary on the public internet. This also means simplifying them so even grandma doesn't get lost when checking it herself. The full relevant proceedings should be no more than a page in length, say 400 words max, but shorter if possible. Transparency isn't just a buzzword. It naturally democratizes the process, as the plebs' agents will verify and shout about any funny business. All you need to do is lean on the press if they try to suppress these findings. Eisen will realize he can't tamper with this process without showing his hand, so he won't even try.

Alternatively you are Putin and anyone who applies to these institutions either falls in line or mysteriously disappears. Eisen can try to impeach you as many times as he wants. Make it part of your Sunday routine. Stretch, run, and read the funnies, which include Eisen's latest antic.

If you are going Kim style, and you don't clearly control the impeachment process, seizing it is your first priority.



This document is incomplete. There's only so much effort I'm willing to put into demonstration purposes, after all. However, I have a copy of Eisen's book and in the unlikely event that someone provides me with a suitably motivating incentive, I could complete the counter-strategy set.

I like how being specific reveals existing countries are practically begging to get colour-revolutioned. The systems really are illegitimate. Can Eisen be said to be wyrming his way inside when the armour's chinks are wide enough for buses? Parked sideways?

Colour revolutions are colourful enough to amuse me. Perhaps you as well:

"He added that the Armenian revolution will be peaceful but not have a colour." Special snowflakes.

"The Yox movement chose green as its colour."

"Yeni Fikir deliberately adopted many of the tactics of the Georgian and Ukrainian colour revolution groups, even borrowing the colour orange from the Ukrainian revolution."

"Such 'blue' revolutions are the last thing we need".[12] On 19 April 2005, he further commented: "All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple banditry.""

"During the 2006 protests some called it the "Jeans Revolution" or "Denim Revolution","

"A previous, student-led revolution, the Uprising on 8 August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was violently repressed." Colour revolutions don't lose, see.

"A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States for a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China"

"A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance of vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the governmental victory in the elections."

"On 25 March 2005, activists wearing yellow scarves held protests in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar,"

"From 2016 to 2017, the candlelight protest"

"leader of the Free Peasants opposition party, has referred to the idea of a peasant revolt or 'Cotton Revolution'."

The other key word is [spring] such as Arab Spring. These aren't colour revolutions, though, since these rebellions were suppressed, and as previously mentioned it doesn't count if they lose.

Steelman Virtual Option

If we assume Moldbug is hiding his belief in the basic malevolence of humanity, the virtual option makes perfect sense. Most humans are deviant, not cooperative. Let's optimistically call it 65-35. Proper species name something like Malum Ovis Diabolus. They prefer to rule in hell than serve in heaven. However, for the 1 to rule in hell, the 64 must serve in hell. Haha, oops. If instead the virtual option can be implemented, all 65 can rule in hell, as long as they're content to rule over virtual humans. 

The Substack version of the virtual option makes no sense. Why isolate the virtualized humans? Why not let them interact? They can play all their deviant games virtually, without disturbing the productive and cooperative <20% of the species. If instead the point is to address the fundamentally sinful nature of most humans in a Straussian way, then it instead makes perfect sense.

Since I'm here to do work instead of to play games, I'm now going to beat this into the ground. Miscellaneous comments:

The Christians are correct. Humanity is basically evil. Specifically, the highest goal of most humans is deviant and traitorous, not cooperative. Background: at some point down a priority list, the priorities flatly don't get pursued, and that point is the second priority. For most humans, cooperation will only occur if the alternative is real or apparent death. This also means they radically misjudge anyone who has a cooperative or neutral goal as their highest priority.

Because humans are evil, democracy obviously cannot work. Either it aggregates as a desire to self-destroy, or it catastrophically fails to reduce conflict as [self] is re-defined to mean some voting bloc, which then gets into a fight with another voting bloc. <= Democracy The God That Failed in one sentence. 

To achieve peace, the masses must be terrorized...or virtualized. 

Malum Ovis Diabolus: imagine a sheep with smouldering coals for eyes, long needle teeth dripping poisonous drool, a truly awful temper, and black wool, because they can be farmed. The peasant is the most productive farm animal so it's possible to turn a profit even after mitigating a great deal of destructiveness. Unfortunately they cannot be properly husbanded. If you attempt to breed them to be less hazardous, they will understand they're under attack; this is one of the few ways you can get the sheep to fight back. 

On the plus side, it's now clear their insistence on reproducing can easily be bypassed. They cannot be bred to be better, but they can be bred to not exist anymore. 

Is the point of Salus Populi to make you realize how stupid Salus Populi is? I think it works on a Straussian level, except the point of someone like Moldbug is to provide a true alternative to the obvious false mainstream of Progressivism; not to provide a transparent falsehood in an attempt to outcompete a muddying falsehood. Satan isn't called Father of Lies as a joke. 

-

For ovis diabolus, each individual member of the mob considers their own health to be, abstractly speaking, the reduction of health in the rest of the mob. If everyone gets healthier they fail because others are getting healthier, and if everyone gets weaker they fail because loss aversion. Egalitarianism: "Alright, nobody move, or the mover gets it." Persecution of subjects, lionization of objects, also known as slave morality.

On the savannah you can at least channel the nasty temper at the next tribe over. They have to suppress their urge to gnaw on their closer neighbours, but that's tolerable. At the scale of a nation-state, this is thoroughly impossible for a variety of reasons. If you propose approximating it by bombing the crap out of the neighbouring nation-state, but the problem is they can bomb you back. Can't oppress anyone if you're dead. Rule in hell. Your average ovis diabolus really would choose death if it would help them oppress better.

 

When ovis diabolus observes a mutant with a cooperative main goal, they see someone getting healthier. The ovis diabolus can't get healthier except as a means to gnaw on another ovis without retaliation; the health priority is almost always at #2 or lower. For the mutant, the gnaw-on-others priority is at #2 or lower. They get healthier but will only use it on ovis diabolus in defence of their continued ability to become healthier. The ovis sees someone successfully preparing to conquer them, as it would be were they in the mutant's position. Result: violent panic, quite rationally so. 

Unfortunately the health of the State is not war. (Guess why an ovis diabolus might say it is.) The health of the State is health, just like for everyone else. Only mutants can make it healthier, in the extension of making themselves healthier. Civilization is thus about tricking the peasants into getting out of the way. Either terrorizing them to the extent they accept failure (God-fearing people), or tricking them into thinking they're succeeding or about to succeed. E.g. the virtual option. 

Reminder that like 90% of the reason I write is to give Reality more opportunities to prove me wrong. Reminder 2: rhetoric is presentation, not reality.