All-Cause Mortality vs. ncov

Numbers are in.

USA all-cause mortality went from 8.8 /1000 in 2019 to 8.9 /1000 in 2020, following a long term trend of increasing by 0.1 every year since 2013. At two digits of resolution, ncov had no effect whatsoever. Sailer was correct - everyone who died of ncov would have died of something else. A trigger, not a cause. 

Of course the USA is faking the shit out of its numbers because American hospitals get fabulous cash prizes for doing so. In some weeks upwards of 40% of all deaths were attributed to ncov. Best check with another country.

Canada's all-cause mortality is up by a statistically insignificant amount. 7.9 /1000 compared to 7.5 /1000 in 2019. Almost all deaths were of those aged 80+, compared to a life expectancy of 82. Even if ncov is real all it's going to do is knock life expectancy down a smidge.

Everyone is freaking out about ncov because plagues happened on the savannah and the monkey in your brain has an app for that.
Secondarily because it's clear that if there was a real pandemic, we would be proper fucked. None of the interventions against ncov did squat. In 2020 there was a slightly sharp dropoff due to summer. In 2021, we've already reached herd immunity for covid-20. Get fucked, CDC. 

Browse worldometer; the numbers are wrong but the relative movements tell a great story. Especially compare Canada, America, Australia. The story in America is so obviously fake it's embarrassing just to be the same species as them. Officially nearly 10% of all deaths were caused by ncov - 0.7/1000, to be precise. The UK's numbers have the same sawtooth fraud tell that America's does, by the way, but their all-cause isn't in. (Quite possibly because they noticed it tells the wrong story and they need time to fudge things. Either that or sheer third-world incompetence.)

 

By preponderance of evidence, America's all-cause mortality tells a story about how Americans refuse to be locked down and Wokeness is very deadly, with 0.8/1000 deaths a year - more than officially attributed to ncov, and expected to increase to 0.9/1000 next year.

By preponderance of evidence, Canada's all-cause mortality tells us lockdowns are extremely dangerous, with officially 0.2/1000 killed by lockdown, compared to 0.2/1000 killed by the virus. 

Naturally these are hardly proven, but that's the simple, naive reading - which is usually either correct or next-door-neighbour to correct.

Meawhile China's numbers are fake in the downward direction. Suffering a plague would contradict the mandate of heaven, after all.

There's a downright hilarious amount of fake news about this. They're using flatly wrong statistics, such as simply assuming every ncov death was [excess], which is especially amusing for weeks when half of all American deaths were attributed to the virus.

On Rational Sin vs. Christian Sin

Morality isn't real. Neither good nor evil are genuine properties of any object or event.
However, it does approximate something of use; the tension between long-term and short-term, and in particular cooperation vs. defection. 

Evil cannot be truly real due a punishment dilemma. If evil is an intrinsic property, like colour, it must be independent of punishment. We can imagine someone committing a sin that nobody minds, which nobody wants to punish them for, and they are in fact not punished. If no one cares, not even the heavens, then we have a contradiction: there is no reason not to do it. Being evil is indistinguishable from being not-evil.

By contrast, we can imagine [drawing forth punishment] is an inherent property of evil. If punishment is provoked, then avoiding the action isn't done because it's evil. It's done because avoiding punishment is selfishly prudent. Being not-evil is indistinguishable from being selfish to a perfectly narcissistic degree, which is again the opposite of what evil is supposed to be.

If punishment is not inherent, then evil is not-evil, and if punishment is inherent, not-evil is not-not-evil. In any conceivable world, evil is not-evil, and thus evil is inherently a self-contradictory idea.

Now I'm going to violate the is-ought distinction and sketch a derivation the rules previously called [morality] using only facts and logic.

You always want your interlocutor to cooperate with you. No matter what you're doing, it's more profitable if they're not opposing you. If you defect on your interlocutor, they will try to defect back on you, unless they're retarded.* A particularly intelligent opponent will predict your defection, because your intent has tells, and thus will defect on you before you can defect on them. Defection provokes punishment, and thus avoiding defection is always prudent.

*(If they are retarded, you don't want to cooperate with them anyway. A stupid ally is worse than an enemy.)

Caveat: enough humans are retarded enough that cooperation is not possible, and attempting it is foolish. You also can't cooperate with a rock, and in a classic example of the world being unfair, enough humans are too stupid to be properly human. Or: Aristotle's [natural slaves] is a larger set than is thought (for example) by Aristotle.

In the short term, assuming you have the proper advantages to get away with the betrayal, you can profit from defecting against a potential cooperator. In the long term the costs are always higher, not least being the lost opportunities for future cooperation.

Broadly speaking, defection performing an act on someone without consent. As such, it is always prudent to obtain or otherwise guarantee consent. Thus, we have, more or less, morality. Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Not morally wrong; merely incorrect. Irrational.

More generally it is always rational to secure long-term gains in favour of short-term gains, because the long term lasts longer than the short term, and is thus bigger.
However, much as a stupid person can be betrayed without noticing, a stupid person is often incapable of understanding long-term gains. The long term is more complicated and difficult than the short. Not everyone is capable of being sufficiently rational.

Corollary: being stupid is (rationally speaking) indistinguishable from being a criminal. It makes perfect sense for most prison occupants to be stupid.

Present governments do not obtain consent, and are thus evil, which is why they reliably guide their societies into decay and ruin. However, in these cases the long term is long compared to mortality. The present government will die before it descendants have to pay their debts. This continues to be true until the Visigoths suddenly sack Rome. Humans have certain instincts telling them to sacrifice themselves for the survival and dominance of their children, but these do not cover the act of buggering your own society for personal gain.

The Gyews noted that enough humans are especially incompetent at appreciating the long term, and tried to get them to think about it using early version of the myths that became [eternal damnation]. As usual, lies are bad. They painted themselves into a corner by reifying sin so concretely. Sin became something you accumulate. Because humans are trash it became obvious everyone was accumulating unbearable amounts of sin, and they had to do things like come up with scapegoats, which were literal goats in the original. You would pass your sin to the goat and punish/sacrifice the goat. The burnt offering. You had to char it real bad so nobody would be tempted to eat it anyway, which would make a mockery of the idea of sacrificing it to the gods. 

Of course the fact the gods don't come and eat the thing either also makes a mockery of the sacrifice, but apparently that one is complicated enough to be covered by cognitive dissonance. 

(Remember: just stop defecting and start cooperating. These elaborate mythologies only serve to entangle you and make this easy solution somehow hard. E.g. nobody will believe you're trying to cooperate, even if you in fact are, unless you've sacrificed a goat first. Lies are defection, and only encourage more defection.)

Yeshua's great innovation was being a scapegoat for everyone. "It's cool, I'll take all your sins and then sacrifice myself, and I'm a Big Deal so it will be one and done." Plenty of folk though this was a great idea. Using this trick, apparently you could perform a verbal (virtue-signalling) penance instead of a material one to take care of any ongoing sins you committed. 

In practice, Yeshua granted a license to sin. The Christ was the Anti-Christ all along.
It's all cope. Cooperate rather than defecting, or you're just not good enough. Do various forms of penance work? Unless they convert a long-term incentive to a short-term incentive that ADDled humanity can vaguely understand, they don't work. Thus, sale of indulgences.

Also, a wonderful opportunity for Evil to seize the reins.

It is true that almost every single moralist is trying to hold you back. Isn't it natural that Evil would don a false cloak of righteousness? Conquest #1 - Evil will be quite good at this. Also, Darwin; idiot Evil cannot long survive, because defection is so expensive. The Devil is a scammer. He offers a Deal where the goods cost more than they're worth. You take it because the Devil is smarter than you. 

Christianity was a false cloak of righteousness to start with. Constantine barely had to tweak it.

By cloaking itself in a cooperative disguise, Evil automatically invokes a double bind. By corrupting the perception of Law, anyone who breaks through the first layer of lies is tempted to disparage Law entirely, thus becoming outlaw. They're no longer effective agents of Evil, but they also become wholly ineffective opponents of Evil. 

Example. Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife? Problem: there's a distinction between the social [you] and the actual [you]. The actual [you] isn't the one coveting. If your neighbour's wife is hot you can't help coveting her. The double bind is echoed. You must not covet her, but can't stop. The genuine cooperate vs. defect distinction is about actions, not thoughts and feelings. If you don't commit the theft you imagine, then no sin has occurred. Of course Christian bishops don't ask for consent. They're evil. They're defectors. They want you twisted up in knots worrying about avoiding their imaginary sins so you don't notice their very real sins. 

Is it better to be a saint who is not tempted by the wives of others? Sure. That's not the point, though. The point is to get along. 

A) you realize the coveting isn't [you] exactly, because it's not under your control. When you will it to stop, it doesn't, exactly the same way that if you will the Sun to go out, it doesn't.
B) you realize this coveting doesn't stop you from leaving your neighbour's wife to your neighbour. The social [you] can appear not be coveting at all, even when some internal [you] covets a great deal indeed. A difference of no difference is not a difference.
C) you start to wonder which other rules are stupid and destructive, and it's tempting to conclude that all of them are dumb. 

It's even worse than this, because Nietzsche was correct. Machiavelli said: do no small harms. He said this because anything which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. (Further they realize you're defecting on them, so do a big enough harm that they can't try for revenge.)

Yeshua ""saved"" you from your sins. In other words, saved you from that which wasn't killing you. Which was making you stronger.
Yeshua tried to ""punish"" the sinners. For the most part, not enough to kill them. It's supposed to be about forgiveness and redemption and mercy.
Evil cannot survive without paying tribute to virtue. It is not supported.
Good, however, is supported by Yeshua. It can be weak, and depraved, and incomplete, and still survive.

Thus Yeshua was all about empowering sinners and etiolating the virtuous. Result: Evil is strong and Good is weak. Thanks Yeshua, all your attributes are sublime, including your misanthropy. A real God's God. Proof: refer to what has in fact happened. Remind me: who said to know them by their fruits?

Moldbug Errors 3

The only right is the property right.

Moldbug is a leftist: he's writing in an attempt to seize something that isn't already his, via trickery. He contradicts himself thaumaturgically, which is why he contradicts himself in detail all the time.

"Or we could scale this attitude back a little. Rather than considering the 20th century and all its works as an abomination, a scar upon history, one vast sin whose penance will still be sending us bills in the 2200s, we could take it as—a normal part of history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

"They have dedicated their lives to the state security of one of the most inept, clumsy and callous regimes in history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/will-wilkinson-the-slave-of-power

Look guys, having no idea what you yourself are thinking is what it means to be "married to reason."

Proof by contradiction: if Moldbug already owned the thing he wants to own, he wouldn't need to write long screeds about how it should dance. He would issue an order, and then it would be done. E.g. Urbit. He didn't need to write elaborate articles describing how Urbit should be coded. He could just code it. 

The world is surprisingly just. E.g. husbands and wives deserve each other 99% of the time. Further, Conquest #1 runs both forward and in reverse; that about which you are most conservative (right wing, property rights), in other words that which you know best, will tend to become your job.

Moldbug has to try to seize control of [whatever it is] precisely because he doesn't know much about it. He deserves not to be in control of it. 

In almost all cases blog-existence is the photo negative of the blogs that should exist. Moldbug knows a great deal about coding that I don't know, and if he were writing about that I would have to sit down and shut up. He is therefore, naturally, as a pure inevitability, writing about something else entirely. 

Secondary proof: what it is, exactly, that Moldbug is trying to control? Thing is, if you could easily tell, the mark might reinforce their walls, so...

As such: when someone doesn't take their own ideas seriously, you probably shouldn't take them seriously either.

Of course if you've been doing your set 2s, you can feel this maybe 2-3 paragraphs into a Moldbug screed. The difference between descriptive and proscriptive is not subtle. I'm not satisfied with pure set 2s, however. I insist on converting into a set 1 as well. This has many virtues, such as allowing one to climb the inferential ladder. Since this level is now verbalized, I can use intuition on the next level up. Et cetera.

I hypothesize that while it's possible to transcend one's race, Moldbug hasn't. The Gyews are beloved by deviant rulers everywhere for their tendency to carry water for the regime. You want a lawyer to tell you how to legally do what you were going to do anyway, and you especially want a Gyewish lawyer for that. 

Limited Fisking Section:

"If he is dreaming of rebellion, he is not dreaming of an inglorious and brutal shitshow. If he is dreaming of loyalty, he is not dreaming of an eternal and servile tyranny."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

Both should submit to a Lord. Submit either to a collaborative Lord or a rebellious Lord. We can forgive the peasant who claims they chose the best Lord they could find. I do not forgive the peasant who claims to have no Lord.

If you insist on dreaming independently, then you take on the responsibility of being judged as Lord. And, obviously, found wanting.

BTW it's obvious Siskind does not believe in Bayes' theorem. It's plumage. Treating it as a genuine theory instead of plumage is autistic.
Only I'm allowed to be autistic, for what I hope are obvious reasons. 

"This is indeed the act of a child; my children will decide they dislike the title of a movie, then, if begged to give it a chance, grimly and resolutely hate it. "

Fun fact: children have a set novelty quota. They will run away from their mothers' skirts when they're behind, and watch hundred and hundreds of reruns when it's full. 99% of the time when you want your child to try a new food/movie and they don't want to, all you need to do is wait for them to catch up on their novelty processing. Sadly, parents aren't known for the patience this requires.

When the child (*GASP*) dislikes the movie recommended by the parent, the parent is a victim, and complains on their blog. Clearly, the child must be the victim, and the parent the victor, or everything is wrong with the world. So unjust.

The child's novelty quota comes from having to process and understand the novelty. To see how it relates to the rest of the world, to the child itself, etc. "Hating" a movie "resolutely" is only rational. It will only clog their processing pipeline. Although I cling to hope that in years past parents had some modicum of respect for the child's lived experience, it is easy to argue that the latest moment for any such event was over 10,000 years ago.

Hunter tribes beat their wives, showing they have no qualms about "domestic violence." (See also: red pill.) They do not beat their children. They recognize it as an unnecessary and cowardly act.

In reality children do come with an instruction manual. It's written on their heart, so you need some empathy to read it. Thus we are enlightened: of course good parents are essentially nonexistent. Children aren't people for goodness' sakes! People have feelings. Children don't, silly!

I see what I did wrong. Turns out correlation really isn't causation. The alcohol is taken to balm the wounded soul, which recognizes it has betrayed its own flesh and blood.
"The #1 way to humiliate yourself is to cooperate with power against your old friends. After you’ve done this you can never have any self-respect again: full Judas."

"(what does it say about Republicans that their last two presidents were nondrinkers?)"
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/donald-trump-the-natural-experiment
It says they're outgroup. Ooka ooka, monkey. We can all agree to eat them first, I guess.
Your principle is: don't get my balls kicked. You can't even imagine what the ancients meant by respect for a principled man. 

"it would mean there was one Party, which had one neck. If there is any lesson American communism has learned, it is the power of decentralization. We won’t be seeing any more Bridgman Conventions."

"Those were dogs on a leash. They could be turned on and off in one Zoom call."

The best part is these two sentences are two paragraphs away from each other. 

Don't be like Moldbug: do your set 4s.

Cthulu is Original Sin

Lovecraft was exactly correct. He was American so there's a narcissism correction to make, but this made he was precise and accurate.

The truth about America drives Americans mad. Seemingly impossible powers can be had by reading into it, but, always, it drives the American to their gibbering death. In Lovecraft's mind, there is nothing to be done but to look away, and hope to be eaten last.

I have a different take. America is over. You can wait for everyone else to notice, or you can start the new country early. America is gibbering too much to stop it. That's up to you, though. Whichever you prefer. 

One key to an exceptional memory is to quit lying to yourself. If accurate recall would harpoon your self-image, you cannot allow yourself to remember. The more you lie, the more you must confabulate. If the memory must be vandalized anyway, why bother making it in the first place? Thus the past becomes misty. History repeats because humans cannot tell themselves about the present.

Recalibrate: saints are real. They are not saints. They're basically decent people. They merely appear saint-like compared to the rancid trash that calls itself human on average.

In the past, it was accepted that humans are trash. Original Sin etc. But, Jesus was merciful - or rather, we can't punish everyone for all their sins, because there would be no one left. We would punish only the worst criminals, the most heinous crimes, and gradually improve. By degrees. The Aztecs were correct - Gnon demands blood sacrifice. (The Aztecs sacrificed the wrong blood, and Gnon had words with them about it.)

Because humans are trash, Christianity became cope. They decided being [basically decent] wasn't restricted to so-called saints. The egos of the trash got flattered. "At least you're not a murderer." Meanwhile nobody got sainted, because the standard, staying at a fixed distance from [normal], rose well beyond any achievable level. It wouldn't do for saints to realize they are saints. That's the sound of Envy getting tired of winning. Europe gave up their blood sacrifices.

Then they caught the wrong end of philosophy. Philosophy revealed the cope to be lies. The virtue signalling was always transparent, and now someone bothered to look through it.

Some said: we must punish all the sinners. Why are we letting some go? These had committed aposiopesis.

Some said: we cannot punish all the sinners. Punishing any sinners must be pointless. Their faith suffered a mortal wound. These committed the Christian sin of Despair. This was long before WWII but if you study WWII you can see the secular humanists' faith in humanity getting crushed.

"We need X but X is impossible.
"Fuck."

Fascism is a perfect compromise. If you legally defend criminals, the criminals are punished by having to live with a criminal, while the non-criminals are punished by having to live with criminals. It is at once a paean to the imposibility of punishment while simultaneously punishing everyone. And indeed if you go full Communist, all are punished with death. Turns out it is possible not to forgive anyone.

Some even said: since everyone is doing it, it can't be bad. Vae victus.

Yvain said that if it looks like anyone in ingroup sins, they must have been part of the always-sinning outgroup all along. First they came for the outgroup, but I did not speak up because I wasn't part of the outgroup. Look guys, all you can do is hope to be eaten last.



Americans live in a country where it's considered wrong to give your children so much as a room's full of privacy, and wonder why they can't maintain rule of law.

Your daughter's room is "her" room except it isn't her room. This isn't a child, this is a slave. Even if you're merely renting and the landlord is very explicitly the real owner, the landlord has to give 24 hours notice. I suppose I now understand why basic decency needs to be written into law. (This sort of works - even if you can't yourself execute decency, it's not impossible to recognize it from the outside.)

But how would we demonstrate children are low-status scum if we had to give them any genuine respect? On the contrary Americans say gaslighting your children about whether their room is theirs is considered 'respect' and then they wonder why Americans grow up holding an obsession with having the whip hand. In other words, a power addiction.

Some said: adults (who can fight back) must not be the sinners, it must be the children (who can't). How did America end up with a bullying problem. It is a mystery.

Those who gaslight their children as a moral imperative can't complain when it turns out they live under a gaslighting regime. "Where did you learn that?"

Sure everyone's tortured as children but that sort of thing doesn't just happen. I've looked for innocent victims but have been unable to find any. Americans allowed an industrial child-torture system to be installed in their country. They were already okay with it. Some are so enamoured of child torture they prefer not to have strangers do it where they don't have to watch - they prefer to apply it personally.

The American father, like all tyrants, is incapable of telling the difference between a right to privacy or owning your own territory, and the right to the territory of others' e.g. having you and your bank account pay for my treats. The tyrant genuinely consider all territory to be theirs.
He genuinely cannot conceive of what a libertarian tries to propose. Or any true rightist - the idea of personal responsibility simply isn't in his vocabulary. This is what it means to be a Fascist.

Ironically, under Fascism, there are no equals. Only victors and victims. (Reinforcement: the victims deserve it because weakness is a sin.) Talk about inhabiting the stereotypes of your enemies: the American father must either be licentious or tyrannical. "Respect" means a victim acknowledging their victor. Double ironically, this is more beastial than literal beasts. Lion prides respect the territory of their neighbours. Even literal chimps manage it better than Fascists do.

Lies are brain cancer.

Lies spread. Everything is connected, which means once a lie becomes a fixed point, everything else must be progressively distorted to flatter that lie. There's a technique called compartmentalization or the magisteria of expertise where truths are forcibly disconnected, but the smarter brain has difficulty failing to see similarities as similar.

The American inoculates themselves with brain cancer when they submit to the child-torture regime. When they become accomplices. For the American to acknowledge responsibility or respect, he would have to acknowledge he was not treated responsibly or with respect. Fatally, he would have to acknowledge he has not acted responsibly or respectably to his own children. This lie becomes a fixed point, and everything must twist around it to avoid the genuinely lethal ego damage. They become irrevocably stupid. (Exploitably so.)

America has sinned. The sin is so painful it's impossible to repent. This is why the only alternative is to be not-American. Gnon lets Fascists be Fascist, and if you don't reject it utterly, He will allow the Fascists to Fascism you. 

Fascism makes women hate their children. It's impossible not to realize, at some level, you're wronging them. This feels like children are exposing your sins, which means you start hating those children. (Which makes torturing them easier.) Fascism is thus doing one great service to the world: it is causing women who are susceptible to Fascism to gracefully exit the gene pool via abortion, transsexualism, &c.