A text dump on Resistance Protocols
For those who care about the future generations
For leaders, advisors and writers
Don’t publicly advocate extreme solutions (resistance protocol)
Introduction to bioconservatism
Introduction
TL;DR: Some socially conservative bio-primitivists are trying to recruit members of the ‘dissident right’, conspiracy theorists and ‘social autists’ into becoming anti-tech revolutionaries. No, they won’t succeed in tearing down industrial society, killing billions of people, but they might promote stochastic terrorism in the process of trying.
The goal of the group is to try and form an alliance of various people who are all sold separate visions of moderate to total de-industrialization, as well as slow to fast de-industrialization. Then, once they’re part of the group, try to radicalize the members only wanting a small shift, into being ready when the time is right, to take down the technological system as quickly as possible, no matter the billions of deaths.
Obviously the group has zero chance of succeeding, but in the process of patting each other on the back about how righteous they would be in installing fascist death camps, it’s not inconceivable that they could accidently or purposefully push some fascist over the edge into trying to kill someone:
Yuukimaru: So we need the control of the entire world and we need to purge the people who want to replace human beings, either to send them to gulag, or to make them really poor, or to just do it the nasty way.... I want to say a few things about fascists. So if they want the... Of course, it’s not a united ideology, there’s no one cohesive ecofascist movement. It’s there to describe the many different people. But as for the people who want to have a white ethnostate, we can give them that, the bio conservative, the government can give them that promise, that at least as long as they are fine with not having high level of technology, if their goal is not contradicting our goal, then a coalition with them only makes sense.[1]
Finally, the website’s online dictionary helpfully offers the meaning of various words commonly used by group members. This list includes words such as ‘zogzapping’, referring to a conspiracy in which the ‘ZOG’, standing for ‘Zionist Occupied Government’, carries out “extrajudicial killing of dissidents”.[2]
Private & Public Libraries
On the Resistance Protocols website, there exists a library index which can’t be found anywhere by clicking around the website e.g. after finding it on google. But, it’s not very well hidden, as you can easily find it by just deleting the slug of a library page URL when trying to get back to the library home page.
It’d also be funny if someone meant to send a friend the public library link without knowing about the private one, and accidently sent a ‘small shift de-industrializer’ the ‘hard-line inner circle library’.
Here’s the public library link: https://www.resistanceprotocols.com/library.html
And here’s the private link, which just misses off the .html: https://www.resistanceprotocols.com/library
Private Library
[Single Files]
Public Library
Lightweight/normie-friendly
Unity in Truth & Accumulationism
Marriage and Dating
For those who care about the future generations
Resistance Protocols
RP Letters
Bioconservatism
Accumulationism
ATR
Alternative Theories
For leaders, advisors and writers
Extra Information
Private Essays
So, by process of ellimination, here are the links from the private library index that are not included in the public library. Also, there could obviously be a further inner circle of essays beyond this layer:
ATR Theory Patch: The How
Original URL:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/ATR/the_how.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
Web.archive.org screen shot:
Q: Will the TIS collapse on its own, without ATRs doing anything?
A: If ATRs did nothing, it would collapse on its own at some point in the distant future, but this could be decades after human beings are already extinct. Even if some humans were to survive long enough to see the spontaneous collapse of the TIS, the amount of damage done to the wild nature and the amount of pollution created by that point is likely to leave most of the Earth uninhabitable and ugly. ATRs should therefore, move the point at which the terminal collapse of the TIS will happen, so that it happens sooner. ATRs should prepare themselves to deliver the finishing blow to the TIS as soon as it falls non-terminally but seriously ill.
Q: How can ATRs make the terminal collapse of the TIS happen sooner?
A: The TIS is an abstract system that is hard to wrap one’s imagination around. To explain how the TIS would terminally collapse, we use as a metaphor the terminal collapse of a system that is easy to imagine – an animal. The terminal collapse (death) of an animal happens when one of its vital organs (such as brain, respiratory system, heart) is damaged to the point where it stops functioning. Likewise, the TIS will terminally collapse when one of its vital organs stops functioning. Just like the TIS, an animal is bound to die at some point. If we wanted to move the point at which an animal will die, so that it happens sooner, we would target one of its vital organs, and try to damage it. Same logic applies to the TIS.
Q: Should attacks by ATRs on the targeted vital organ be spread across time, or should these attacked be timed to all happen within a short time frame?
A single tsunami carries much more destructive power than a myriad of mediocre waves. If a group of people were to hunt an animal with bows and arrows, the chance of success for the hunters would go up if they launched their attacks at roughly the same time. If one hunter attacks the animal before the others, then the animal has a high chance to escape or launch a successful counterattack. If one hunt fails, then the animal would be put on higher alert before the next hunter comes. The animal would have more experience fighting against the bow and arrows. It would have time to rest until facing the next hunter, and time to recover from injuries if it has sustained any. It would also be more likely to actively seek out hunters to attack, in order to remove the threat from them. In contrast, if hunters attack it simultaneously, then they can surround it, greatly reducing its chance of fleeing or successfully counterattacking. If it does manage to take down one hunter, it will have no time to rest or recover from injuries before having to fight another one. Like hunters, ATRs should time their attack. This is even more the case for ATRs, because in a 1vs1 fight between a hunter and an animal, the difference in combat power is much smaller than in a fight between the TIS and one member of ATR movement. Also because it would be quite difficult for an animal to cover itself with anti-arrow clothes, but if the TIS is given time to recover after an attack, it can easily fortify itself against whatever weapon was used in the previous attack.
Q: Should ATRs try to time their attacks using news media articles, or should they try to establish internal channels of communication?
A: If ATRs relied on news media articles to time their attacks, then the establishment could trick ATR members into picking the wrong time. Either by omitting news or by publishing fake news. It would even be possible for the establishment to desynchronize the attacks by showing a news article to one geographic location at one hour, and the same news article to another geographic location at another hour. It is much better for ATRs to use internal channels of communication channels for purposes of timing their attack.
Q: Should internal channels of communications which will be used for timing an attack, previously be used for other things?
A: Yes. If a channel of communication was established for the explicit purpose of coordinating some kind of attack, and advertised as such; then the establishment could legally persecute the people who advertised it. For the purposes of coordinating an attack, ATRs should use their usual channels of communication, which are being used for various other purposes.
Q: Out of the internal channels of communication that ATRs use, which one should be used for coordinating an attack?
A: When a member of ATR movement sees their leaders announce the time to strike on one internal channel of communication, he should check other such channels before grabbing his car keys. It is very easy for establishment to publish false information on news media websites. It is much harder for the establishment to send false information through internal channels of communication of ATRs. But it is still possible. You should not assume that your contacts can’t get an email from your Gmail account unless you yourself write that email. It is within the realm of possibility that the agents of “national security” will attempt to impersonate leaders of ATR movement in order to mess up the timing of the attack. For this reason, even if usual channels of communication include things like Facebook, WhatsApp, Discord, and Google Chat; those should not be used to confirm validity of the signal. Any channel of communication that is hosted by a corporation that is likely to be cooperative with the establishment, should be used only to draw attention to the internal channels of communication that are harder for the agents of “national security” to impersonate the ATRs on.
Q: Should ATRs completely eliminate the possibility of being tricked by the establishment to attack at the wrong time, by not timing the attack at all? (Neither by news media articles nor by internal communications)
A: If one member of the ATR movement attacks a vital organ of the TIS, and that attack is neither accompanied nor closely followed by another member’s attack, then such attack will amount to nothing. It would not be a fatal blow. The damage inflicted upon the vital organ would just be repaired, and that vital organ would likely be fortified against attacks of similar kind. There is no way to completely eliminate the risk of establishment manipulating the members of ATR movement to attack at a wrong time. But this risk can be sufficiently mitigated by educating members to not grab their car’s keys until they got confirmation from internal channels of communication other than the one where they first saw the message that the time is ripe.
Q: Should face-to-face communication be used as one of the internal channels of communication for timing the attack?
A: Yes, but not large group meetings. Specifically face-to-face meetings between a few people who live relatively close to each other. And specifically while they don’t have their phone or another device with a microphone within the stuff they are carrying.
Q: What are online channels of communication that are hard for the agents of “national security” to impersonate the leaders of ATR movement on? (That should be used to confirm validity of the signal that the time is ripe)?
A: Email services and chatrooms hosted by dissident-friendly corporations or individuals. It is super important to remember that ATR members should check multiple channels of communication of this kind, before grabbing their car’s keys.
Q: While it might be hard for agents of “national security” to impersonate leaders of the ATR movement within such online channels of communication, it is still easier to impersonate them there than in the face-to-face meetings. So why not rely solely on the face-to-face communication to time the attack?
A: Because impersonation is not the only thing to avoid. Another thing to mitigate is infiltration. In the face-to-face meetings, a member of ATR movement is unlikely to interact with more than a few, if any, people who are part of the leadership on the international level. If members were to rely solely on the information from one or two individuals, then they would be vulnerable to being tricked by a group of agents of “national security”. In the case of members who don’t live close to any of the people who hold a leadership position on the international level, they would need to rely on people with the local leadership position, which are much easier to obtain, and hence more open to infiltration and incompetence. In the online channels of communication, members of ATR movement will be receiving a signal from many people who hold leadership positions on the international level, which mitigates the risk of infiltration and incompetence. So in order to mitigate both those risks and the risk from impersonation, online channels of communication and face-to-face meetings should be used in combination to verify the validity of the signal that the time is ripe.
Q: For the purposes of verifying the validity of the signal that the time is ripe, why are online internal channels of communication okay to include, but large group face-to-face meetings not?
A: Because when online internal channels of communication inform the members that the time is ripe, they will need less than 30min to check other online internal channels of communication. Then they can quickly grab their car’s keys and depart for the location they need to be at. If they were to get a signal that the time is ripe in a large face-to-face meeting, then some of the members would need long time to get from the location of that meeting to the location they need to be at. Additionally, large group face-to-face meetings are not efficient for members to get to know each other well and build trust, compared to the face-to-face meetings of few members at the time; and since some members would need to travel further, the cost of traveling would increase. So the large group face-to-face meetings are unnecessary.
Q: How will ATRs take the establishment off-guard with their attack?
A: Given the amount of members of ATR movement whose active participation will be necessary to deliver a fatal blow to one of the vital organs of the TIS, and given that the establishment would be fully informed even if only 1 of their agents successfully infiltrated the relevant channels of communication; it is impossible to take the establishment off-guard. Internal communications of ATR movement are being read by agents of “national security”, and this will remain so no matter what ATRs do.
Q: Should ATR movement’s members try to prevent the agents of “national security” from being informed about the time of the coordinated attack, by trying extremely hard to keep out such agents from the relevant channels of communication?
A: No. Because doing so would generate too many false positives, keeping out countless members who are being genuine. It would also make the members of the ATR movement spend a tremendous amount of time on vetting, and time is a precious resource that ATRs need for many activities. Rather, ATRs should assume that the agents of “national security” will see it when the signal that the time is ripe has been sent.
Q: If the agents of “national security” will see the signal once it’s sent, how will ATRs be able to successfully deal a fatal blow to the TIS?
A: It is impossible outside of a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation is a situation where a large portion of competent people that the establishment is paying to defend it, are either reluctant to do their job properly, or too busy fighting other battles.
Q: But if ATRs wait for the revolutionary situation, then won’t other revolutionary groups be fighting the establishment for entirely different goals?
A: Yes, they will. And that’s a good thing for the ATR movement. Other revolutionary groups, such as religious extremists, racial nationalists, aulist bioconservatives, and disenfranchised opportunists will be fighting the defenders of the establishment for their own reasons. And this will reduce the amount of resources the establishment has to allocate for defending the vital organs of the TIS from ATRs.
Q: Is ATR a literal revolution, a redistribution of power?
A: Yes. Power is currently centralized in the hands of a micro-minority. Power is more centralized today than it was ever before in human history. If ATR is successful, it will become impossible for so few people to maintain power over such large areas that they have power over today. So one of the effects of ATR will be that power will be redistributed. The only differences between ATR and other revolutions, is that ATRs will destroy much more of the mechanisms for governing and achieve their goal within the very process of revolution, without ever winning the struggle for power and becoming the government. In any revolution, there are some people who participate, but don’t get a seat in the government after the revolution. So pursuing a goal that might be achieved without becoming an establishment, does not disqualify ATRs from being literal revolutionaries.
Q: Will other revolutionary groups not attack ATRs during the revolutionary situation?
A: Because the establishment’s forces will be directly attacking other revolutionary groups (as well as ATRs), and ATRs will not be directly attacking other revolutionary groups, there will be at least an implicit alliance between ATRs and other revolutionary groups. ATRs doing their thing will indeed reduce the prize that other revolutionary groups can get by seizing power.
But the lives of members of other revolutionary groups will be in the immediate danger from the establishment, and they will care more about surviving that struggle than about living a life of comfort after the revolution. There are indeed people who value comfort over their lives, but such people will not be revolutionaries in the first place. So other revolutionary groups will not focus on attacking ATRs during the revolutionary situation. At least not until they feel secure that they will win against the establishment. And by that point, it will be too late for anyone to stop the ATR.
Q: But will other revolutionary groups not attack ATRs BEFORE the revolutionary situation?
A: Verbally, with arguments and propaganda perhaps. But if they attacked ATRs with violence before the revolutionary situation, the establishment would use that as an excuse to prosecute them. So it’s not going to happen, at least not on the large scale. Furthermore, ATRs will be well integrated into the bioconservative movement, so it will be hard for other revolutionary groups to attack them too much without angering the rest of the bioconservative movement.
Q: What are the “vital organs” of the TIS?
A: This list might change over time. In 2023 “vital organs” of the TIS are: The electric power industry, the computer industry, and the financial system. In the past, a significant portion of money was in paper form, so the financial system was impractical as a target. But in 2023, only a tiny portion of money is in paper form. Physically destroying the servers on which information about who has how much electronic money is stored, would cause the amount of chaos that would make it impossible to maintain the TIS.
Q: Which of the “vital organs” of the TIS should ATRs target?
A: This must be decided by the leaders of ATR movement at a later date. Most ATRs are currently leaning towards the electric power industry. But as of 2023, it’s too early to decide. The TIS is too healthy at the moment, and the ATRs are too weak at the moment. When it’s time to decide, this decision must not be made dogmatically or emotionally. It must be made after careful technical considerations, and the most practical target must be chosen.
Q: In which country should ATRs operate?
A: ATRs must operate internationally. Each of the “vital organs” of the TIS consists of multiple facilities, which are spread across different countries. Destroying a few facilities of each vital organ would not destroy any of the vital organs, and the TIS would survive. The goal of ATRs is not to bring down a particular government, but to destroy the TIS as a whole. It is theoretically possible that at some point in the future all facilities of one of the “vital organs” will be stacked in one country, but as of 2023 that is not the case. For the TIS to be destroyed, many major facilities of one of its “vital organs” must be destroyed.
Q: Should ATRs spontaneously attack facilities of the electrical power industry?
A: Such attacks would draw unwanted attention of the establishment to the ATRs, and give it a way to justify to the non-ATRs, its persecution of the ATRs. Such attacks would make it much harder for ATRs to spread their ideology. The TIS has incomparably more people and resources than ATR movement does, so a war of attrition would be highly unfavorable to ATRs. Between the spontaneous attacks on facilities, the TIS would have time to heal and it would learn through experience on how to fortify itself against such attacks. But if ATRs, instead of spontaneously carrying out tiny attacks on their own, attack all at once in the most opportune moment, the TIS will have no time to heal, and no data on how it should fortify itself.
Project POSSIBLE
Original URL:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP/project_possible.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
Web.archive.org screen shot:
“The greatest obstacle to a revolution is the very belief that such a revolution cannot happen. If enough people come to believe that a revolution is possible, then it will be possible in reality.” – Uncle Ted
There is no shortage of people who dislike the system and wish to see the end of it. But the vast majority of those people are not contributing to the end of the system in the amount that their competence allows. Because they lack hope. They lack hope that there are enough people who feel the same way about the system, and lack hope that those who do feel the same way will do their part of the job.
The main purpose of the project POSSIBLE, is to inspire hope. To show people who dislike the system that change is possible. To signal to them that there are many others who feel the same way about the system, and are willing to take practical action.
How to participate in the project POSSIBLE:
1. Save this link on your computer/phone: https://www.resistanceprotocols.com/contact.html
2. Open Solution Makers server
3. Pick a day of the week that you will be able to access internet on.
4. On that day, every week, click channel named “#open-diary” and write “A”.
(“A” is short for “All good, nothing to report”)
If Discord takes down the DA server at some point, the link to the new server will be available on the web page you saved in step 1.
Why dissidents should be directed at project POSSIBLE first, and other projects only later:
- Most people are demotivated and lack hope. This project is the one that has the highest potential to show them that there is something going on.
- It takes less psychological effort for a human to do something when they see other humans doing it. This project is specifically designed to involve a high number of people at a low time cost. It has the highest potential to efficiently showcase numbers.
- We need all the help that we can get. Everyone who has the will and some capacity to contribute, should be made useful. Asking new people to join a more demanding project would intimidate people who are on the lower end of the competency spectrum.
- People who do have competency for more demanding projects, might lack the emotional investment in the movement to take on such projects. Making people participate in less demanding projects is a great way to get them feeling invested.
Don’t publicly advocate extreme solutions (resistance protocol)
Original link:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP/extreme_solutions.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
Web.archive.org screen shot:
Extreme problems generally require extreme solutions. Because problems that could have been solved without extreme solutions, would have been solved before they became extreme problems.
If there is a movement to solve a particular extreme problem, and only the extreme solutions are realistic, then indeed one of the things necessary for the success of this movement will be that some of its members are willing to implement extreme solutions. But no matter how good your movement’s strategy is, it still requires a certain amount of people to implement it. Even if you make all of your movement’s members willing to implement extreme solutions, that movement will still fail if its members are too few.
In order for your movement to reach sufficient size, you should never publicly advocate for extreme solutions. Extreme solutions are seen as immoral by people who do not understand why less extreme solutions will not work. When you publicly advocate for extreme solutions, you are pushing away the potential recruits. When people hear you publicly advocate for extreme solutions, they will not assume that you have high theoretical knowledge and have reached that conclusion by thorough analysis of facts. They will assume that you are just a bad person.
I understand that in order to solve an extreme problem, it will be necessary to implement a strategy that includes extreme solutions at some point. But just because it is necessary for your movement’s strategists to advocate extreme solutions, doesn’t mean that it is necessary for your movement’s recruiters to advocate extreme solutions. Public space is not a good place for your movement’s strategy meeting.
The job of your movement’s recruiters is not to present a realistic strategy, but to familiarize the potential recruits with the problem that your movement wants to solve, and to get them emotionally invested in solving it. The job of your movement’s recruiters is not to try to prevent this or that type of person from trying to join your movement. Your movement’s leaders will be deciding which of the people who are trying to join will be let in, and which will be kept out. People who are unfit to become members of your movement might still end up advertising your movement to people who are fit to become its members.
A movement will never have enough members if its recruiters are arguing about which strategy is realistic or trying to gatekeep, instead of orienting all their efforts towards presenting the problem and getting people emotionally invested in solving it.
Even if some extreme actions are necessary for a strategy to be realistic, that doesn’t mean that it will be necessary for every single member to participate in those extreme actions. In fact, a movement should not engage in any extreme actions until it has reached a certain size. Because once a movement does commit extreme actions, its ability to recruit new members will drastically drop. So if it is indeed necessary for a movement to engage in some extreme actions at some point, it should do so only after it has enough members and sufficient organizational infrastructure. Some of the people who agree with the movement’s goal might be useful for recruitment and building organizational infrastructure, but unwilling to implement any extreme actions.
A hammer should not be discarded for inability to cut paper, and scissors should not be discarded for inability to put nails in the wood. Similarly, a person who is useful for your movement’s recruiting process should not be discarded for being not useful for another task.
People who don’t care about the movement’s goal will not be useful for anything. Your movement’s recruiters will make people invested in achieving the movement’s goal. When a person first gets interested in achieving that goal, chances are he/she will not know what strategy is realistic and what strategy isn’t. But as long as he/she understands what the problem your movement is trying to solve is, he/she will be able to get other people interested in solving that problem. People who share your movement’s goal, but are not members of anything related to your group, are part of your movement’s “abstract circle”. It’s not possible to kick out people from the abstract circle or to meaningfully coordinate them.
Sufficiently rational people from the abstract circle will understand that for a movement to become successful, a certain degree of coordination is necessary. So as long as your group looks presentable, they will be willing to join it, and assist with some of its projects. These people who are providing your group with some form of assistance, mostly with recruitment, are part of the “outer circle”. To a person who knows nothing, everything is possible. People who are in the outer circle will probably not immediately see that softer solutions won’t work, and that’s fine. They should be allowed to learn at their own pace.
The people in the “inner circle”, the ones who are in the know, should never lie to the people who are in the outer circle, by claiming that soft solutions will work. Rather, the people from the inner circle should allow the people from the outer circle to be blissfully ignorant. They should simply abstain from trying to make people from the outer circle quickly adopt their opinion about what solutions are realistic. When people from the inner circle are asked if a soft solution will work, they should present their opinion about it as an opinion and not as a fact.
As people in the outer circle are slowly getting more emotionally invested in achieving the movement’s goal, and as they are slowly learning why softer strategies might not work, they will naturally slowly drift towards the extreme strategy. And once he/she reaches a satisfactory amount of knowledge and commitment to the movement’s goal, he/she will be admitted into the inner circle. And thereby get access to the internal channel of communication in which details of strategy are being openly discussed.
An extreme solution can only be accepted by people who have a solid understanding of the problem, are invested in solving it, and understand why less extreme solutions would not work. And it would be unreasonable for the movement to expect these traits in potential recruits. They are something that gets cultivated over time.
While the people in the inner circle see clearly why soft solutions won’t work, they should allow the movement’s recruiters to advocate for them. And people from the inner circle should try and fail softer solutions along with their less perceptive comrades. What matters is that the movement builds up personnel and organizational infrastructure while working on softer solutions.
For example, communist leaders were fully aware that to achieve what they wanted, it would be necessary to destroy the family as an institution. However, they decided to remove the destruction of the family before publishing the communist manifesto. It was a smart decision. Hardly anyone would have joined them otherwise.
Is it immoral for the people in the inner circle to let recruiters advocate soft solutions that people in the inner circle know will not work? No, it’s not immoral. It’s not your duty to correct everyone who is wrong. When people from the inner circle say they will not use extreme solutions if others manage to achieve the movement’s goal using soft solutions, that is not a lie. The people who insist on extreme solutions, do so because they believe softer solutions won’t work and they insist on using methods that work. Publicly advocating extreme solutions is not a method that works. So people who are genuine about wanting to use the methods that work, should not publicly advocate extreme solutions.
Foreword
Original URL:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP%20letters/foreword.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
Web.archive.org screen shot:
This book is a practical guidebook, a technical manual, a tutorial. It is written for people who have a strong desire to create the future in which there will be many more generations of humans and humans will have meaningful amount of liberty.
This book will instruct its readers on how to contribute to the attainment of this future.
Different readers will have different beliefs and different knowledge gaps as they start reading this book. In order to make the introduction smooth for everyone for whom this book is intended, the book has multiple introductions. The reader should pick an introduction based on his own starting point. It is unnecessary to read more than one.
Are leaders necessary?
Original link:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP/are_leaders_necessary.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
Web.archive.org screen shot:
First, sometimes it is necessary for an organization to negotiate with other organizations. If an organization is large, then it is highly impractical to have all its members at the negotiation table. Being able to represent an organization during negotiations is a position of power, and in any big organization, there will be individuals competing for power. When there are individuals competing for power within an organization, they are strongly incentivized to use help by people who are outsiders relative to the organization. Members who want to get a higher position within an organization always end up allying with people from outside the organization, who might help them get to the higher position they want, but, such alliances are fundamentally hostile to the goals of the organization itself. The only way to avoid leaving an organization open to outside influences is to have a supreme leader.
Second, without any official authority (granted democratically or otherwise), it is much harder to keep the undesirable types of people out. If one member tells a newcomer “You don’t belong here. Leave.” and another person says “You are being mean towards this person for no reason.” then no time-efficient solution that is to everyone’s satisfaction is possible.
It might be possible for a very small organization to operate without a leader, but the larger the organization, the more vulnerable it is to subversion. And for solving large-scale problems, which is our topic of interest, an organization will most likely have to be large.
Unity in truth
Original URL:
resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP/unity_in_truth.html
Web.archive.org snapshot:
web.archive.org/web/20240313172221/https:/www.resistanceprotocols.com/library/RP/unity_in_truth.html
Web.archive.org screen shot:
If a group of construction workers has enough resources only for one house, and each construction worker is following their own architectural plan, then they will certainly fail to build a house. For a group of construction workers to build a proper house, they must all follow the same architectural plan. Any construction worker who is not following the same plan as the rest of the group, would just be wasting precious resources and making a mess.
Similarly, if everyone interested in solving a large-scale problem is following their own plan, then no plan will succeed. There is a limited amount of people who care about solving a particular large-scale problem; And the amounts of time, effort, and money those people are willing to spend are limited resources, and the amount of them spent in one place, is the amount of them not spent in another place.
Furthermore, a combination of two things can produce a result that is greater than the sum of results that they can produce individually. In physics, this concept is known as synergy.
But this doesn’t mean that an organization for solving a large-scale problem should accept everyone who claims to share its goal. There is no strength in numbers without unity. For those of us that don’t have a great amount of available force or financial power to make people agree with us, a high degree of unity can only be achieved in truth. It is therefore necessary, for any organization that seeks to solve a large-scale problem, to insist on unity in truth as one of its core values.
It’s not possible to meaningfully organize with people who are not willing to go where reason leads. If someone says “I am doing A, you can join or not, but I am not gonna reason with people who think B or C are better.” then it is necessary to leave them out, and work with people who are willing to stick to reason.
Unity in truth doesn’t mean that members of the organization should always speak the truth to outsiders. It means that members should be honest with each other. It means that all members should follow one, same plan. And it means the leader should occasionally modify the plan, in accordance with reason, based on suggestions made to him by members with the “plan refiner” role, after they have finished discussing those suggestions with each other.
Misc.
About Page
Our mission
We provide our readers with efficiently-packed information about how to fix their life and become a valuable part of a healthy community.
Why you should bookmark our website
Our theory deals primarily with what you, the reader of the Resistance Protocols, can do. We don’t waste your precious time with countless names and years as intellectuals do.
Why we are dissidents
Our governments are full of people who despise what it means to be human. They (extinctionists) want to enslave all of humanity and fully replace human species with machine species. Piece by piece until there is nothing human left.
Self-improvement & virtue
The present-day techno-industrial environment is not the kind of environment for which we humans have evolved. A human being is not meant to be a cog in the machine. The discrepancy between the environment we live in, and the environment for which our biology has equipped us, is bad and getting worse. Our instincts are not a suitable guide for the modern environment. This website exists to provide guidance for surviving and thriving in our present circumstances.
Accumulationism > Activism
We do not believe that a hysteric feminist who can’t even manage her own weight can fix society. We do not believe that a depressed, lonely inhabitant of his mother’s basement can fix society. We do want to fix society, but we insist it can only be done by well-functioning communities. Not by disorganized loser mobs shouting in the streets.
Dictionairy
To add a word and its definition to this dictionary, tag @ashkenyan in our Discord chatroom, or DM Ashkenyan on X/Twitter.
Search the dictionary
accumulationism
An anti-utopian approach to politics, characterized by the belief that the activists should not spend a significant amount of resources on small victories that do not bring them closer to the fulfilment of their primary goal.
anti-utopianism
Approach to politics characterized by starting from what reality is, and abstinence from wishful thinking during the process of determining ways to solve some of the real world problems.
antitainment
Conscious effort to minimize own consumption of mass entertainment
ATR
Anti-Tech Revolution. Radical and rapid collapse of the existing structure of a society, intentionally brought about from within the society rather than by some external factor, and contrary to the will of the dominant classes of the society
ATRs
Anti-Tech Revolutionaries, the people who support the ATR.
AUL
Anti-Utopian Leviathan. A hypothetical ruler who is so powerful that he doesn’t need to worry about political expediency when making decisions, and has no intention of realizing any utopia.
aulist
A person who wants liberty, personal autonomy, and chance, as opposed to a highly planned society; And belives establishing an AUL is the best or only method for bringing about a society with significantly more meaningful freedom.
bioconservatism
Desire to halt the artificial genetic enhancement or genetic modification of human beings.
biolenninism
The practice of gathering dregs of society, permanent losers of all kinds, into a political organization, by promising them gain in social status.
‘climate refugee’
Economic migrant, typically coming from a poor country that has double the birthrate of the countries it is receiving foreign aid from.
coomer
A person who frequently engages in masturbation.
cope
A narrative that a person believes because it provides them with comfort or hope, even if the evidence against is readily available.
deep state
Collective of unelected government officials who have access to some information that is unavailable to the public.
degeneracy
Behaviors characterized by indulging in immediate pleasure at the cost of long-term benefit
divorce-rape
An act of a woman who is the initiator of a divorce getting from the court an amount of her husband’s wealth that is disproportionate to her contributions to his attainment of that wealth.
extintionism
Establishment-left ideology which is championed by the WEF, is represented by a flag of horizontal rainbow colors (recently with triangles on the left side), includes transhumanism and hatred for the family, whites, gender and liberty.
false flag
Atrocious action that is designed to look like some other group comitted it, with purpose of winning over public support for a particular cause.
fedpost
A declaration of the desire to or advice to others to perform an illegal action.
GAE
Great Atlanticist Empire. Sometimes referred to as ‘Western sphere of influence’.
globohomo
A term that can be used to refer either to the extinctionist agenda or to the people pushing it.
guckreat
Lab-grown replica of meat.
greenwashing
A performance intended to convince the audience that the performor is environmentally friendly, when in fact the performer is not.
iron law
A principle that [is imposible to change, stop or prevent] and [always holds true regardless of anyone’s will].
iron law of oligarchy
Any organization will upon reaching a certain size, regardless of how democratic it was when it started, inevitably become such that most of the important decisions in it are made by a small minority.’
larping
Enacting behaviors of a fictional character or behaving like something you are not.
leviathan
Supreme leader who is powerful to the point where he doesn’t need to worry about being overthrown by anyone except by the high council consisting of the members that he himself has handpicked.
LPD liberal
Short for Logical Progression Denier Liberal. A person who supports an earlier, less progressive stage of liberalism. Stereotypically likes to say ‘The left has gone too far’.
luddite
A pejorative term for the people who are sceptical of the idea that the technological progress will improve quality of all aspects of human life.
NETTR
Short for ‘No Enemies To The Right’. It is a Resistance Protocol that says ‘Never virtue-signal about being a good person unlike some other dissidents who are more radical than yourself.’
nofap
Abstinence from masturbation.
ratioed
A term describing a post that got much more dislikes than likes.
‘science’
Narrative pushed by pharmaceutical industry and sponsored media.
simp
A man who is giving attention, money, services or gifts to a woman who is not giving him much in return.
sink
Acronym for ‘single independent no kids’. Refers to women in their late 20s or older who have a job, but no long-term partner or kids.
social engineering
Altering group behaviors so as to cause them to greatly diverge from their naturally predisposed behavior, usually through centrally planned propaganda.
soyboy
Pejorative term used to describe men perceived to be lacking masculine characteristics. (Coined based on the fact that soy products contain high amounts of phytoestrogens, suspected to cause hormonal imbalance.)
subvertisements
Advertisements whose purpose is not solely to sell more products, but also to make the viewers more likely to behave in a certain way.
superstraight
A sexual orientation in which one has romantic interest only in the people of the opposite biological gender.
the cathedral
The intellectual institutions at the center of modern society, journalistic organizations plus academia.
TIS
Techno-Industrial System
transhumanism
Belief that human beings should be continously modified chemically and genetically to be ‘happier’ within the everchanging technological system.
TRP
Short for ‘The Revolutionary Phenotype’, a book by biologist J.F. Gariepy
utopianism
Approach to politics characterized by starting from what the ideal society should look like.
vaxx supremacist
A person who publicly advocates institutional discrimination based on vaccination status.
weeb
A person who spends a lot of time on anime and manga.
wishful thinking
Formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.
woman
An adult human being who is biologically female.
Yuuki’s iron law
An organization that genuinely fights for the rights of [everyone] or [a group of people out of which many are not useful to it], is bound to get outcompeted by some organization that fights only for the rights of the people useful to it.’
zogzaping
Extrajudicial killing of a dissident by the deep state.
Congratulations, you have found the hidden paragraph. DM Yuukimaru on Discord with message “true fan of RP” to be assigned the discord role named “true fan of RP”. Never inform any other users of the existence of a hidden paragraph. This is a top secret.
Contact
To help us share bioconservative ideas,
follow our associated Telegram page: t.me/resistanceprotocols
If you would like to cooperate or contribute, contact our team
Discord is an instant messaging social platform that this website’s staff is currently using for communication. You can use the following link to access the new chatroom: New Discord
Meet people who are interested in forming local dissident commmunities
Website popular among agorists: The Freedom Cell Network
Website popular among dissident right people: United Basketweavers Network
Introduction to bioconservatism
Original URL:
resistanceprotocols.com/articles/articles_introduction_to_bioconservatism.html
Web.archive snapshot:
Web.archive screen shot:
Bioconservative is an umbrella term for anyone who wants to halt the genetic modification or genetic enhancement of humans worldwide. The underlying motive of bioconservatives is the will for self-preservation. They want the human species to survive. There is no logical endpoint to the genetic modification of humans. Once humans start getting genetically modified to be more resistant to the stresses of the environment in which they live and work, to be more efficient in the amount of energy they spend, and to be more productive in their work, there is no point at which the system would stop modifying humans on its own. Once it takes off, unless it gets stopped by bioconservatives, it will never stop until there is nothing human left in genetically modified humanoids. In other words, should they fail, the human species will get modified out of existence.
There are some differences between different flavours of bioconservatism. Soft bioconservatives want the UN or some upcoming international organisation to enforce an international ban on genetic enhancement but want technology for genetic modification to remain in use for the purposes of genetic therapy. This position is championed by Michael Sandel. It is considered by most bioconservatives to be completely impractical to implement, but useful as a bridge toward more radical flavours.
Standard bioconservatives want the UN or some upcoming international organisation to ban and physically destroy the technology for genetic modification. Both soft and standard ones agree that while the movement’s focus is on technology for genetic modification, there is a broader need to rein the technological progress. Technologies whose unrestricted progress is a point of concern include but are not limited to AIs, cloning technology, chimaera creation technology, and robot police.
Hard bioconservatives are pessimistic about the possibility of these bans being enforced in a sustainable manner. Instead, they put their hopes on an uncontrolled chain reaction of technological collapse, which would destroy all organization-dependent technology across the Earth. This position is championed by Ted Kaczynski.
There are a few things on which all bioconservatives agree:
1. Technological progress is currently outside of rational human control and is being driven primarily by competition among groups of humans.
2. Much like gravity is constantly pulling objects down, efficiency is constantly redistributing power, from less efficient organizations to more efficient organizations.
3. Halting genetic enhancement will be extremely difficult but giving up is not an option.
To describe the opposing position, bioconservatives commonly use the word “transhumanist”, and less commonly the word “extinctionist”. Extintionism refers to the establishment-left flavour of transhumanism. The one championed by the WEF.
There are some irreconcilable values between the two. Extinctionists zealously believe in goodness of the technological progress. They focus on minimizing the suffering of individuals in the short term. They care for the utility of a narrative more than they do for the truthfulness of a narrative.
They typically start from some kind of vision of how the world ought to be, and then after thinking things through, conclude that human beings are inadequate for such a system. So, they end up wanting to “improve” humans — using chemicals, artificial hormones, surgeries, re-education camps, genetic modification, etc.
Bioconservatives on the other hand see that technological progress creates bigger and more complex problems with almost every solution it provides, many of which are unforeseen. They believe that allowing suffering in the short term is sometimes necessary to decrease suffering in the long term and that pain experienced by an individual can be meaningful if by enduring it individuals can significantly benefit their loved ones. They have a higher affinity for bitter truth over comforting narratives. They typically start from how humans are, and then after thinking things through, come to the conclusion that the current system is inadequate for human beings. So, they end up wanting to improve the current system.
The ideologies that have dominated the right-wing for the last several decades are faced with bankruptcy. Libertarianism is bankrupt because now numerous “private corporations” are much bigger than governments and entangled with governments, and libertarians do not have any remotely realistic means of breaking them up or disentangling them from the governments. Social conservatism is bankrupt because unrestrained technological progress inevitably changes the incentives in society, and human beings respond to incentives, so changing incentives in society inevitably causes changes in culture. Being socially conservative but not technologically conservative is much like being conservative of window glass but not being opposed to rocks being thrown at it.
Nationalism is bankrupt because it drives up competition, technological progress, and the need for international regulations. The shortcomings of these ideologies are becoming increasingly obvious, and an increasing number of their adherents are prepared to jump ship to something else. That’s where bioconservatism comes in. Individuals within the current ruling class who are over 60 years old were largely able to satisfy their need for the power process through forging their New World Order, their agenda 21, their Great Reset and their other plans for Sustainable Development.
But they planned too thoroughly. There is not much left for their grandchildren to do except go through the motions decided by their grandfathers. As time goes on, it will be becoming increasingly difficult for the individuals in the ruling class to satisfy their need for the power process. Once they start feeling the lack of impact from their decisions, just like people outside of the ruling class do now, they will inevitably turn to bioconservatism.
US military wants a justification for maintaining an empire. Right now, the only justification they have is improving the rights of LGBTQ+. This is a very weak justification that creates more enemies than allies in foreign countries. There is within each country, a noteworthy amount of people who are already concerned about where technological progress is heading, and a much larger group of people who can be radicalized against unrestricted technological progress. Hence, it will become in the interest of the US military to switch their mission to saving the human species from technological progress going in the wrong direction.
Proactive people who are not part of the ruling class are strongly incentivized to join the bioconservative movement, because in order to safely use technology for genetic enhancement on themselves, the ruling class extinctionists need large-scale testing. There might be a number of individuals within the ruling class who are opposed to testing the technology for genetic modification on the masses, but the technological system is governed by efficiency. As more and more jobs get automated, the efficient way for the governments and big corporations to use ordinary people is to make them the test subjects for the technology for genetic modification.
So far I have laid out incentives for bioconservatism to spread. Now the question is how to sell it. Within the public sphere, there is already a variety of intelligent, elaborate and carefully laid out arguments for bioconservatism by people like Leon Kass, Jean F. Gariepy and Viktor Radun. But while those might be useful for attracting the interest of intellectuals, I believe that when we are trying to get proactive people to join the movement, we should avoid intellectualist approach. In his new book Kaczynski touches on how the transhumanist movement is strengthened by the fact that adherents are not motivated by answers that come from rational investigation, but by zeal. So I insist bioconservatism should be based on the primal impulses to the extent possible. Reason is necessary to perceive the threat, but once the threat is perceived, the only argument should be gut instinct.
written by: Yuukimaru
Anti-Tech Collective Q&A Clip
Title: Skrbina’s Creative Reconstruction vs. Kaczynski’s Anti-Tech Revolution
URL to the published video of the presentation: youtube.com/watch?v=jDCskZPYnvo
Archive.org URL to the Q&A portion of the call: archive.org/download/public-discussion-skrbinas-creative-reconstruction-vs.-kaczynskis-anti-tech-revolution
Full transcript: thetedkarchive.com/library/david-skrbina-marshall-creative-reconstruction-vs-kaczynski-s-anti-tech-revolution
Yuukimaru: Alright, I agree with you that we should first try to do this solution of technology without causing a lot of people to die earlier than they would just from existence of the techno industrial system, and I think it’s a stance that all of us should take regardless of... Of course I believe that fast destruction of techno industrial system will be necessary, but I agree that we should take at least as a public position the let’s try to establish a world government that will slowly be de-industrialised, with not many people buying, just because a lot of people... like if we said right away to the public if we said ‘hey a lot of people will have to die, it will have to be instant destruction of technological system’, like a lot of people would say OK then I’m just going to play video games and I’m not going to do anything at all.
So, if we want people to become radicals, if we want people to take extreme measures. Then we need to give them hope that first things can be done in a way that does not require any big costs to be paid, like ‘it’s going to be easy, it’s going to be fine, just get going in our movement’, but... OK, like we agree on that.
The next part where I’m not sure where do we agree or not is; what do you believe are the conditions that are necessary for the fulfilment of our goal, like for example, if I want to build a house and conditions I need 300 bricks, five people in 30 days, that kind of like a list of things that we need, like what what would you say are the things that we need to fulfil your version of the goal.
Skrbina: Well, that would be kind of the next stage of the process, I’ve just outlined what it might be, not necessarily. What are the means to to get to that process. But you’re right. You would have to build some... if it’s a social action. You got to build some consensus. Kind of get some some buy in from different aspects of society, whether it’s, the grassroots or or, corporate, individuals or governmental leaders or whatever it might be. I mean, these pretty these people are quite pathetic. At least in the US today, so. You don’t hold on. Lot of hope there but. maybe maybe at some mass level you can get some mass awareness that that something like this is necessary and then maybe that has some further implications in terms of political systems or economic systems. Or social systems. So yeah, I I guess I. Don’t have a lot to add about what exactly is required to make that happen. I’m trying to just articulate the view and then doing what I can to help promote that view as one of many options, as I said, as one option along with spectrum ideas that would get rid of industrial technology.
Yuukimaru: OK, you did not give a list of things that are necessary for the gradual destruction of technology, and I have it, so I’m going to give it, and if you disagree with anything, then you can point it out.
So the first thing that will be necessary for the gradual de-industrialization is bio-conservative world government.
So, right now, in power we have people who do want to wipe out humans. They want to replace us with machines and the first thing that we will need is the bio-conservative world government.
So we need the control of the entire world and we need to purge the people who want to replace human beings, either to send them to gulag or to make them really poor, or to do just do it the nasty way.
So the second thing that we would need for the gradual de-industrialization is the cohesiveness of the ruling group.
So if there are multiple factions to the group then they are going to compete with each other for power and if it happens then the the group as a whole cannot make rational decisions. It cannot behave in a way that is appropriate for achieving their goals. They’ll have to make actions which are not targeted at achieving their goal, which is being the theorization, but they’ll have to take actions which are I think at gaining power over other factions within the group.
So the ruling group, the Bio-Conservative government is gonna have to be a very cohesive organisation that has is united under one leader. There’s no other factions. There’s only one faction and there’s no strong competition. No one is forcing them to behave efficiently. They have free hands to act inefficiently, in an ideological way, to achieve their goals. So this is the second thing.
The third thing, they will need is a great succession system. So when a leader dies usually what happens is that people just fight for power, so there have to be like a super clear succession system, the next leader will have to go through years of education to be the perfect leader. And the longer this de-industrialization is then more chances there will be to fail succession. More chances there will be that the next leader is not established and that the bio Conservative party that’s ruling the world, factions emerge and factions are fighting each other. And of course, then they cannot focus on de-industrialising because if you’re more industrialised. And the other section, then you ring the bell for power. So that’s the third thing we will need.
And the fourth thing we will need, we will need the bio-conservative government, the back of the world government. To keep itself in the state of having technology for itself. Until the process is over, because if we deindustrialized all the nation, then they’re and the world government too, then the world government does not have the technology energy to keep de-industrialising the rest of the world. And what happens if not all the world is not de-industrialised first before the world government is, is that the nations or whatever groups remain will compete with each other for power, and it will be in their interest to industrialise themselves to the degree possible, at least to keep technology that already exists, to not be in their best interest to deindustrialized themselves, it has to be done by an external force, so that the world government will have to keep enough technology. It doesn’t need to keep technology for genetic modification of humans. But it has to keep rapid communication and transportation technology in order to be capable of slowly de-industrialising the world.
OK, so those are the four things that I believe will be necessary. We disagree with them again.
Skrbina: OK. Yeah. Listen...
Marshall: Can I have a go at answering that question?
Skrbina: Yeah, go ahead, Marshall.
Marshall: So you can. Yeah, sure. Let’s say in a hypothetical world, you’re the leader of of this world government and the bio conservative world government has complete control of the world. Complete control and and you’ve already, began the the industrialization of all all these other, all the former countries that you that now control. So what what is your one goal at this point?
Yuukimaru: Well, first goal is to deindustrialized all the other nations and will establish a successor. What is the final? What is the final goal goal through the industrialised of the world? So the Balkans, what the world government has to deindustrialized everyone else first and then to the industrialise itself as the final step after it’s done? It’s the highest level of what’s the growth survival of human species in our nature.
Marshall: So what’s the highest? Now your technique. What’s the highest level of technology like this? But last movie.
Yuukimaru: For other nations, anything that is industrial has to go like we can do it gradually and we can keep the, let’s say, food factories longer than the weapon factories, for example. But all of the industrial technology has to go.
Marshall: Yeah, I mean, like once it’s finally, you’ve totally deindustrialized what’s the highest that you would allow technology?
Yuukimaru: No, no, the bio conservative world government has to remove its own technology in the last step. So it’s going to be controlled anymore.
Marshall: I know, I know that but once all that is done, what is the highest level?
Yuukimaru: Once, once all day is done, there will be no by conservative government. World government will dissolve itself by destroying its technology, because without the rapid communication and transportation, it will not be able to bother.
Marshall: OK. So. So the final successor of of the the movement of the of the world government would have, they would be the final one to say, OK, we’re we’re cutting it all off. And the governments are.
Yuukimaru: Yeah. And just to be clear, I’m. Not saying that. This is the route that you will take. I’m saying this is the route that you. Will have to uh. Promote for the time being and that as we go along into the future that it will become more obvious to everyone that. And which will have to be destroyed rapidly....
Darrell: This Quarterly for the newsletter we’ve been writing about right wing stuff and for that I read TK’s article on Eco fascists and I’m not accusing you of being an eco-fascist, it’s just more of, I’m interested to hear how you would compare and contrast creative reconstruction to ecofascism. Obviously you don’t have the right wing racial policies and all that shit. But this like status reduction of technology for the safe environment like that component of it does seem to have some similarity to that and it’s an old question cause it wouldn’t really matter as long as it works, I wouldn’t care one way or another, but yeah, just do you have any thoughts on that?
Skrbina: Well yeah, you’re right I mean this is. This is taking a strong hand in in outlawing or, prohibiting things that that normally a free, open, liberal economy would allow, market decisions or whatever it might be. And now we’re dictating these things. Things about what’s allowed and what’s not. Allowed, right. So so I. Mean it’s. Yeah, it’s. Misleading to. Call that fascist. I guess you could say any any. Any opponent of. Government action, is going to throw. Out those kind of insults. But you know. I don’t know. That we need to worry about those too much. I don’t, I don’t know the details of Ted’s. He said you’re referring to. I don’t remember reading that one, but I can find it real quick, but yeah I mean, obviously as the situation becomes more, more desperate. It’s coming. It’s going to. Entail governments are going to be taking more, stronger action, more assertive action. And then there’s going to be pushback, because people going to be saying, what? Are these governments doing and? These guys are taking a heavy hand and. They’re, still stifling. Initiative and whatever else. So yeah, I mean it’s, we’ve we put ourselves in a really bad situation and we’re really backed into a corner and all the all the nice easy outlets are gone. And so it’s going to be facing a number of bad alternatives and and we’re just going to have to get used to that idea and and start to deal with those bad. Alternatives as as they present themselves.
Darrell: Alrighty, thanks.
Griffin: I guess Yuukimaru did you have another question?
Yuukimaru: I want to say a few things about fascists. So if they want the... Of course, it’s not a united ideology, there’s no one cohesive ecofascist movement. It’s their to describe the many different people. But as for the people who want to have a white ethnostate, we can give them that, the bio conservative, the government can give them that promise, that at least as long as they are fine with not having high level of technology, if their goal is not contradicting our goal, then a coalition with them only makes sense.
The J. Burden Show Ep. 142: Yuukimaru
Original URL:
youtube.com/watch?v=CbykEnWcoiM
Web.archive snapshot:
web.archive.org/web/20240313175730/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbykEnWcoiM
Web.archive screen shot:
Intro Clip: It’s just that complicated. You know, master, I got Daniel, Rubik’s Cube, man like blue bread man. And he gets one sided.
J. Burden: All right, you can borrow. Welcome to the Jay Burton show. How are you doing, man?
Yuukimaru: Thank you for inviting me.
J. Burden: Yeah, I I’m glad to have you on. So as I do from from time to time, I kind of just put out a a post you know kind of to the wins and basically ask like who do you want to appear on my show and you were recommended by by several of my mutuals. And so I you know after I got that recommendation I checked out some of your essays and I I. Really enjoyed them a lot. So for someone who isn’t familiar with you, kind of, how would you describe who you are and and? What you do on the Internet?
Yuukimaru: I am, uh, a guy who writes uh anonymously, and I write mostly articles that are related to strategy for the dissident right.
J. Burden: So I’m curious, how did you end up on the dissident right? I mean, I I know that you mentioned a little bit before that you’re kind of assuming people come out of, you know, more libertarian framework. Is that where you came from or did you find another?
Yuukimaru: I was actually dissident from the day one. Why? I got kicked out of kindergarten when I was four years old and when when I when I went to second one, everyone was sleeping at 10:00 AM and I never could. And staff hated me. Because I I was just. Not sleeping. I was making problems while all the other kids were doing what they were supposed to. Do.
J. Burden: That’s it’s funny. You bring that up because they’re kind of. I had similar stories about me at that age. I think that if you make it this far, you have to be you have to be kind of. A troublemaker from a.
Yuukimaru: Yeah, yeah. You have to be gifted in, in a. Controversial. Way.
J. Burden: Right, exactly. If you’re too agreeable, you would have quit a long time.
Yuukimaru: Ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
J. Burden: So the article I want to talk about is an article you wrote on a website called resistance protocols and the Excuse Me, the title of the article is an introduction to bio conservatism. So do you want to describe what that? Phrase bio conservatism means.
Yuukimaru: So. The the basic idea is. We want to conserve not some institution, not some tradition, but most importantly, uh, humans, as they are from the technology for artificial genetic modification. We want humans to remain in large part of a product of of creation or chance, depending on your philosophical beliefs, but we don’t want them to be a manufactured product.
J. Burden: Well, and that’s interesting because, you know, when you think of people like like Yuval Harari, the the kind of. I don’t know what you’d call that faction, but I guess you call them transhumanists. Right there is.
Yuukimaru: I call them extensionist and the reason I use that word is because where the trans means to change from 1 shape to another and that’s really not what they want. They don’t want to turn humans into. To. Upgraded humans, they want to completely erase humans and replace us with machines.
J. Burden: Well, and it’s this, it’s kind of an interesting premise, right? The idea that you can change what it is to be a human and still keep that essential, like human nature to it. And I think that it’s a, it’s sort of this, like materialist, materialist reduction, the idea. And you see this in like Reddit. Circles where it’s essentially the idea that you know that you’re nothing but a a computer program in a meat suit. You know, the idea that you can completely change that meat suit, quote, UN quote and be left with kind of a the same consciousness, I guess.
Yuukimaru: Well, I’m not sure and I’m not particularly interested like how how many components of what it means to be a human being cannot be copied. What I focus on is that. That the aspect of human being that can be copied by machine is the aspect of being able to perform a job. When we study how modern techno industrial system works, what we find is that increasingly. Every part is specialized for a specific task and the same logic is applied to human beings as the time goes on. As the techno industrial system advances. Human beings become more specialized for a specific job. And. The thing the the whole conversation about whether. A. I can become truly general intelligence. I don’t think it’s particularly important, I think. We are already screwed. Even without that, I think we are in big trouble just because. It’s the system, doesn’t need lot of general intelligence, it just needs each part to perform its view. Each machine only needs to be better than a human being at a specific job in order for humans to be replaced. For the most part.
J. Burden: That’s an interesting that’s an interesting point and kind of in that right, when you have this idea of kind of pure technique, right, that everything is essentially an optimization. Problem. There is no way within the logic of that system to essentially pull back from. Transhumanism, where you say kind of extinction, you know that there there is no way within that logic because it is fundamentally. Less efficient to use a human in a role where a machine would do it better. And so you you you draw this distinction between soft and hard bio conservatives. And so the idea of the the hard bio conservatives is accelerationist. You know, it’s something you’d see in Kaczynski or land, which is basically the only the only way out of this is through it to essentially allow, you know, the system to kind of. Earn itself out. So how did you come to that conclusion? You know, the idea that this isn’t something that can be artificially limited. It has to kind of kill itself.
Yuukimaru: Well. What I propose is the. True difference, like the nature of difference between the soft bio conservatives, that is, the people who just want to ban technology for genetic modification with some form of United Nations or something similar, just like international. Then. And the people who want to destroy the entire. Techno industrial system is really just the amount of knowledge they had about politics. Like when when you don’t know how politics works, then everything seems possible like to a child because a child doesn’t know anything, everything seems. Possible, but as you grow older, you become less optimistic. You you start to realize, hey, you know, certain things are impossible. Like, for example, when you’re an adult, you know, for a fact that. It will not be the case that tomorrow all politicians will be telling the truth like you just know that much about the world to say, hey, this is not going to happen and. And with bio conservatives, I think it’s totally like cool for everyone to start as a soft by conservative. But then as you sort of learn more about politics, you become less optimistic about these solutions using legislation. And you start leaning more towards uh. Destroying the whole system, but I don’t think we should. Uh. Create some sort of. Big division between soft bio conservatives and hard bio conservatives. I think we should all just be part of one movement and try soft solutions first. You know why destroy the whole system before even trying to fix it with legislation, I don’t see a problem. And I think as time goes on. More and more people will. To more and more people, it will become obvious that we need to go with hard solution, but answers that it’s not a debate that we need to have right now. We can just agree hey. You know, let’s. Make sure that human beings continue to exist, and this whole debate about OK will we need to. Destroy the whole system? Or will we be able to reform it with laws? You know, it’s a debate to have really at another time.
J. Burden: Well, and that’s one of the things that you you bring up that essentially this technological process is outside of kind of like the bounds of politics, the bounds of rationality is driven primarily through competition. And it’s something you see a lot with, particularly the Chinese. And this is a difficult issue to talk about. Because particularly in the US and a lot of English speaking media, there is a lot of anti Chinese sentiment. If things like the Epoch times, which are funded by kind of these odd shadowy religious groups, and also just the China Hawk Lobby in general, but at the same time we can see that areas of research that are not, shall we say, that are not kosher in the West, you know, when it comes to genetic modification. Gain function research are being pursued in places like China, and the problem is, you know, like you’ve laid. Out in your article. It gains you a competitive advantage, right? If you’re willing to do that, you will have something that you know your opponents don’t. And so it does sort of seem like like you said that it is not within this, the realm of politics to solve that problem, because the best you could hope for. Is. Handicapping your civilization.
Yuukimaru: That is the reason why I insist that by conservatives should not try to ban this technology at home, but international. If if it is to. Have any impact if it is to have any meaning, it has to be an international ban.
J. Burden: Well, and because of that it it sort of requires A fundamental shift in the way that. We view technology. You know the idea of Faustian civilization, you know, that kind of, like, eternal struggle against limit has led to a lot of people kind of subconsciously believing effectively, that technology is a good in and of itself. You know, that greater efficiency, you know, greater capacity, is always better. Because of that, it’s somewhat interesting to watch people, and we’ll use the AI debate because it’s kind of in the news currently. But to to hear people who, and let’s be honest, this was what two years ago now basically champion. Winning, you know, capital T Capital S, the science, you know, basically saying like, wait, maybe we’ll have to, you know, take our foot off the gas. It’s it’s it’s been an interesting, interesting kind of conflict in the in the narrative.
Yuukimaru: If you look like, uh, 50 years ago, everyone was super certain that scientists are correct, everyone believed in science, whereas today, especially younger people, they can see that there’s a lot of corruption and bullshit coming out of science. And what is particularly surprising is that up until very recently, like up until 2008, the political left was the side that was always talking about how evil corporations are like ohh, you know, big evil corporations just want to make a profit. And the obvious fact is that. The kind of experiments that scientists are doing to prove their thesis or to disprove their thesis. Are mostly funded by really big corporations that are for profit. Corporations that are not like, you know, some sort of. Institutions dedicated to making world a better place or, you know, advancing human knowledge. They are big corporations that are made for profit, and they are the ones who are funding most of the research. And it is fascinating to see that the leftists. Who were up until 2008 so aware of potential? Bad motives of big corporations are 100% sure that all of the science that these corporations are funding is legit, and the people who are doubting the science are. Almost exclusively on the right.
J. Burden: Well, and what’s interesting about that is in in America in particular, this this is a very quick flip. And you can see it when it comes to kind of certain more niche cultural issues. I’ll kind of stay away from the, you know, the big ticket items like COVID or gender, any of that, one of the most interesting ones is diet. So. About even just 15 years ago, if you cared about. You know the the quality of ingredients in your food. If you cared about food additives, that was a coded left wing opinion. You know, there were all of. He’s he’s kind of moralizing documentaries that came out, you know, super size me forks over knives, which we’re basically saying, like, dumb or dumb, conservative rednecks, eat bad food. And they’re the reason America is one of the fattest countries in the world. So Fast forward within my life and look, I’m in my early 20s, have been around for a long time and things that used to be for, you know, kind of weird hippies who didn’t shower are now right wing extremist. I’ll use an example from my. In life, I had someone who I know questioned me. Ask if I was an extremist because I get milk from a local farmer, like, that is something that is, which would have been incredibly normal for, let’s be honest, the entirety of human existence is now coded as extremist. And so my point in that is not to complain about. People I meet in my daily life, but to say that I think it’s it’s true that for the left in many cases. Their stated principles weren’t principles, they were a tool to get into power. You know, it was convenient to say our our enemies are gross and disgusting and eat horrible food. But as soon as they’re in charge, it’s like, OK, well, their slop might not be McDonald’s. You know, it might be. You know, it might be the kind of, like, meat replacement, egg replacement, milk replacement items, but it’s essentially analogous. It’s the same thing. It’s just higher status socially. And so in that, I do think that it’s. And. Like that? That’s more just downstream, downstream of power and when you bring up that idea in your in your essay that I think is really interesting that essentially at a certain point, you lose that optimism. You know, you’re the, you’re the revolutionary left wing, but you’ve got into power as they certainly have, you know, over. Most of the West. And you know the the utopia you’ve been promised hasn’t material. Realized well, well, logically it if we’re in charge and Utopia hasn’t, you know, manifested the problem is in the people and we have to fix the people. And so that idea of you know what in a in a different era would have been the new Soviet man, right. Remaking human nature has has reappeared. With much greater access to technology and now instead of you know, merely, you know, indoctrinating, changing the the organization of the family, which we are doing as well, we’ve decided let’s add another layer of that which is, you know, the technological. And so there are two forces working at once. One, the kind of. Drive of techno capital to ever greater efficiency that we’ve already talked about, but the other one is social, and that’s the idea that, you know, humans aren’t doing the things we want them to. So we’ll have to. We’ll have to engineer them. So do you see that trend on the on the social side? Of this equation as well.
Yuukimaru: Yes, and that is exactly the difference between traditional communists and the modern extinctions ists the the only difference is that the communists did not have the idea that technology should be used. Used to modify humans themselves, and that is what extinction is have decided to do. So people who were communists were utopianist they they had the idea or we are going to build a world without suffering, without oppression and so on. And the people who were communists never really gave up on building a utopia. They just realized, oh, the reason we don’t have utopia. The reason there are so many mistakes in the system. Is because human beings are imperfect. Human beings are have certain flaws and they cause the problems within the system and that’s why we don’t have a utopia. So they did not give up on building a utopia and decide, hey, you know, let’s build a system that works for actual human beings. They decided hey. You know, let’s build our utopia anyway and change the human beings as much as we need to, using all this more technology and the the the ones who did decide that they’re going to use technology to modify human beings as much as they need to to to create. Some kind of? High tech utopia are the the ones that I do not call communists but extinction ists, but they are the same people. They are like they change their ideology a little bit but these these are for the most part the people who were the first extinctioners in the United States are the people who. Who used to be communists? They just changed their ideology a little bit.
J. Burden: Well, and it’s interesting you bring that up because the progressive movement in the US and when I’m I say that I’m talking about the 20th century progressive movement, not the current version, although there is a through line was absolutely obsessed with eugenics. So my area of the country. Full of. These asylums and different organizations, essentially where they would with state funding and the interesting thing is they try to blame the government for this. But almost every major university in my state, almost every major hospital contributed to these programs where they would through kind of crude methods, essentially. Genetically modify out undesirable parts of the. And so, you know, you can say that, you know, in a kind of soft sense, you know, eugenic conditions are good, right? Like the society should reward good behavior. That’s not what I’m talking about. But the idea that there is an expert in the lab coat who basically, you know, decides you were unfit and therefore must be kind of managed out of the way. It is a very. Old one with in. In many cases the exact same people. These are their grandparents. These are their great grandparents and again the the mechanisms of control, the mechanism of management have changed. But it’s that same idea that essentially humans are fungible tokens. There’s no difference between you and I, except for social factors. And so well. If humans aren’t producing the results we want, which in many cases is this kind of like perfect, you know? Fungible egalitarianism, where humans are just interchangeable widgets. Well, then they must be made to be that. And so obviously the specific ends to which management has been turned right was very different. On one side of the Iron Curtain than the other. They were effectively pulling in the same direction.
Yuukimaru: Yes, and the reason for this is that both the capitalists. And the socialists. Uh were uh fans. Huge fans, like worshippers of technological progress, and this was the best explained by Jacques Lulu. Jackie little, unfortunately did not give us any. Good solutions? Uh. He also didn’t give us a theory that would be very useful for for creating some kind of solution, but what he did do is he gave us a conclusion to the. Debate that has dominated the 20th century, which is the debate between the capitalists and the Socialists, the people who want the free market, just, uh, corporations acting in in, in their own interest versus the people who want a centrally managed. Economy, where government decides money is going to be allocated to. This and that. And I would like to get a little bit into how a little finish the that debate, if if you don’t mind.
J. Burden: No, sure. I I I’m all yours.
Yuukimaru: So if you look at. The mainstream debates the capitalists always complain. Hey, you know, socialism doesn’t work. It’s not efficient, and they always cite. These early examples of socialism or the examples where it it’s some small country that has suffered from US embargo, but really what Lula is saying is. Yes, when you have a a kind of. Society like the early America was with the like when America was founded, something like 90% of people were doing subsistence agriculture in that kind of society, yes, centrally managed economy. Just. It’s terrible for efficiency, however. As the society becomes more technologically advanced and as it collects data from how the economy is managed, it’s slowly becomes more efficient. So what you will see? Yes, like socialism was economically a disaster when the Bolsheviks. Took over, however this is because it’s in very early stages and because it it’s a country that was not very industrialized, but. Over time, what a law predicted is that as the sheer scale of business gets larger and larger, central management will become more efficient and we can see that. That’s true now. Big corporations in the United States are technically capitalists. I mean, they’re legally private. However, they are being centrally managed. And in the Soviet Union, after like the first, something like five years of both to recruit, they decided to make it a little bit more capitalist allowed just decentralized the economy a little bit. But. Over time, uh, it still got more centrally managed and this is something we see. Actually all over. The world there is increase in the central management as the technology advances as the scale of production increases and as the experts. Of economy collect. Data about how to run that economy and. Uh, so a little was said. Eventually, like uh, central management of economy is going to become more efficient, period like. Yeah, capital is. A right that at some point allowing people to manage their own affairs was more efficient, but in the future. Central management is going to be more efficient and you know that that’s pretty much the conclusion to the debate and the debate. Still goes on. But it goes on between people who did not read a little, like the people who have read a little. They never.
J. Burden: So.
Yuukimaru: Start debating capitalism versus socialism. They just see, OK, this debate is done. You know what next?
J. Burden: Well, and it’s interesting you you bring that up because that same dynamic of technological creep through competition that you you described in you know kind of the modification of the human animal you see in the economy, right that effectively things like Fiat currency. A central bank, you know, the ability to kind of manage the. Price of money in the money supply. We’re kind of too good to pass up like you needed those things because when you have that, you can essentially do things that people who haven’t developed that economic technology can’t. And it’s one of those things where it’s like, sure, in the long run that may be a maladaptation, you know, it may hurt you. In the long run it doesn’t matter because you’ll win any short term conflict with another system. And it’s interesting, you know, you bring up that the. Kind of like. And I have read some little. I’ve read propaganda and then I’ve read a lot of Kaczynski, which is essentially kazal with male or a little with mail bombs and. It’s interesting because I came to many of these same ideas not through that route, but through James Burnham. You know who describes that system of managerialism? The idea that you know that kind of rule by efficiency rule by the expert. You essentially, even if you start off in radically different ideological camps like the, you know, the Germans, the Americans and the Russians did effectively. Give it long enough and it becomes the same thing over time. You know, efficiency kind of pulls in one way, and I agree with you, like looking at things as as capitalism versus socialism is just backwards. It’s why people that used to be very influential people like, you know, Ron Paul, who still have a great deal of respect for. But it’s why they’ve kind of fallen by the wayside. They’re using an outdated and outmoded system of analysis, and so you get, you know, these kind of. Odd takes, you know, like you’ve seen a lot of this with the, you know, the end cap elected in Argentina where it’s like. People don’t know where to don’t know where to put that anymore because that kind of traditional, I guess division between capitalist and socialist it. It’s not really, it doesn’t matter anymore it it’s sort of an old paradigm.
Yuukimaru: Exactly, and allow pointed out that both the capitalists and socialists have. As their goal. Technological progress, economic growth and efficiency. These are, and, he says. These are the real holy cows of all the societies where they be capitalists or socialists. These are the things that that cannot be questioned and and he says. In our society, everything can be questioned. God, first of all. But you cannot question that society should be as efficient as possible. Like if you try to question it, people will look at you weird treat you like you are anti social. Like there’s something wrong with you.
J. Burden: Well, and it’s interesting because I noticed this very clearly with with people like the kind of, like, the rationalists, the atheists, because they try to kind of backfill that same series of of values. And you and you end up with things like human flourish. You know which is this idea that there is and you see it kind of downstream of Jeremy Bentham. You know, you can mathematically calculate a good life. You know an optimal amount of consumption and then manage that. And so it’s kind of played out to its absurd end game with, you know, people like Klaus Schwab, the WF types where it’s essentially this idea of the human as this. You know this, this kind of battery that you can stick in a pod and as long as he has all of his kind of, you know, lizard brain, you know, brain stem level desires met that will be a a good and meaningful life. And again it it does go back to the idea of, you know, Bentham’s Panopticon, you know where it is this. Kind of like fully managed society, but because it is the mathematical the most optimized answer for those questions you managed. Or you mentioned, excuse me, it it’s horrifying on an instinctual level, but it is the logical conclusion.
Yuukimaru: Yes. Yes, it is the logical conclusion of liberal values. The disagreement between capitalism and socialism was never about what the goal is. The disagreement was merely about which means are most appropriate to reach that goal. And of course, as the time goes on, we get more and more data. About what works, which methods work and of course overtime the capitalist and socialist liberals, as long as they are. Reviewing the data, as long as they are in touch with reality, of course they will eventually come to more or less the same position they will. Come to agree mostly about everything, and that is what is happening right now and what I am saying is. In order to be bio conservatives, we need to reject liberalism as a whole. We we can’t be either socialists or capitalists, because these are both. Versions of liberalism and outdated versions of liberalism. The only liberalism we have today as a sort of dominant ideology that’s actually being implemented is the progressive liberalism. And. If we want. To oppose the current thing, if we want something different, we have to oppose liberalism as a whole. I don’t think advocating for some earlier version of liberalism leads to anything productive because. The earlier versions of liberalism made sense in the earlier. In the earlier stages of technological progress, we have modern technology, we have technology that we do today and some of the. Older versions of liberalism just don’t quite work with the modern technology, so some people want to, like, make women housewives like they were in 1950s. Well, that’s not exactly efficient. With today’s technology, and if you want to have something different than what we have today, you really need to give up in liberalism as a whole and there is another reason that by conservatives cannot be liberals. So. In the liberal system of values, if. Someone has any kind of? Problem that is causing them discomfort or any kind of illness you have to immediately help them. Like you don’t ask. OK? Like how did it get this way? If I help them, what are the long term consequences? Like you are as. Liberal. You’re supposed to immediately help those who are suffering, regardless if they deserve that suffering or not and. The technology for artificial genetic enhancement is being marketed as. Gene therapy it’s being marketed as something that will help people who are extremely disadvantaged by some. Unfortunate circumstance that is beyond their control and this is the problem that comes in the writing of Michael Sandel. So Michael Sandel I wrote a book called A Case Against Perfection, where he gives a bunch of reasons why we should not genetically enhance human beings. But because he is a liberal, he has to say, well, of course I support the gene therapy. Therapy is fine, just not enhancement. However, the problem is. There are no separate tools for. Gene therapy and gene enhancer. But. This is we are talking about using one same tool and the only question is how far do you go. So it is completely impractical to ban genetic enhancement, but to keep the genetic therapy going so. In order to understand that, I’m just going. To give you. A metaphor like imagine. We want to prevent people from getting drunk and and so. The government decides, hey, you know. We’re we’re not gonna ban. Alcohol, like our goal, is to prevent it from getting drug, but we’re not going to ban alcohol. We are just going to legislate like how much you. Can drink like. Of course, that’s not gonna work. Like, if if the government says, OK, like you can drink exactly this amount of milliliters. Of course, like some people are going to drink more than that. And the reason that doesn’t work with the. Genetic enhancement is because, unlike with alcohol, you you never get sober, right? If you drink alcohol the next day, you’re still the same after you have a good sleep. But with the genetic enhancement technology, all the changes are permanent. So if someone gets. A gene therapy and this actually happened like there was some sports guy. He got gene therapy and his ability actually got enhanced. And these are the things that are inevitably going to happen in smaller or bigger measure. Now the next problem with the. Just allowing the therapy is that. Well. As everyone gets to a certain point, as in the future in which everyone is getting gene therapy to make sure that they are not below the certain baseline, there is hardly any reason not to raise that baseline like a government can say, hey, you know, we can improve efficiency. By enhancing everyone and of course, the Liberals will agree, because if. If others are not getting unfair competitive advantage, then what’s the problem? Why not just enhance everyone to be better and boost the economy and increase efficiency?
J. Burden: Well, and there’s something that that Kaczynski brings up as well. And like I said, he was. A student of a little where? Fixing things, improving efficiency is sort of a trap, right? That this this system is kind of evolved to a level to which the. Your available tools of resistance and in his essay the system’s greatest trick. This is kind of his his idea is that any available resistance to you, right? So he uses the example of different social causes that are kind of presented as rebellious. What what essentially you are doing is you are acting in such a way to increase the efficiency of the system you are making it better. And so as if you follow these kind of predetermined routes of. Rebellion. Right. You’re kind of prepackaged ways to express your discontent. All you’re doing is strengthening the thing as a whole. And so I’m curious, right, you. You’ve you’ve. I mentioned again and again that this is, you know, this creep from therapy to modification. It is essentially one in the same. OK. So yeah, just I I have to ask this cuz it’s a burning question is will people like us if we decide I will not modify myself, will we be at a significant disadvantage socially in the job in the and you know in the in the workplace because of the fact that we are kind of unmodified.
Yuukimaru: Sure, that would be the case if we made that decision. However, bio conservative ideology does not entail being against modifying yourself, but it it entails banning the genetic modification internationally and one of the key factors that we need in order to. Make this legislation happen is uh, we cannot attack the people who did it because it’s going to be the ultra rich. It’s going to be the people who are on very top of society and you know the the masses attacking the people on top doesn’t work. Rather, in order for it to work, it has to be, hey, you know, whoever got it? Got it. But you know, we’re going to bend it because it’s for the good of. Humanity as a whole and the people who already got it. Of course they have some competitive advantage and if others get it as well, then they will lose their competitive advantage and that gives the incentive for them, for the people who are. Extremely wealthy to actually support our movement, which is necessary for it to succeed.
J. Burden: All right. Thank you. You, you, you tie that up well, so how do you see that the traditional right is unable to meet this challenge and we’ve talked a lot about the left and kind of the different factions of the left. But it seems like. The the right wing is equally as as complicit in this, even though they are no longer the ideology of power.
Yuukimaru: I think the mainstream right wing is losing adherence the the people who are mainstream right wing are mostly boomers. There are people who are retired or about to retire zoomers the young people. They are very cynical about ideology. They’re just not buying. It.
J. Burden: Definitely. I I think that it’s interesting because you you you go back to that. That frame that we talked about of of capitalism versus socialism is that is the frame of the Cold War and at least in the Anglosphere, the right has never moved on from the Cold War. You know, it’s very concerned with things like defense spending. It’s very concerned with kind of Thatcher, right, or Reaganite economics. And so whereas the left has changed very significantly since the 1970s, in the 1980s, there are similar principles, but the system, the, the, the. Power players are different. The right has kind of ossified, it’s turned to bone and I think that because of that inability to adapt, they have kind of rightfully fallen, you know, from their kind of like level of of cultural significance. And it’s interesting, you know, you bring up that. Again, that concept of efficiency is being the one ruling thing that look like. I am not a populist, but in watching these populists in the US with people like Trump or kind of across in the European Union. They often face their strongest pushback from the center right. You know, we we think of like the Christian Democrat movement kind of across like Western Europe or in the US people like, you know, the Neo cons is they’re very, very quick to bring up this fact that, you know, even a fairly. Milk toast. Opposition to. Never ending efficiencies. Almost heresy to that, you know, listen to the way that they talk about like, as the people in the UK have been dealing with. You know, they’re they’re massive migrant crisis, right. The idea that if you if you restrict this even back to levels of you know Tony Blair in the in the early 2000s well it’ll be you know to be apocalyptic we can’t go back. And I think that that core premise that one technology progress efficiency is an is an endless good and also that. Essentially, to go back is to to do anything different is inconceivable. I mean, I really think that’s the idea that has to die at the center. Yes.
Yuukimaru: Yes, neocons are liberals in the in the sense of the original sense of the word. They are liberals and bio conservatives can be liberals, and I don’t think we should try to convert neocom politicians and Neo con talking heads. I I think we should just compete with them for the. Audience. Just make sure that young people are joining by conservative movement and not the the near convent and just outcompete them and let the let their thing die. Now the reason these moderate liberals like Neo Cons. Are, UM. Trying so hard to take any opportunity to attack people who are further on the right than they are is because extensionists have power and money and they are getting money from extinction lists, although like. Neocons are opposing some aspects of the system. They are kind of attacking establishment. A little bit. But in the end they are getting their money from extinction lists, and so they they can’t attack the actual ideology of extinction. It’s they can only attack the excesses of it. They can attack some sort of. A form they can attack some. Form of wokeness that doesn’t really. Serve the mainline extinction is the idea. And uh, and this, I think this has become extremely obvious, like, especially with the Nikki Haley Neo con few days ago saying like, oh, yeah, like 12 year olds should receive a gender industry product. So yeah, like I I think the people are. At least in America, like I, I think people have realized, hey, you know, neocons are not really opposition.
J. Burden: No, I I think you’re right. I I think that you know and not to be not to be too extreme on this, but I think that that is a problem that will be solved with the day of the pillow. You know, you’re essentially seeing it being solved in in real terms. Now the question is right, is that will opposition be redirected? Because what you’re seeing in the US and I can’t speak to elsewhere, is that a lot of this dissident energy is being captured by people like Peter Thiel, people like Musk and a faction that is very interested in increasing efficiency. That one of the things that I think may cause the woke movement, not the broader system, I don’t consider them to be synonymous, to be put away, is the idea of violinist. So violinist, for those who aren’t familiar, is an idea from Blogger named Spandrel that essentially there’s a lot of short term political power to be gained from. Artificial artificially placing low status people into high status roles, and he says this is happening in the US with affirmative action, with different rules about with the civil rights law and by Leninism. Because Lenin himself did this. You know, he put a lot of. I mean, there’s no secret to the fact that a lot of high-ranking Soviet officials. Were members of groups, minority groups that the previous Russian government had not been kind to. And so my point in bringing this up is you sort of wonder if a lot of that opposition is essentially a desire to. Creating more efficient system. A system without affirmative action. A system without, you know, this kind of like endless social pandering would work better and people like Musk, who is very explicitly A transhumanist. You know, he wants to create neurolink. I wonder if that’s their their kind of path to power, and almost if the next thing to come out of the quote UN quote right is almost more direct than the current crop of extinction as we.
Yuukimaru: I do think that the establishment is trying to capture this energy and I think the the only way that we that this isn’t right can compete with the the. Establishments phony. Uh. Opposition is by preaching by conservatism. I I think the question like what should the dissident right be, even uniting around like, well, that should be the core of the movement. I I think the conservatism. Is the only reasonable option. I’m not saying that everyone in the dissident right needs to become a bio conservative to become a true believer. What I’m saying is that everyone in the distance. They should preach bio conservatism like regardless, whether they are particularly excited about that the the whole project or whether they are secretly A transhumanist. It’s just the. It’s the only thing that you can really sell to the large uh audience to the large audience of normies. And if you look. At the alternatives that get thrown around like Christian nationalism well. Most of the Christians don’t support Christian nationalism, and you obviously can’t sell it to anyone who is not a Christian. So Christian nationalism is something that can be sold to a number of people, and maybe there can be created Christian nationalist states within the United States, like one of the 50. That is not the kind of ideology that can. Be used for some kind of international? Change of regime because the current regime, the the extinction, is they are an international regime. They are not just in one state and in order to replace them in order to remove. Them from power. We have to have an ideology that has an international appeal and Christian nationalism is just. Just not that. White nationalism. It’s not that either. Like something like 13% of the world is white and like that count that in in that 13% are also people who hate white people. And you know, you obviously can’t sell white nationalism to anyone who isn’t white. So that’s obviously like a non starter. I think the only ideology that that I, I don’t think there are any serious competitors like if we want to replace the current establishment, the current international establishment, I think preaching. Conservatism is the way to go, and it’s the only reasonable option.
J. Burden: Well, I think you did a a very good job expressing your your beliefs on that. I I’m convinced I enjoyed it. So if people want to read more of your work, what’s a good way for them to do that?
Yuukimaru: Resistanceprotocols.com and you click on contact page. The reason I am suggesting it like this is because on any kind of social media website we can get banned right? Like a lot of people. In our sphere like sub stack nowadays, but you know sub stack can just decide one day hey, you know, let’s ban these people. So the reason why I’m always pointing people to the contact page of my website is because. It’s always going to be there. It’s the most permanent thing. Like no one can ban us from there except ISP, which ISP bans do not exist in the current day.
J. Burden: Well, great and thank you so much for appearing on my show. I I appreciate your time.
Yuukimaru: Thank you for inviting me. It was great.
J. Burden: And to everyone at home, if you’re looking to support my show, you can find it on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, whatever podcatchers you like to use. If you want to support me more directly, check out my sponsor Axios Fitness just started a new blog, new block of programs. I think I’m doing really well at it. Enjoying it a lot, and if you want to check it out, I’d really appreciate it and. To everyone at. Home. Keep your head up. Well, I can’t last forever. Goodnight.
Anti-Tech Matrix Chat
URL: matrix.to/#/#atc:matrix.org
vesterlund
“I hope this movement is not dying”
yuukimaru
ATC is not a movement.
“The movement’s objectives must be clear and concrete.” — Kaczynski, ATR Why and How, chapter 3
ATC is a collaborative networking and publishing project comprised of a handful of independent thinkers.
If you want to contribute to Bioconservative movement or to Anti-Tech Revolutionary movement, send me a DM. I would ask you a few questions to figure out where your strengths lie, and then inform you of how you can best contribute to the particular movement that you want to be a part of.
cynicalsimian
Are you an authority in the movement or something?
The “objective” is, or should be very clear.
What the movement lacks is any sort of action and organization, especially irl. That is the issue. The sentiments aren’t dying, in fact they’re growing.
yuukimaru
It’s highly questionable if these are actual movements or if these movements have an authority, but I am the closest thing to that.
@staggeringdefeat Darrell what is the reason that you are not working with my team?
If you want to get donations from the readers, I can put the donation instructions at the end of each of your articles on RP website. There is no reason to start another group just for that.
If the issue is that you dislike RP’s target audience, you can just make a Substack that appeals to a different target audience. In this case also there is no need to make a separate group.
The only case where I think making another group would be justified is the one where the existing group is severely mismanaging the available resources.
Darrel
Well, the main reason is I didn’t envision you/RP (or any other extant AT group) taking interest in this alternative approach. Additionally, I don’t really view my thing as a “group” wherein I would be managing other people but a personal project where I would network with others and then possibly set up another, more formal group down the line. Or else the “group” would just consist of a network of people all doing the same thing. My intent with it regardless was for it to be primarily a recruiting channel that would filter high quality individuals towards whichever groups were appropriate to those individuals that would yet operate in parallel or independently of any of those groups.
Anyhow, if you have read the site, understood the idea, AND still want me to work with you, that is something we can discuss further, preferably over email or voice chat. I will review the RP website again in anticipation of that.
yuukimaru
Ok, lets continue via emails then.
RP website is not important, it’s just a funnel.
The most important documents are not on public display, and the RP team is more important than a funnel.
Cole
Hello, is this chatroom active?
yuukimaru
No.
This is ATC chatroom, and ATC is no longer active.
There are two active Anti-Tech groups:
AT Resistance: Target audience being normies and environmentalists
RP: Target audience being socially autistic people and dissident right
Members
Fortunately the group has an embarrassingly small core membership of a whole 9 people:
-
Yuukimaru
-
Ashkenyan
-
Aram
-
looshroom
-
Sara
-
ReadISAIF
-
c0wz.
-
Campona’s Ghost
-
Civz Bane
[1] Skrbina’s Creative Reconstruction vs. Kaczynski’s Anti-Tech Revolution