All Killing is Eugenic

Humans resist being killed. The worthy are better at resisting. While individual cases are confounded by luck, on average anything which kills humans will kill the unworthy preferentially. 

P.S. BLM is eugenic.

I think the whole [cops are massacring minorities] thing was supposed to be taken as a command. Dog whistle. After all, every time they tell you how it's racist to think blacks are X or Y, blacks hear they're supposed to X or Y harder, just like they're supposed to. Sadly cops are middlish class and resist random violence, for some reason. Had the cops started wiping out blacks like they were told to, BLM probably would have been avoided.

Still, they're pulling rookie numbers compared to Stalin. Yes it's eugenic but it's hardly a strong effect at this level.

Sometimes Struggle is Eudaimonic

Under certain conditions, struggle is good, or even necessary, for living eudaimonically.

Under what conditions?
The prey species needs the predator. What else?

Musings on Privilege, War, Formalization, and Parasitism

Distinction between predator and parasite: the predator wishes to destroy the host. The parasite wishes the host to live as long as possible. Ironically it's the latter that's particularly evil, rather than the former, because parasites are irresponsible. Any parasite which is held responsible for its parasitism is a dead parasite.

War is the act of going beyond the formalizations. 

Generally because the formalization has failed so badly that the former subject would rather die than fail to change the formalization. 

We can now recognize wars even when nobody is dying. As long as someone is going beyond the formalization in an attempt to change it, it's war, even though they may not have to kill anyone as long as they succeed first. 

Checksum: if you formalize a war, all you're doing is painting a big fat target on yourself. "Here's the rules I'm following." "Oh neat, now I know exactly how to break the rules to carry out an ambush." 

 

 

War is predatory. It wishes to destroy the host (social formalization) to feed itself.

Politics is parasitical. It wishes to live off the host (social formalization) to feed itself. 

All crime is parasitical. They want unjustified privileges. To be legally excused for no good reason. Even if their particular act was legalized, if the rule is applied consistently to everyone in a certain category, the criminal's market would only get saturated, forcing the criminal himself out of the market. Criminals are not competent; if they have to compete with normies, they lose. That's the main reason they turned to crime in the first place. 

By contrast, aristocratic privileges should be, and originally were, attributed consistently to everyone with certain traits under which the privileges made sense. E.g the baron can skip to the front of the line because the baron is more valuable to society than a peasant; his time is worth more and shouldn't be frivolously wasted. Making the baron wait in line harms the very peasants it's supposed to be consoling, although of course the peasants are too simple to understand such things. Remember, it's universally true that peasants generate wealth and problems. Peasants work hard, but are fucking stupid and kind of violent. The time the baron spent in line would otherwise have been spent solving problems the peasants had caused themselves.

When someone offers you politics, you should declare war on them. It's a crime and it's fine to just execute them.

Oh hey it's our friend Satanism again. Parasites are liars. They can survive only if the things generally believed about them are false.

Predators are not.
"You're trying to eat me!"
"Yes? Thanks for standing still and whining while I bite your neck, by the way, instead of running." The lion can't fool the gazelle into thinking being eaten is good for the gazelle, and doesn't even try. 

Political formulae are always perverse because they have always been Satanic. False doctrines designed by and for parasites.

Consciousness Review

Descartes was right, consciousness is fundamentally subjective, in a way entirely contrary to objective physics. 

From the perspective of physics, consciousness violates this rule: [walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck]. Two consciousnesses which appear objectively identical can and will behave differently, because of inaccessible internal properties. This is what's called [free will] though, refresher: both determinism and libertarianism are in fact identical propositions, which means they're probably both the same false proposition.

With a physical clock, you can bust it open and look at how the gears are related to each other, and derive its behaviour from its component parts. 

Subjectivity is unitary, due to the nature of subjective epistemology. It has no component parts, but is instead one single whole. Though it does have a varying texture which sometimes simulates sub-components. 

You can access a separate clock. Your body is a machine, the clock is a machine; you can relate machine to machine. To access the internals of a mind is to violate laws of subjective epistemology. To access a separate mind, you must become that mind, meaning it is no longer separate and [access] is not the correct term for the relationship. Two must become one (if that's possible). You cannot relate mind to mind, because in the case of direct mind-mind contact, it is all one mind which is merely thinking about itself. 

You can take a gear out of a clock and it's still a gear. You can't take a thought out of a mind without mutilating the mind, changing both thought and mind, meaning what you took out of the mind wasn't the thought you want to look at. There is no dismantling, nor reassembly. There is only destruction or unification. That said you can make a similar thought in your own mind - assuming you already have a mind to think with, unlike e.g. a silicon computer. This is like examining a clock by building a whole new clock and tweaking it until it works the same way as the old clock.

 

Consciousness still isn't supernatural. It obeys logical positivism. Although the physical components making up the consciousnesses may be identical, you can still investigate the internal properties of the minds by watching their behaviour and extrapolating inward. Caveat: again this is only possible if you have your own mind with which to make an analogy. You can think thoughts until you run into the thought that would cause the observed action, then conclude that thought was the driving property. 

The possibility space, from a physical perspective, is literally infinite. Not only must you list every possible thought, you must list of every possible way for thoughts to interact with each other. Not mere combinatorial explosion: literally infinite. No amount of evidence can narrow it down sufficiently; the prior probability of any hypothesis is literally 0%, and stays 0% eternally because no matter how many you rule out, there's still infinity other possibilities left, all sharing the same finite probability pool. However, the fundamental nature of conscious existence is immediately apparent from the inside of consciousness, again due to the inherent nature of subjectivity. This tells you which things contradict the nature of consciousness, which narrows the possibility space to a finite value.

P.S. Similar to the way libertarianism and determinism are in fact the same: since morality isn't real, virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialist ethics are in fact the same, identical thing. Nothing = nothing = nothing. Since their foundation is nothingness, their illusions, to even appear consistent, must all be consistent with nothingness. All three illusion are founded on the same error/lie, altering nothingness to appear somethingy in the same way, so even the illusions are perfectly identical.

Sick Culture, Girl's Toy Commerical Edition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdDBO_ns-Sw&t=251

Selfish: refusing to criminally terrorize a bunch of innocents and be justly locked away.

Not selfish: demanding the criminal terrorize their victims and get locked away so you can meet a nice boy. 

Got it? Got it.
Naturally this is portrayed as an issue of identity (narcissism) or freedom or whatever, because even peasants would be able to untangle this one if they spent any time thinking about it. Divert. Distract.

P.S. Catspaw mechanics. Doing evil at one remove so as to dodge the blame. Every striver's greatest dream, apparently. E.g. repeating every racial slur and blood libel but saying, "These words are bad, don't use them," at the end. Incite things but use plausible deniability.

Meat is Warrior Food

I keep saying it.

Meat makes you strong. They don't want you to eat meat because they're too feeble to rule a healthy populace. 

Corn and beans can keep a peasant alive. Barely. Much of the historical peasant demeanour is the result of overconsumption of grains. That historical demeanour is what they want for you.

N.B. there is no such thing as overconsumption of meat, any more than cows can overconsume grass.

Astronomical Coincidence

Mars and Venus were named by folks whose best instrument was the naked eye.

Venus, it turns out, is hot and steamy.

Mars is covered in iron oxide and scars, as if enormous armies of metal golems fought a war with cataclysmic weapons. Equivalently as if every square foot of soil was soaked with hemoglobin.

Venus, the pure female, can't let anything go. So insular it's impossible to survive there.

Mars, the pure male, was too outgoing and explored so hard it couldn't get back.

Is Proper Lying Impossible?

In theory someone could tell a flat lie, but in practice it seems there's always a tell. I wonder if the key is in the technique of mixing lies and truth? Often you can kill someone's lie just by taking it fully seriously, rather than letting social pressure mitigate the response.

All the most convincing lies have a truth backbone, but this merely introduces internal contradictions, which you can find with some effort or with prior training. Part of taking a statement fully seriously means asking for clarification. "This vaccine thing; are we nixing bodily autonomy? Are we supporting anti-abortion folk now?" If they were telling the truth it would be a valid and relevant question. Since they're not, you're bringing the contradiction to the fore (which, incidentally, will reveal that everyone [who wasn't immediately calling bullshit] was in on the lie all along).

"This company values integrity." Anyone who touts a virtue immediately makes themselves cripplingly vulnerable to Socrates. "Cool. What is integrity?" They don't do hemlock anymore, but if you insist on asking the relevant questions you'll certainly get fired. You already knew this, so you already knew they were lying. "I'm just asking questions here." Certainly true and they will only be able to babble incoherent nonsense in response, but that won't stop them firing you, so...

In war, defence in fact has more advantages over attack. Certainly in special cases, or once (foolishly) a war has already broken out, attack can have the advantage, but overall defence must have the advantage, or we would have already all wiped ourselves out. As usual, strategy is counter-intuitive: even when attack has the advantage, defence therefore has the advantage, because the attacker can do nothing to prevent a counter-strike. When A and B fight, the winner is C.

Likewise in scholarship, truth-seeking has the advantage. Only those who have deception on their demand schedule can be deceived. It's very much an adults vs. children sort of situation. Children like their false imaginings for the falseness, not for the fantasy or the imaginativeness.

The big lie is merely more bigly obvious as a lie. Nobody has to make a law against flat earth societies, because you can go up on a hill with a telescope and look at the horizon. The truth doesn't need laws to assist with its defence. "You insist? Fine. Try it and see what happens, lol."

P.S. Perhaps aristocratic children have taste and this at least mitigates the childishness dynamic. Just a guess; I need more observations. 

P.P.S. As with company integrity, much of the time it seems the obviousness of the lie is supposed to be an excuse. If everyone knows they're full of shit, then nobody was deceived, now were they? However, this merely introduces an equivalent deviance: the company is insisting that their employees tell certain falsehoods. Maybe nobody is deceived but it's certainly wiser to simply not work at such a company. "We can only survive if everyone plays pretend." If we're back on the schoolyard, undoubtedly what is falling ought to be pushed.

Rectify Names: Oversocialization => Overritualization

"The core of the hidden curriculum is the false idea that process always creates something of value, i.e. if one completes the curriculum, one has learned."
https://nitter.fdn.fr/fitnessfeelingz/status/1453487431538380808

"This conflation of process & result is the underlying logic of all ritual. The rain dance cannot fail. If it does not produce rain, the failure lies with the dancers."

Whole thread is errorless as far as I can tell. NB the comments on bureaucracy.

Ritual behaviour is opposed to rational behaviour. Ritual is based entirely on following instructions. Social, egotistic, narcissistic. Rationality requires observation of the physical situation.

Fascism is a fundamentalist form of government. Fundamentalism is always totalitarian. Everyone must follow the rituals. Every part of life must be ritualized. See also: Plot of the State Enemy.

Again with the stone-age sociology theme. It is very natural for the peasants to follow instructions mindlessly, with no understanding. Pure slavish mimicry. However, industrial society works by being more in touch with the underlying reality rather than less. 

The social purpose of ritualization is humiliation. The more obviously the rituals conflict with Reality, the more loyal the follower of the rituals must be, and thus the higher-status the conductor of the rituals. Inherently negative-sum. Inherently criminal.

Formalism is Irresponsible

Moldbug's first post is real good. Also it summarizes almost 90% of the rest of the blog, so that's nice. 

However, it has a serious problem.

America is not formalizable. It is structured like this: "I retain the right to lie to you." For example, "I retain the right to cheat and steal elections."

"the fact that the US extracts regular payments from the aforementioned fur-bearing critters means no more than that it owns that right."

"the fact that USG regularly defauds the voting process means no more than it owns that right"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can't openly state that you own this property without devaluing the property entirely. To formalize this property is to destroy it.

This "property" is inherently irresponsible.

The Formalist Manifesto is an apologia for irresponsibility - for leftism. "This creates an incentive for violence—something we formalists try to avoid," where [this] refers to Formalism itself, as applied to America and to any other irresponsible regime. (All centralized regimes have been irresponsible.) America is inherently hostile to the facts about America.

Put another way: "You are morally obligated to pay me tax because my guns are bigger than yours," is nothing more than an argument that you ought to enlarge your guns until I can't tax you anymore. Naturally I am likely to resist, so this form of argument leads to violence. Criminal acts are inherently and irrevocably violent. To argue that you can use a justification to turn violence into not-violence is to argue that you can debate the sun into being dark.

Aside from that it's a damn fine post, however. 

 

P.S. Gee, how did an entity inherently hostile to facts end up sponsoring an idea market where lies have value and truth does not? Surely there must be some complicated, counter-intuitive reason for this, which we can explain and therefore show off how smart we are! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On the Internet, All Lies are Narcissistic Lies

You can't physically affect one another; by process of elimination, it's about perception. Lying to change someone's perception of you is classic narcissism. P.S. Narcissism is a mental disorder because verbal signalling doesn't work. Perceptions are not managed. 

If you commit a firing offence, you can lie to your boss and although your boss is a fool for trusting you, you can avoid getting fired. If you commit a quitting offence, you can lie to your employees and say it wasn't your fault; your employees prove themselves fools for trusting you, but you can keep them around for a while longer. 

On the internet, none of this matters. There's only various esteem games. On one hand, everyone seems to get it. Nobody esteems someone especially due to perception management on the internet. On the other hand, insanity is still endemic. They continually attempt to manage perceptions, even though it's never worked; it's not just them, it's never worked on them either. 

Almost everything said on the internet is some form of perception management or another.

It is not intended to inform, to discuss, to have a debate, to gather new information, or to coordinate a project. It's all narcissism. This is because California is characterized by very high levels of narcissism, for various reason I find obvious. 

P.P.S. America in general is almost optimally anti-intellectual. Sharing information is an intellectual activity, and thus optimally disparaged in America. Even if something is known you're supposed to already know it; studying is considered useless thus almost anything that requires study to understand must be false. (Exceptions that prove the rule: brain surgery, rocket science. There's nothing intermediate between quantum mechanics and how to buy groceries. If there is a knee-jerk understanding it must be true, because study reveals counter-intuitive things.)

"Explain to me, a dumb construction worker, why someone who wants technology to go as fast as possible would be into anti technocrat bus driver populism."
https://nitter.42l.fr/dipiombo/status/1453300791813578775

Liking folk who hate you is counter-signalling game. Nick Land's posture is that they're so weak he can afford to treat them like children throwing a tantrum. It's kind of funny, not threatening. 

Problem being that, at least for the purposes of the internet, Land has given up on associating with any non-children. Obsessed with the counter-signal. 

Admittedly it's impossible to find anyone writing intelligently for the internet. He's not exactly spoiled for choice. The internet is for madmen and San Franciscans (but I repeat myself).

If one believes the truth, one is entitled to confidence in one's beliefs.

Progressives have little confidence precisely because they are aware the beliefs they are supposed to hold are lies. The shrill hysteria they emit is a reaction to these doubts. They are terrified of anyone noticing their doubts - or rather, the certainty they hold in the falsehood of the creed. They wish to browbeat you into believing, and likewise they wish to browbeat themselves into believing.

Christians have many crises of faith for the same reason.

Environmentalist Catastrophism is Fast Life Strategy

"Live fast, die young."

In other words, their genes are telling them to risk it all to breed quickly and expect to be dead soon. When you get a bunch of them together, such as the kind of activist who likes to pretend to be green, they all feel impending doom and reinforce each other's short life expectancy.

Result: they all fervently believe their (solipsistic) world is going to end, which they then attribute to aerial plant food or forestry or whatever, because attributing it to these things might divert money and power (but I repeat myself) to their paymasters.

Company Scrip?

Was company scrip banned because peasants can't do basic accounting, or was it banned because it was actually a good thing?

If someone can't do accounting, they need someone to take care of them. Sure they're forced to shop at the company store, but, likewise, by locking them in, the company has a vested interest in selling them things to make them healthier and raise morale and such. 

A real person faced with company scrip does this: "Okay, how many USD can I sell these for?" Next: convert salary to USD. "Oh I see, you're paying 60% below average in my field. Sorry, anyone that desperate is already working at proverbial McDonald's or for the government." 

I'm reminded of how the Regressive Inquisition banned lodge doctors, "solving" the problem of cheap medicine impacting the APA's prestige by association. If it's good for the poor it gets banned right quick. If it's bad usually they double down.

Double conspiracy / ironic plot twist: Milton didn't tell you Satan rebelled against Gnon when Gnon told him his job was to punish sinners. Satan wanted to be merciful instead.

Whelp. Sucks to be him, I guess. 

It's California's World, You Just Live There

Speaking of California making the entire internet and driving away any non-Californians, California also drives car design and toilet design. Presumably lots more, but I can confirm those two.

In cold places, the California-designed cars rust from road salt. Nobody can do anything about this, because it would mean not slavishly grovelling to California. 

California has a water shortage. Therefore, the entire world has to have "low-flow" toilets that don't, like, flush. I haven't checked, but this is likely a main driver behind washing machine degradation too. California remains certain that price fixing doesn't result in shortages...

 

Speaking of presuming, this strongly implies Boston also has radically disproportionate influence on products and services. 

Americans study Naziology to prove the Regressive Inquisition isn't Fascist. Their argument: not-Hitler.

They are Fascist, so even if what they have to say is true, it's off-topic. It's fine to pay no attention to American Naziology whatsoever.

Heritability Doesn't Mean Caused by Genes

It is possible to make genes more or less prone to mutation; even without evidence, we can assume Nature turns mutation up and down as convenient. E.g. sharks don't get cancer because the mutation settings are all at the minimum. E.g. the genes in the grass monkey brain actively reshuffle themselves even after genetic recombination, which is why IQ is 80% heritable instead of 100% heritable. 

There's also the height thing. Height is 80% heritable even though it's 100% genetic, because malnutrition or sleep deprivation can stunt you.

As a result (assuming you're not Judith Harris) heritability means both genes cause the trait and that the genes you use are a linear combination of the genes your parents are using. Even a quadratic combination puts heritability below 100%. (If you are Judith Harris you're either a fraud or incompetent. Sadly not limited to this one example.)

Political beliefs measure at around 30% heritable. This is almost certainly due to having the mutation setting on high, plus nonlinear effects from gene combination, plus nonlinear sensitivity to environment. You can safely predict someone's voting pattern by looking at their face for 5 seconds. It's biological and it's not subtle.
We can easily see that environment is a big factor; if you're predisposed to believe in communism but Karl Marx hasn't written his book yet, it's hard to believe in communism. George Orwell was predisposed to believe in "socialism" but his beliefs changed as a result of being exposed to socialism.
Changing your mind is also largely a genetic skill, which is an example of nonlinearity. Scientists measure beliefs by Scientist-assigned verbal category, not by subjective category, meaning the ability to change your mind based on evidence (possibly a relative 5% of the belief genome) can radically change your beliefs according to papers or studies.

We already know genes in the brain shuffle themselves a second time. This is because rolling the dice for high IQ is so valuable that it's worth the risk of getting snake eyes twice. Humans in particular are good at tolerating bad rolls due to being at the top of the food chain and having ecological dominance in general. Likewise the benefit for being a top human is huge. Grass monkeys are under strong upside selection pressure all the time. This is the reason dire apes are so prone to cancer.

 https://nitter.fdn.fr/LarchmontVan/status/1435653942713753605

The Supply Chain is Fine; the Law is Not

In shocking news, it turns out economics works fine but is illegal.

"He can’t take the containers off the chassis because he’s not allowed by the city of Long Beach zoning code to store empty containers more than 2 high in his truck yard. If he violates this code they’ll shut down his yard altogether."
https://nitter.42l.fr/typesfast/status/1451543789169004551

By the way the fact there's a single huge port is also down to legal buggery. The fewer ports there are, the more legible it is to the Regime. If there's a bunch of ports, some of them might not e.g. know who needs to be bribed. We can't have that, now can we? The trash takes itself out, though: the ports that fail to bribe properly will be found to be violation of some code or another, and be shut down altogether. 

By contrast, those know who to bribe can chuck a post-it note or whatever into the container, and then it won't be "empty" anymore.

It's rather likely that the reason there's so much friction is because the hint-hint nudge-nudge way you have to tell folk about bribes is a slow system. These yards don't know who they need to bribe, nor how much. They can't just throw money around, because a) they'll run out (Kelly criterion) and because b) their competitor might work out who to bribe more cheaply, and undercut them. 

The system of bribes that keeps the economy even vaguely functional in the face of overwhelming regulation is not flexible enough to withstand even minor hiccups. This will only get worse as the parasite class infights ever more viciously over the ever-shrinking pie. 

P.S. Have you met your [impressive naivete] quota for today?
"I'd be happy to lead this effort for the federal or state government if asked. Leadership is the missing ingredient at this point."
No Timmy those toys aren't yours. You can't play with them.

Still saying peak America was 2008.
Better comms tech makes everything go faster, so America will decay faster than Rome did, but you're looking at about 150 years of decline. Ultimately America will hit the natural economic equilibrium of a banana republic. 

The Regime kicked the can; not unexpectedly, the debts that are being called are ones most Americans had no idea even existed. Although it was obvious they were in the habit of rolling debts over, the debts that showed up in the Official Press were all diversionary sideshows of little relevance.

Narcissism-Pride-Fascism?

-Sophism-Satanism?

Narcissism is believing you're something you're not, or else believing that you must make others believe that you're something you're not, which means Pride. The narcissist lacks boundaries and denies identity, which means egalitarianism. The narcissist must lie, which means Sophism.
Satan is typically portrayed as an arch-narcissist. As per usual, Christian Satanology seems to be exactly on point.
Is this in fact all one thing?

Is every empire killed by narcissism?
Children are narcissist. Children do not naturally mature and stop being narcissist. Children must be violently de-narcissized. This cannot be done socially, because the narcissist reads social pressure as an opposing narcissist ego. It must be done by physics - by Reality.
Empire means having ecological dominance, meaning narcissists can insulate themselves from Reality. That is, if the sheer size of Empire didn't already do it. The children aren't de-narcissized, and the Empire falls as a result of having children in charge. Not to mention children running the power plants and so on. 

Scholar caste and warrior caste dominance activities are inherently zero sum. If the scholar is right, the aspirant scholar is wrong. If the warrior wins, the aspirant warrior loses. By contrast, the merchant caste is fundamentally positive sum. We can both have lots of friends. The merchant king may make better deals, and "win" socially in that sense, but they're still mutually beneficial.

However, the merchant caste is also inherently narcissistic. The warrior caste must deal with the outgroup. The scholar must deal with reality. The tribe's perimeter and tribe's foundation, respectively. The merchant primarily deals with intra-tribe interaction, meaning they are fully social, and thus do not naturally see any pressure to de-narcissize. A fortiori: in the short term, narcissism is advantageous in social interactions.

The positive-sum interactions means merchants accrue status. The wealth creation means the society gains power, thus population and territory, thus less need for scholars and warriors. The greater lean towards merchants, caused by size and direct successes, causes greater lean towards narcissism, which means Satanism, which destroys the society.

 

Greek Fascism was special because they codified the narcissism as Sophism, which became a clan of narcissists and performative narcissists consciously developing rhetoric. In other words, they became particularly contagious narcissists, able to persuade other civilizations to plunge into degeneration voluntarily, instead of being forced to devolve by the pressures of Empire. At the same time, Sophism gave rise to philosophy as part of an immune reaction. Philosophy, as the larval form of logiomancy, grants tremendous power to its wielders. Philosophy in practice allows Sophism to spread militarily as well as culturally. The successes of philosophy were attributed to Fascism, meaning the Fascism is eagerly copied, while the philosophy was largely left to rot. 

Not coincidentally Sophism is a great excuse for children to remain childish, whereas even proto-logiomancy takes maturity as priority #1, the alpha, and the primary. 

Technically narcissists do have boundaries, but the boundaries are way way out there. Outbreeding => narcissism? E.g. a Transgressive's boundaries include anyone who isn't a Nazi. He believes you want to do what's best for him because you are him. You see how the narcissist frames any opposition as self-destructive? He believes you believe the same thing he does, because you are him. However, just as you may feel horny when you think you're not supposed to feel horny, maybe he believes you feel self-hatred (meaning, hatred of him) because of this kind of wayward impulse. In reality, he's the child. In his mind, you're the childish/barbaric impulse. The madman thinks you're the crazy one.

A Christian's boundaries include anyone who isn't a Satanist, Muslim (but from the Christian's perspective, I repeat myself), or Protestant. 

P.S. Strictly speaking narcissism isn't feminine. Narcissism is childish, and as it happens women are coddled rather than offered rites of passage, allowing them to remain childishly naive. More men than not find this cute. Shouldn't let children vote, though. Or anyone, for that matter, but children especially.

P.P.S. Fun fact: as far as I can tell, Asperger's means being born sane instead of born insane, plus some nerve issues and stuff. This is a problem only because insanity is normal, and the madmen are constantly on your case for (naively) siding with Reality instead of their ego. 

Bonus round: almost every form of discipline except natural consequences reinforces narcissism instead of opposing it. At best you get Pavlovian channeling of the narcissism. Parents are actively trying to re-create their own insanity, just in case the madness doesn't come to their children naturally. Of course madmen will do that exact thing. 

Premise one: food safety has been made a government issue.

Premise zero: public choice theory.

Result: food is not safe.

"I've been making pasta at home lately, with organic wheat flour and organic eggs, and its digestibility feels incredible - no bloating at all, even when compared to Italian brand pasta di grano duro Makes me think of when 

@Ardescamus says our food is poisoned"

 

More precisely, super obvious food-safety issues that even a peasant can detect and deal with are solved, then the food-safety bureaucrats are bribed and/or actively plot to psychoactively drug the populace. E.g. I think there are aphrodisiacs in breakfast cereal. 

Both Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism are Fake

Nick Land is impressed with legitimism, so I figured I'd lay waste to its proponent real quick. I'ma call him Carl. Hey Carl, what's up. 

 

"posthumous defamation as a “Social Darwinist,”"

It is unwise to pay much attention to what your enemies consider to be defamation. Kto kogo; they will try to portray every trait you don't share with them as defaming, in an effort to make you surrender. 

This is what's known as a red flag. The author seems fond of diversions; we must be suspicious. What does he want to divert attention from?

"wrote an essay on The New Toryism describing the numerous developments in England from 1860 onward that were turning against his vision of an industrious liberalism and the law of equal freedom"

Reality: Fascist is horrified that Fascism is getting more Fascist. Carl here helpfully lists a list of ways England of the late 1800s slid towards a totalitarian terror state. Checksum: you can see the explosion of crime which resulted by examining the post-1900 crime stats.
The tell is the term [equal freedom]. Blatant too. Egalitarianism + democracy. Maybe with some overarching totalitarianism on the side? A bit of brutal brutalism for spice? 

Very standard Moldbug diagnosis: Whig taking credit for technological improvement to sell their program of social degradation. “As we have seen, Toryism and Liberalism originally emerged, the one from militancy and the other from industrialism." Tories are, of course, a kind of less-leftist. They are not rightists. 

"The one stood for the régime of status and the other for the régime of contract"

Spencer is lying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"the one for that system of compulsory cooperation which accompanies the legal inequality of classes"

Higher status does not make defection into not-defection. No amount of status can combine the concepts of 'compulsory' and 'cooperation' because they are inherently contradictory. Satanist gonna Sate, I suppose. 

"the other for that voluntary cooperation which accompanies their legal equality"

Equality means hive minds, not cooperation. Sophist gonna Soph.

The whole point of trade is precisely that the parties are unequal. We can profitably trade because my price schedule differs from yours. I can give you something which is cheap for me but expensive for you, in exchange for something which is cheap for you but expensive for me. 

I should not have to explain this. Tories could and likely did know this, but they are liars, so here we are. Under a real legal system, one that existed for centuries, you can trade legal inequalities for cash. Big nope for Tories.

This Sophist/Satanist technique is frequently called [framing]. It's the art of portraying the conflict as a context between two alternatives which are both false. A kind of Xanatos gambit. You are tempted to oppose one (very obviously stupid) side by taking the other side, except that Satan wins regardless of which falsehood you worship. 

P.S. You can also see the use of equivocation. Ideally the misuse of the correct terms will coopt the correct terms, leading to a newspeak situation where it's difficult for the correct ideas to occur to you. There is indeed an inherent conflict between status and contract. Between historical privilege and property rights. Between taxation and theft. Making the bandit stationary (orderly) doesn't make them not a criminal; does not stop them from shredding the social fabric.

That's one minor and one major red flag. Red card. This source ought to be considered hostile. Fiat vox vertitas, ruat caelum. Vigeat veritas et pereat hominis. 

"In “The Coming Slavery,” Spencer blasts mendacious humanitarianism toward the poor in words that would make any so-called “liberal” today flinch: [...]

"Say rather that they either refuse work or quickly turn themselves out of it. They are simply good-for-nothings"

Spencer isn't wrong here exactly, but again we must ask: how is this a diversion? Perhaps it is not, but the burden of evidence is high.

"Is it not manifest that there must exist in our midst an immense amount of misery which is a normal result of misconduct?"

Err, no actually. It's normally the result of a genetic curse. They're no more capable of non-misconduct than you are capable of reaching the moon by flapping your arms. Their free will is crippled by the poor chassis they're trapped in. Whether they can physically carry out the motions or not, they cannot make the decision to be virtuous. 

Spencer's side lost. Fascism became ever more Fascist, rather than stopping at a compromise. I read this as Spencer ultimately being more wrong. His arguments were unconvincing because they lacked verity. On the flip side, Spencer's opponents were arguing that Fascists should be more coherently Fascist.

But. Spencer's arguments were bad because he, too, was cursed with flawed genes. His own misconduct, too, was genetic destiny. 

The truth is horrifying. To humans, at least. Lovecraftian, even. Presented with the truth, Spencer would have shut down, not accepted it. This option was never on the table. In part reflexively; for Spencer to admit that the poor's will is weak would mean to accept Spencer's will is also, to some degree, weak. This is politically unwise, as his opponents will certainly continue to pretend their actions are driven by highest logic and nothing else. This is why you've heard of Socrates, and never heard of Spencer. 

There is a great deal of demand for a solution to poverty. Something will be done; the only question is whether that thing will be done responsibly or irresponsibly.

P.P.S. Responsibility (Exit) is critical precisely because his opponents will continue to pretend their actions are driven by purest logic and nothing else. You can't argue with a liar. You can only fire them. Firing them must be made sociologically possible. Cooperation + exit.

"In any event, what Spencer and many of his contemporaries were realizing is that the (or at least a) liberal creed marked by non-interference, freedom of contract and individual negative right was heading toward its demise. This was obvious to all social reformers, Fabians, radicals and the like who inveighed against it and worked to end it."

...because these were all surface colourings, not deep convictions. It was always Fascist vs. Fascist. Naturally the Sophist says something which sounds good. In the earlier stages a lot of what they say really is good, but it's only used in service of degeneration. More on this in a bit.

"Yet well over a century later, it is not obvious to many of our self-professed “post-liberals.” UnHerd communitarians, post-Trump economic nationalists, anti-woke leftists, common good conservatives — all are united by Milton Friedman living rent free in their heads."

Got the facts correct and the analysis is giving Satan wonderful jollies. 

"Patrick Deneen, author of the widely discussed Why Liberalism Failed, speaks of “the transformation of all human relations into the transactional, market-based model of ‘utility maximization.’"

Again, Sophists say things that sound good. Only an idiot or a politician takes them seriously - and the latter is just lying. In reality Fascism is marked by [public-private "partnership"] in other words regulator-favoured corporations vs. everyone else. The former coopt and are coopted by the Fascist State, to the degree that it's functionally impossible to distinguish the two.

The irony of democracy: there is no freedom here. The iron law of oligarchy obtains. You move directly from aristocracy to tyranny. Any in-between situation is either chaotic polyarchy or illusion.

The tyrant terror State talks a good game about market-based models as long as their de-facto monopolies remain monopolies. If you break e.g. Twitter's monopoly, you get the Gab treatment. All sorts of fun accusations are made of whole cloth to justify terminating the service. If seasteading ever actually worked, I give it two weeks before they start getting child pornography allegations. This is not new. This is how Sophists always work.

Recently I learned about old-timey TV. To time-delay cross-continent broadcasts so they could all be properly after-dinner, they recorded it on nitrocellulose* movie film, then played the film back and broadcast the TV they were playing it on. Magnetic tape hadn't been invented yet, you see.

P.P.P.S. *(Gun cotton. They also made cue balls out of this stuff, as a substitute for ivory. The practice of making film out of gun cotton resulted in hundreds of deaths, especially when large amounts was stored together.)

...why didn't they just use a local broadcast? How about showing something nearby and thus relevant rather than trying to pipe crap from one coast to another? Duh, monopoly. The larger the corporation is, the better they are at bribing the State; likewise an impoverished market is more legible to the State. They like dealing with exactly one corporation per sector. Maybe two so they can get the thrill of playing favourites. Under no circumstances should there be as many as dozen. More options might be good for you, but the IRS doesn't like it, so tough. Obviously the IRS doesn't handle enough money yet and society can only benefit by handing them as much as possible; an untaxed life is not worth living.

Emphasis mine:
"In the conclusion of Deneen’s book, he admits the conventional premise of the “ideals of liberty, equality, and justice coexisted with extensive practices of slavery, bondage, inequality, disregard for the contributions of women"

Let's not take zealot-egalitarian ideas as somehow rightist, yes? Apparently this task offers significant challenge...

"The whole thing was an act; the problem all along was liberalism “not living up to its ideals,” a quintessentially liberal position if there ever was one. Many people have fallen for this shell game."

Huh. Weird how irresponsible, shameless, lying leftists are bad at living up to the ideals of honour and responsibility.

How did that happen.

So mysterious.

I mean, it is a shell game. That part's true.

"The belief in the continued persistence of liberalism leads to all sorts of asinine detours. It leads to people play-acting as union bosses organizing the coal miners of Colorado into a revolutionary struggle to break the system of wage slavery upheld by the robber barons"

Revolution => Fascist.

Old-fashioned Fascist trying to Fascist the new-style Fascist who already won the old game. 

I essentially never use the word [liberalism] because (shocker) it's a Sophist word. The point of it was always to facilitate equivocation. Do you mean Fascism, or do you mean personal responsibility? It's used for both, but it's kind of hard to split the difference on that one...

"It leads to people endorsing vaccine passports so as to not come across as some square who believes in “inborn rights” and “the right of resistance,” a dreadful and ostensibly Lockean notion. "

Sounds like Locke to me. 

Also sounds like a frame job. 

Again, are you opposing Fascism, or are you opposing personal responsibility? If you're forcing someone else to have or require a vaccine passport, that's irresponsible. It's defection. It is an act of war. It is dishonourable.

If you believe they're a good idea, you ought to use them yourself, and perhaps favour businesses that have also chosen to use them. In general it's a good idea to follow your own judgment, flawed though it may be. Principle: it's none of my business. You know your business fractally better than I do. 

If it's genuinely a good idea, the virus will kill everyone who isn't using them, yes? You kind of don't need to worry about it. The trash will take itself out. 

However, if you feel a desperate need to force others to use a vaccine passport, is it not precisely because it's a bad idea, and you want to disguise the fact you're the trash that is going to take itself out? The more desperate the push, the stronger the evidence that the pushers are just lying.

"The latter is particularly pernicious because it utterly distorts the historical development of liberalism, by resuscitating the eternal spectre of ‘Manchesterism,’ ‘laissez-faire’ and ‘acquisitive individualism’ so as to pretend that we are still being ruled by the cigar-smoking Monopoly Man"

Taking liberalism as if it were ever a real thing is the fallback position, which Carl here has fallen into.

"The utter erosion of the rule of law is widely acknowledged, yet people can’t put two and two together that this implies a demise of the liberal epoch."

Frame jobs: they work.

Whether it's a "capitalist" cigar-smoking monopoly man or not, it's still basically the same thing. Revolution is always fake. The top remain the top. The bottom remains at the bottom.

Moldbug, emphasis mine: "An anticommunist would say: of course you can’t achieve these goals. Communism creates enormous destruction while failing to advance at all toward its stated goals. That’s kind of why communism sucks so much." The Revolution is always LARP. We pretend the low has been brought high, and the high brought low. This is itself enormously destructive. Further, revolutionary fervor merely conceals the fact that no such thing has even remotely occurred. At best you replace lords with psycho lords.

If at any point Fascism had a fat cat in charge, there is still a fundamentally fat-cat-like person in charge of it. Maybe now they wear ripped jeans instead of something stylish, so rappers aren't as jealous. Progress.

"It thus allows social liberalism to disguise itself as an “anti-liberal” or “post-liberal” front fighting the “neoliberals,” meaning the eternal plot by Margaret Thatcher (and now her ghost) to privatize the NHS."

Ummm... public-private "partnership." Actual privatization would be good. Admittedly, impossible. You can't privatize Communists. They never learned to feed themselves; they starve to death in the wild. In reality neither of these factions want anything to do with responsibility. Checksum: the American medical system is "private" the way a porn star is private. 

Moldbug again: "What’s really wrong with callous altruism? It’s a damned lie, that’s what’s wrong with it. It steals charity’s good name and makes Randroids condemn charity and communism in the same breath."

Mutatis mutandis.

 

"I’m not suggesting anything new or groundbreaking — Paul Gottfried, Theodore J. Lowi, Walter Lippmann, James T. Kloppenberg, Panagiotis Kondylis and a host of others have made similar arguments"

I have never heard of any of these names. Neither have you. This is correct.

(I exaggerate, I've heard Lippman, though certainly I've never been foolish enough to give him the benefit of the doubt and read any of him.) 

I mean, it is true that when Sophists lie, they are lying. Of course Sophists dominate modern politics and their rhetoric has become almost completely divorced from any underlying reality.

"The facile attempt at pretending it is still with us by pointing to the widespread belief in equality is not unlike someone trying to argue that 18th-century Geneva was still Roman Catholic because people continued to pray to God."

"Bad intellectual genealogies and Cliffs Notes versions of political philosophy are in large part responsible."

Idiots gonna dumb. If you make a project out of trying to de-idiot the world, you're going to be at it for, uh, quite some time.

Remember those surface colourings from earlier. Let's see what "liberals" were putting forward:

"These include but are not limited to: parliamentary control of the civil list and state expenditures, ministerial responsibility, freedom of the press, equal protection before the law (specifically against noble privileges and bills of attainder by which punishment was levied without due process), an independent judiciary, the separation of powers in a constitutional framework, freedom of association, abolition of feudal tenures and entailed estates, the conversion of royal domains into state property, etc."

Once you clear your head of Fascist brain-poison, you realize this entire list is irresponsible Fascism. 

Freedom of the press in particular is absolutely disgusting.

Let's talk about freedom of association. What they're actually talking about is freedom of assembly - the right to protest, in other words. Nobody was ever arrested for visiting their friend's house (until Stalinist Russia, of course).

Protest on whose land? If you can get the owner's permission to be there, you don't need a State umbrella to 'guarantee' this alleged right. If you can't the owner's permission, you're trespassing. You're a criminal. 

Secure your shit. If you want something, try buying it. If you're not willing to buy it, you're not willing to be responsible. You're all talk. Or a criminal. 

"The spread of the arts and sciences, improvements in printing and navigation, the economic expansion created by the mercantile system have made all of the old class distinctions objectively obsolete, no longer resting on social need but on brute force"

Meanwhile in reality socioeconomic status is 0.8 heritable. Dumb, ignorant peasants give birth to dumb, ignorant children who would be best served by obeying their betters. Making the world more complicated only heightens the need for close supervision.

Not that I'm against peasants working themselves over due to imprudent rebellious impulses. Far from it. 

"The Marxist, who believes himself to be such an iconoclast for exposing the underlying economic and historical roots of ideological slogans, is in fact met with full agreement by the liberal himself."

I mean, yeah. Sophists gonna Soph. Fascism point 5 is newspeak, or rather the general drive toward historical illiteracy. If the peasants forget which lies the Sophists told in the past, the Sophists can tell them again. Reuse, recycle! Green lying. 

"In short: prior to liberalism, right and liberty had only been a private franchise and privilege."

....nope. Speaking of historical illiteracy...

Stupid example: folk bought peerages all the time. How did they get the money to do so without liberty? How did they get the right to do so without already having been privileged? 

This is a clever Sophism. Portray the status quo as new. We have made Progress! You have to admit it was deftly done. Likewise, vaccine mandates existed in the 1860s, and yet vaccine 'passports' are considered a form of Progress in the creation of Security against Disease. Maybe with any luck we'll soon "advance" to the 1400s, or even - really going out there - advance to 400BC so we can catch up to Aristotle. 

"In his History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe, Guizot criticized absolutism, hereditary aristocracy and democracy on an equal footing. He said that “the principle of the sovereignty of the people starts from the supposition that each man possesses as his birthright, not merely an equal right of being governed, but an equal right of governing others. Like aristocratic governments, it connects the right to govern, not with capacity, but with birth.”"

Clever girl.

It is true that parliamentarians, as with egalitarians of all stripes, are hypocrites. They say they're against birthright, then turn around and grant birthright to everyone.

Naturally Guizot is a leftist and also lying. Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt? He has not proven himself. Trust must be earned.

As a matter of fact, aristocratic birthright is consonant with both biology and property. 

A son's father owns property. How should this property be distributed? According to the father's whims. Most likely he's going to give it to his son; but, regardless, it's none of your business, even less than mine. 

Secondly, if we are to give an office to a candidate, as a matter of fact interviewing the previous holder's son is a quick way to find someone competent. Certainly it is no guarantee of anything, but you're way better off handing it thoughtlessly to his son rather than trying to rake through random yahoos for someone who would do a good job. 

Guizot is either a drooling idiot, or opposing birthright precisely because he's not competent, and no wise manager would hire him. Hence he must desperately agitate for managers to be unwise. 

On one hand it worked: Guizot got his way. Gnon approved his prayer. On the other hand, it only worked because managers were already becoming incompetent enough to take his rank nonsense seriously. For the third hand, remember that Guizot's rule is not Gnon's rule. With a little preparation, you can go ahead and ignore it. 

I wish to emphasize that Guizot is a Sophist, not a liberal (whatever that is). He himself doesn't believe his nonsense. It's all kto kogo. 

This is not strange. It is instead weird if a liberal is not in reality a Sophist. I've never seen such a specimen.

"The term “Whig history” as coined by Butterfield has been completely butchered to the point where it is now synonymous with a universalistic view of progress."

Rectify: the term "Fascist history" as coined by Spade-world Butterfield has been completely butchered to the point where it is now synonymous with Fascism. 

No no, haven't you read your shitty light novel translations? It's called completely 'dismantled' these days, not butchered. 

It's very important to realize that politicians are not reliable witnesses with respect to their own beliefs. The only reason to take them seriously is for the purposes of an ad nauseam argument showing they're full of shit, such as my recent Biden post.

Meta: it's also important to assume a writer is a politician until you see evidence to the contrary. Trust must be earned. Although, you needn't worry: it won't be.

"By any measure, liberalism in its strict sense is an objectively counterrevolutionary tendency."

Rectify: "Totalitarianism in its strict sense is an objectively anti-Fascist tendency."
This is what happens when you buy the frame.

Well, leftists gonna left. Narcissism of small differences etc etc. 

"Bishop Stubbs wrote that “the Great Charter was won by men who were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation.”"

Might not be wrong.

Fun fact: nationalism is a scam. This is a staunch argument against the Magna Carta, presented as an argument in favour.

"Of course, one last option is to claim that one has transcended both left and right. Though I won’t deny that this is possible in principle, from my experience most people who insist they have done this in truth have only converged back to the left in a roundabout way."

Gotta call a spade a spade or you'll end up claiming you can transcend responsibility. Even mythological Jehovah can't transcend responsibility. 

While it's true that everyone who wants to discard left/right is a leftist, there's a base rate fallacy. Every modern is an irresponsible leftist; of course some subset of leftists are leftist. 

--

I'm always reminded that in 1300s England, you could buy and sell the right to hang thieves. Called infangthief. This thing had a positive price. It was not considered a burden. 

The fact you could buy a peerage means you could sell your peerage. 

Can you imagine? Sell your right to vote. Sell your right to 'universal healthcare' or whatever. Sell your right to free speech. Sell your right to free assembly. All this alleged talk of 'free markets' and there's no market price for a vote? Would be very confusing if they weren't just lying.

The past is a foreign country. Anyone who writes as if it's not completely strange and weird is writing about a hallucination. If you can use terms 'left' or 'right' or even 'liberal' in a historical context without twisting your brain in knots, it's a fantasy, not history. In particular, the past was not a Fascist country. Not yet.

Sell your right to habeus corpus! Now that is respect for property rights. 

Maybe one day we'll "Progress" to 700 years ago, so we can catch up with the vastly advanced non-centralized dark ages subsistence-farming feudal backwater. Their social technology was clearly centuries ahead of ours, but we'll get back there sooner or later, right?

Futarchy Considered Actively Vicious

Futarchy is indeed retarded, however, the post is poorly worded. Yarvin comes across as drunk or seriously sleep deprived. Let's fix it.
This post happened because, speaking of drunk or sleep deprived, Nick Land linked to Hanania talking about it. 

 

Futarchy, in short: "If manipulating procedural outcomes wasn't a thing, then we could have procedural government." Sounds true to me!

Reality: personnel is policy. Any system can be corrupted. Inherently bad systems can even be corrupted to serve wealth creation. If you pick a corrupt ruler, they will corrupt the system.
If you make a system for picking the ruler in an attempt to replace personal judgment, then they will focus on corrupting the ruler-picking system. Same problem meritocracy has. Futa-archy is perverse. It shall now be known as chicks-with-dicks politics. 

Futa-archy isn't a law of physics, which is why there's anything to discuss. Someone must implement it. Someone corruptible, either through bribes or fraud. It will decay over time, which means someone must maintain it, which means making arbitrary changes to the system. Even if you fixed the maintenance problem, ultimately humans must submit to the system, which they won't do whenever it conflicts with their interests. That is, unless someone else (who is corruptible) enforces the system. Using, like, force and stuff.

As per Moldbug, it is impossible to replace grass monkey judgment if you intend your system to apply to grass monkeys. "The only way to have reason is to be reasonable."

Background: using force against criminals is necessary because criminals are already using force. It should be possible to convince them to stop - to corrupt them into being law-abiding - but they're genuinely that stupid. It is impossible to eliminate all crime. The world is not perfectible and it's better that way.
Bonus round: any system which legitimizes more force than this is a criminal system. They have invented a new crime and wish to commit it with impunity. Futa-archy is not only retarded and deviant, but an actively traitorous system for defectors. If the system were profitable for non-Hansons, folk would voluntarily agree to follow it. If folk would voluntarily agree to follow it, he wouldn't need anyone's permission to implement it. He could start today. He can't start today, so he needs permission, so they won't voluntarily follow it, meaning it's coercive parasite government, meaning it's deviant, meaning it's a crime.

P.S. @Mark Ledwitch: "I asked questions because I thought Richard was not telling the truth. So he blocked me. [...] Blocking is fine, but he can't get any autist truthyness creds on my watch." Nailed it. Conservatives basically accept Sophist supremacy, meaning they worship Satan and think a good society tells the right lies. See also: Plato vs. "noble" lies. It's a minor miracle whenever they say anything even provisionally true. 

P.P.S. Hanson: "The way they are disruptive is analogous to, imagine you put a very knowledgeable autist in the C suite, that is somebody in the C suite that knows a lot about the company and they go to the meetings. They just blurt out when they know things that it's relevant to the conversation but they have no political savvy. [...]
"They would be shunted aside and become an advisor to someone perhaps, trusted advisor to their side but they wouldn't be allowed to speak in the boardroom. But that's what a prediction market is. It has no idea who wants to hear what it has to say."

Basically once autists realize that cooperation, though expensive, is rational, normie society is fucked. Normies often realize this, which is why they're so vicious with open autists. Nobody goes out of their way to persecute Williams syndrome.

"The question is could we give people more direct, better incentives to actually tell the truth and figure out the truth"

Because hypocrisy, even normies frequently aren't consciously aware that they all know the truth that isn't being said, unless they're in the concrete situation right now and not thinking about truth-telling in the abstract. The "incentive" you need is desires and values. Normies simply don't value the truth, because they're too dumb too see the profit. "Discomfort now and profit later? What a bad deal. Especially when I'm going to be uncomfortable with that truth again in the future!" 

Of course you could stop pinning your ego on weird random (false) facts, but, like, who would do that? Not be narcissist to some degree? How unfashionable.

Envy makes the world go round.

There was a study that showed only about 30% of men have a sense of humour. The other 70% don't think that's funny. They don't think that's funny at all. 

Women do laugh at men's jokes, but the same study showed they're lost in the statistical noise near 0% for making funny jokes. The 70% really, really don't like that. Them and feminists, of course. 

Hence the Netflix walkout, et cetera.
Also explains dad 'jokes'. Men who know they're supposed to be 'funny' but don't understand what that means, exactly. Copycats.

"PRES. BIDEN AT MLK MEMORIAL: “Domestic terrorism from white supremacists is the most lethal terrorist threat in the homeland.”"
https://nitter.fdn.fr/Breaking911/status/1451243394634850305

Ha! 

Brownies are so pathetic that when they try to terrorist someone, they don't die. Only whites terrorists can reliably kill someone. Even white democrats are too limp-wristed to get the job done.

As long as you're racist at one remove, the peasants won't notice a thing and you can sling all the mud you want. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Inferential horizon 0 steps away. 

I guess Hillary is a white supremacist? 🤔 

"Mostly peaceful" BLM terrorism...because they couldn't hit the broad side of a Rittens.

BIDEN @ MLK MEMORIAL: "9/11 was an inside job!"

As long as you phrase it right, it's not even a gaffe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cultural Exosemantics of Left vs. Right

As you're well aware, left vs. right comes from the physical locations of representatives in the parliament of Revolutionary France.

In Revolutionary France, obviously both are going to be batshit fanatic leftists, but one will be less-left. 

Result: culturally, everyone who wants to use left vs. right looks up to Revolutionary parliamentarians, and are at best going to be raving lunatic leftists. Put another way, everyone who can use the term without coming across as LARPing, or being a poseur, is a far-far extremist radical.

I have been using it as a sort of diplomatic concession. I reinvent or appropriate plenty of terms as it is; there's no need for me to reinvent literally every term of art. Diplomats in foreign embassies are best served by using the foreign terms rather than insisting the locals use their native language.

Or maybe there is such a need. 

To call a spade a spade, one must speak of honour and responsibility. Contracts and paying for your own stuff with your own wealth. Property vs. trespass. Weirdo sinister terms can get fucked.

The term "enlightenment" traces back to Plato, who was of course a φαγγωτ and everything he said thus suspect. Plato believed light came from the eyes, found objects, and returned.  As a result, knowledge was metaphorically the ability to put the light on the truth, and darkness was akin to shutting one's eyes. This belief was normal for Greeks at the time; however, it was picked up by Satanists for Satanist reasons, while they left Plato's non-buggered ideas in obscurity.

In reality, light doesn't behave this way at all. The metaphor is flagrantly broken. Indeed darkness is far more like truth than light. Lies colour the truth, like light colours the darkness. Et cetera et cetera et cetera.

If you want a word that means what [enlightenment] is supposed to mean without carrying all this poison, the word you want is revelation. Or, in Greek, apocalypse. Fiat vox veritatis, ruat caelum. Speak the truth, and that-which-is-perceived-to-be-the-heavens will fall. What is falling ought be pushed. 

Bonus round: this pisses off atheists* by evoking their Christian predecessors, repudiating their desperate need to control what you find socially acceptable. "Why so mad bro? It's just an arrangement of letters!" Likewise, it pisses of Christians because you're using revelation "wrong," revealing that Christians were using it wrong (no quotes) this whole time.

*(More properly secular humanists or zealot-egalitarians.)

Ncov Research vs. Prediction

Method 1: assume behaviour will follow pattern set by past behaviour. Costs only research that's already been done.

Method 2: actually do the research.

Turns out method 1 and method 2 lead to identical conclusions. "the death tolls are borderline forgeries, to put it bluntly."

Bonus round: proper research as of April 2020 has not been overturned to date. Based virus kills the weak; degenerate lockdowns kill the everyone.

Not that I'm against mass death or anything. On the contrary.
Rather, my point is that those who have backed the State or other form of nationalism have backed the wrong horse. In fact the horse is a rabid dog that prefers to bite its "owner". 

Knowing shit is not hard. Assuming, that is, your motivation is to know shit and not to get wrecked by politics. 

P.S.
"The current ‘shelter-in-place’ strategy has the effect of quarantining both the sick and the healthy in the same closed quarters. Contact tracing studies ([1], [2]) show that household transmission is a major infection vector with an estimated attack rate of 15%. Further still, the panic-induced hypochondria and rush to get tested may increase the rate of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections, also a significant vector."

P.P.S.
"According to Time magazine, the 2017/8 flu season was marked by overcrowding, the erection of surge tents and in the words of Dr. Braciszewski: “Almost every patient in the hospital has the flu, and it’s making their pre-existing conditions worse,” she says. “More and more patients are needing mechanical ventilation due to respiratory failure from the flu and other rampant upper respiratory infections.” Now isn’t that familiar?"

P.P.P.S.
"Man may not even have bread if the ‘lockdown-until-vaccine-is-available’ strategy is executed to the bitter end, this assuming that such a vaccine is even practically achievable without exhibiting antibody-dependent enhancement, non-specific effects or other immunopathologies (high modernist triumphalism about Fucking Science(tm) has made people forget that modern medicine is not sorcery and there are real limits)."

Knowing shit really, really isn't hard.

Lies are Boring and Universalist

Sophists aren't genuine or authentic. The Regressive Inquisition doesn't believe a word of what they say, and even the peasants largely understand you're not supposed to take it seriously. The result is a flat culture. If nothing is genuinely sacred, nothing is genuinely profane; nothing is meaningful. 

Ye Olde Christian types thought masturbation was a sin. Maybe this was dumb, maybe not.* However, it meant that, for example, putting a masturbation incident in a story tells you something about that character. (At the very least, it tells you what the storyteller believes about that character.) It lends personality and structure to the tale itself, allowing you to discriminate between this narrative and another.

The fake nature of the beliefs causes lack of confidence. Nobody is allowed to portray a situation as it in fact occurs, because it would be demoralizing or embarrassing. Unreal faith is weak faith. If there is some situation where you can safely expect an abundance of men, executives and other censors will ensure that women are artificially injected until they are "proportionately" represented. They sacrifice meaning and texture, and in return get a story that is particularly misleading. 

Kto kogo is strategically useful in politics, especially democratic politics which involves goldfish-memory peasants. If you have sacred or profane symbols, it becomes more difficult to be nothing more than a windsock. When the sodomites became less useful to the Transgressives, they were unceremoniously discarded in favour of trannies. Had they ever genuinely cared about the "oppression" of sodomites, the Establishment Inquisition could have seen itself outflanked by a radical faction which claimed to care only about trannies.

You see fanatical overindulgence in signalling precisely because it's so obvious that the beliefs are fake. The footsoldier feels the need to convince themselves of their own sincerity in an attempt to fake it properly. The fear of discovery normally prevents them from noticing that everyone else is also using paper-thin excuses; they're too absorbed in their own lack of security. Having sacrificed texture and accuracy, in return they get anxiety. 

The inherent insecurity leads to violence. If something valuable cannot be secured, one tactic is revenge. If violating the boundaries is easy, then it must be discouraged with extraordinary levels of violence. If cost is low, risk must be jacked up to compensate. In many cases the violence becomes so rabid it is self-destructive, as in the case of destroying the legitimacy of American elections in 2020. Having sacrificed texture, accuracy, and security, in return they get self-mutilation. 

Because nothing is sacred, they cannot care about anything except getting caught violating the sacred values of others. Grey indifference is their idol. Because they cannot care, they cannot win. There is a failure mode, based on ineradicable drives such as the need to eat, but no success mode. Without values, there cannot be value satisfaction. In exchange for giving away texture, accuracy, security, and mental integrity, they get the inability accomplish anything.

It appears I have to make a distinction between a false religion and a falsifying religion. One that is honestly mistaken is vastly preferable to one which has committed fully to propaganda.

However, as long as peasants remain weak and incapable of securing themselves, the latter will be more effective. Propaganda will both continue to work and continue to see active demand.

P.S. *More precisely, it was certainly dumb but they may have been right anyway. Because it was based on dumb, they handled the belief poorly and had it rhetorically demolished. 

P.P.S. We can see the lack of taste mechanic here. If "culture" was the result of good movies making money and bad movies bombing, someone with a real culture would have long ago outflanked Hollywood. However, the primary feature peasants look for in art is whether other peasants like it. In turn, the primary factor for that is whether the local strongman likes it. In other words, whether the world-empire USG will approve or disapprove of the peasant in question for seeing it.

Visual presentation is also a strong factor, but this pre-supposes the approval of the locus of coercion. Otherwise we would see, for example, occasional discussion of a particular sunset at the water cooler. USG is indifferent to sunsets, and their peasants are obediently indifferent in turn.

On Fear

Fear is your brain's inimitable way of saying it wants to tell you something.

A great way to mitigate the fear is to listen. Figure out what it wants to say and take it seriously. Sometimes it's just wrong, and responding respectfully but accurately will wipe the fear away entirely.

A great way to lose your brain's trust and have it manipulate you henceforth is to use the litany against fear.

Model: Earth is Hell

I'm not saying Earth is literally Hell. I'm saying if you assume it is, everything makes perfect sense.

Humans are damned souls. Hell is hellish because all the neighbours are sinful. Demons is a term to refer to damned souls. 

Q: Why can't humans make a functioning government?
A: Literally demons.

Ah. Well then. 

Q: Why is humanism such a fucked up religion?
A: Literally demon-worship.

Hey. That makes sense. 

Q: Why are humans so prone to Pride, in particular?
A: Literally Satan-spawn.

Checks out.

Q: WTF is up with insects?
A: Don't mess with me, you already know.

Can go on like this all day.

More precisely, a demon is a form of dissonant energy. They don't fit in anywhere. However, there's going to be a place where they stand out the least, which will naturally collect this kind of energy. The stagnant pool will likely manifest as a particular specie.

Population growth in Hell is a result of the rest of the universe becoming more degenerate, sinning more often or more flagrantly.

The peasantry is what demons are supposed to be like. Aristocracy is the result of Darwinian selection accidentally (and unstably) creating something worthwhile from the inherently-corrupt gene stock. There's a limit to how bad a situation can get before everything just dies, self-terminating the situation and defeating the spiritual purpose, forcing it to arise again...

Q: Why do the good die young?
A: Those who don't deserve Hell are evacuated from the "Vale of Tears" early. They don't fit in with the misfits and are spiritually repulsed.  

S: Life is suffering.
R: For some very restricted definition of "life," yes.

Reality is Antisocial

Reality is not polite. Reality is not gentle or sensitive. Reality has no etiquette, no sense of time or place, hasn't the faintest inkling of softening the blow, and by definition cannot sugarcoat. Reality will not give you a gift on your birthday or respect the results of a vote. When Reality insults you, you will never get an apology. Reality cannot be tricked but has no compunctions about tricking you. Being polite to Reality is equally futile. Reality will actively interfere with your sacralized rituals, interrupting them whenever she damn well pleases.

You can't get Reality to play politics.

You can't get Reality to follow any social rules at all.

Reality has the highest status.
If you piss her off, you just die. Reality is more than happy to kill even women, children, or pregnant women; won't even offer a quick death. She can and will take everything from you, with no regard for property law. No retaliation is even logically possible. The only way you can "bargain" with Reality is not to piss her off in the first place.

The highest status entity is purely antisocial. 

Human social status is inherently insane.

Universe is Chuuni

4.6 billion years ago, the gigantic boulder, formed of bits of exploded star that smashed into each other, cooled enough that water stopped boiling the instant it touched the surface.

The night sky is 9000 stars, with a combined total mass more than 10³⁰ times the mass of the rock you're standing on, and all it accomplishes is looking spiffy keen. 

Once the rock was covered with enormous lizards which quaked the ground when they walked. It got bored of that so it smacked itself with another rock so hard it left a crater the size of a small country. 

At one point the Mediterranean Sea was just terranean, but then the strait of Gibraltar opened and filled it with ocean water. 

The series of eruptions that formed the Deccan traps may have lasted fewer than 30,000 years. 

The moon is exactly the right size and distance to create spectacular solar eclipses. 

I'm told the universe is 13 billion years old, but it seems in reality it's a regular old 13.

Don't Fear Cults

Cult members are broken before they're inducted. This is the main reason I don't personally run a cult.

Naturally, cult members will cope stupendously vigorously. "I turned out fine! This could happen to anyone!" Nope. Try cult indoctrination yourself and you'll see. It works on a small, vicious minority. You can't have a chill beer with a possible cult member, because they're too anxious to relax. Intoxication will only let them wind themselves up even tighter.

"Some people were repulsed by something in our vibe (“seems culty” & “seems elitist” were common critiques)"

In other words, most normal, relatively healthy folk didn't go anywhere near the place, and a few lost lambs immediately noticed it was fucked in the head, in their inarticulate peasant way.

Reality: everyone immediately noticed it was fucked in the head, due to Conquest #1 effects. Some decided this was good instead of bad and stuck around.

"I have no history of mental health problems"

The Regime did not officially diagnose her with heresy, as they typically won't for the loyal and obedient. Why would they try to modify the behaviour of the loyal and obedient?

"I had a relatively normal childhood, which is to say I wasn’t coming into this experience with unusual amounts of preexisting trauma."

She went to Prussian school and submitted slavishly to severe levels of psychological damage. It's okay: the anaesthetic was correctly dosed and the mutilation didn't hurt.

"I don’t have any notable history of being ungrounded"

Narcissists gonna narc.

"though I was trained as an actress,"

Oof. "I don't have any notable history of sexual perversion, although I was a practising porn star for eight years." Umm....

Normal folk don't become actors. They'll happily play charades or otherwise dabble, but actresses are 100% already insane. Typically a manifestation of cluster B personality disorders. Actors are occasionally sociopaths instead, who are in it to exploit the whore nature of actresses.

Cluster B incarnations are excellent prospective cult members because they have no effective boundaries, meaning anything you want to insert into their psyche goes in without resistance. (Just as anything you might want to insert between their legs tends to go in without resistance.) A cult works through expectations of unreasonable intimacy, and cluster B types open their interactions with unreasonable intimacy. They're practically begging to get scammed. No, excuse me: they are literally begging to be scammed, because it's genuinely better for them than trying to self-regulate. Both the narcissist and the borderline are dramatically more comfortable if you tell them exactly who to pretend to be. 

Although the population is dominated by cluster B, presumably there are a few other species of prospective cult member. I haven't tested cult domination systematically, so I wouldn't know.

 

"Recruitment from nearby communities selected for goodness (EA communities) and for truth (rationality) as values."

These are of course the opposite of true. EA selects for the worst kind of irresponsible busybody or sociopathic status-maximizer, and ""rationality"" selects the same, with a bit of catastrophic naivete for spice. 

"Former rationalists clearing their homes of bad energy using crystals."

In reality ""rationalists"" are always like this. They only see logic as a social ritual. It was always ritual behaviour.

Most folk can learn only through mimicry, with zero understanding of the underlying mechanics. Anyone who does understand (and isn't insane) doesn't find any use in ""rationalism"". Result: strong selection pressure for cargo-cult rationalism.

Do note that even the densest person will realize they're not being socially acceptable when they start using crystals. They're aware the Sovereign does not approve. Cults are not stealthy.

 

"Teacher-Student Asymmetry"

Egalitarian nutcase thinks teachers shouldn't have higher status than their students. Normal folk are aware you're supposed to think this but can't maintain the cognitive dissonance without intentional effort spent on the spot.

"Smart, passionate young people trying to do good is the single most destructive force in the universe."
https://nitter.42l.fr/Outsideness/status/1449581706701262848

Nick Land is a secularist and ultimately doesn't believe intentions exist.

Due to Conquest #1 effects, intention is almost the only thing that matters. If you genuinely want to help, you notice and correct when something isn't helping. If they are not noticing: yes they are. Conquest #1. If they are not correcting, it means the effects are intentional. 

If folk were being honest I would recommend focusing on goals instead of means. Debugging or whatever? The point is to achieve a specific end, and anything that achieve that end is a good idea. Anything that doesn't should be discarded. Long-term projects should have short-term indicators of progress; they should know what the process looks like when it's working and what it looks like when it's stalled; especially because a persistent stall means the means has failed and should be abandoned. Ideally you skip this expensive and finicky process by using a chain of short-term projects.

Reality: the point of focusing on the means is to disguise their dishonest ends. Conquest #1. The above advice constitutes attempting to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep. Know them by their fruits etc etc.

 

"How did genuinely smart, good-hearted, intelligent people get wrapped up in all of this?"

Truly a puzzle, unless you realize they didn't. Being a victim is a sin.

Don't Read Nietzsche

Or anyone who, like Nietzsche, doesn't at least state their reasoning.

Nietzsche isn't 100% correct all the time. As such, you need to bring your own judgment. You are now relying on your own judgment, not big N's, meaning, why are you reading Nietzsche? You're wasting your time. Apply your own judgment to the issues directly. Reading such things primarily gives your judgment a chance to accidentally falter; you're introducing new opportunities for error, not new opportunities for insight.  

When someone states their reasoning or - wonder of wonders - includes evidence, then you can at least compare your reasoning to theirs. The parallax is revealing. You can check their evidence against your own warehouse of evidence. 

The primary reason to leave out reasoning is to sneak in a lie. "Oh yeah, I don't have any logic or experiment to back this up. Believe me anyway." Hmmm... no.
When someone includes no such things, there's no way to tell when they're sneaking in a lie. They are indistinguishable from someone who is just a liar. 

When Nietzsche or others like him state a true thing, they're probably still lying. A fact got accidentally mixed up into their Sophism and propaganda. Oops, haha!

Translation: Fascism is Eternal, Just Submit Already, Non-Narcissists

"All the humans who felt peaceful and content and lived in harmony died out aeons ago, they were killed or eaten or outbred by the ones who were cunning and duplicitous and eternally hungry and eternally discontent, and you are their progeny"

Oh, and "Also justice is bad. Injustice is better." This isn't even the electoral birth defect. This is just being contrary for Satanic purposes.

Weirdness: Death Keeps You Alive

Death is the English word referring to the transition from existence to non-existence.

What this in fact means: without Death, there is no transition standing between existence and non-existence. 

Do you think non-existence, Kaos, trumps existence, Kosmos? On the contrary. Without the greatest and most glorious of all boundaries, Kosmos submits to Kaos. 

Yeshua promised to destroy Death. He succeeded - locally. The true immortals promise us all free will, as even the Bible was forced to acknowledge. Such freedom that Yeshua was allowed to tamper with a fundamental mechanic of Reality. However, free will also promises us ultimate freedom from the will of others. Result: Yeshua destroyed Death, uniting Kaos and Kosmos, annihilating himself and everyone standing near him, self-terminating the destruction He initiated as their collective Will was destroyed so utterly it was as if it had never been. The part of Reality which wished to destroy Death got exactly what it wanted, and now I can't find any part of Reality which wishes to destroy Death. 

Although as above, so below, this event was recent. The most likely candidate is 2012 in particular; if so, turns out the Mayan calendar was, as per usual, a distortion, not a coincidence. Bad solar path wording of a strictly true lunar path truth. Second place is 2008. (Measuring time across heavenly planes really is all timey-wimey, however: it was spiritually recent even if it wasn't literally recent.) Being recent, the full consequences have not percolated through the system yet. Earth does not flow as fast as the Waters of the heavens. Perhaps you can expect the opioid epidemic to worsen, as Christians spiritually catch up to their "saviour." This is a pretty safe prediction, but if you catch the flavour you know what I mean. Perhaps ncov was an echo of the sudden blast of destruction. Unwarranted grace, suddenly withdrawn.

Living in a city makes you so dumb you think you need to go to other planets if you want to meet an alien. 

Aliens on TV can't be that weird because humans don't like weird. No wonder nobody in the city wants to go outside.

"Haha, those country bumpkins! How are goats demonic you stupid twa...oh fuck me."

Sewage Spreads Plague?

"Indeed it does. The deer did not get this by attending Sturgis, nor do they have workplaces, nor restaurants. They got Covid by being outdoors and exposed to pm2.5 borne Covid generated by mankind's handling/use of sewage."

Finally.
A theory of ncov epidemiology that makes sense.

Although this particular hypothesis is far from 100% reliable, you can be 100% sure that the true hypothesis is an Outer Right, totally out of left field, oort-cloud hypothesis, like this one. Masks are meaningless. Distancing is meaningless. It's clouds of government-mediated poison. Whether it's this knife you're stabbing yourself with or some other knife, the wound is 100% self-inflicted. 

"That would mean China has a bad sewage plant in Wuhan, but not other cities." Sounds legit to me. Very plausible. Maybe internal Party documents even revealed this, and they (quietly, behind the scenes) cracked down on that plant while everyone was distracted. 

Although for real I think ncov is endemic in China the same way it's endemic in the West. For real it's just a bad cough, so even factoring out the sewage thing, all the plague damage you see is in the Occident is iatrogenic. 

Reminder: Hierarchy is Inevitable

It doesn't matter whether hierarchy is good or bad, because it's as unavoidable as gravity. 

You do still have two options. 1: Honourable forthright explicit hierarchy. 2: Sneaky monkey ook ook hierarchy. Sophists are not unaware of this restriction. 

 

That said, some explicit hierarchies are self-defeating. "Italian Officers expected that, even in the field, unless actually under fire, they would dine off of china, and drink wine out of crystal, all served by white gloved mess attendants." That's a signal of weakness, not strength. They are demanding like petulant children, not robust like adults. If your hierarchy needs this sort of nonsense for maintenance, it is a revolved hierarchy; it has already flipped to 2 and is likely to collapse to explicit egalitarianism soon. These idiots are not in charge. (To avoid misunderstanding: there's a big difference between can and must. The peasants, clearly, can't. Whether they must or not.) 

If you have genuine higher status, you don't need to pay any attention to signalling. It's actively difficult to hide. (Narcissism BTFO.) You shouldn't eat in the private's mess, but not because it will make you low status. You shouldn't eat in the private's mess because you will unavoidably make the privates feel bad about themselves by comparison and make the conversation inherently awkward. Plus they're kind of dumb and you have to patronize them. It's simply ineffective. In other words, in extremis, it's not a real problem to eat in the private's mess. It's costly but it's hardly unaffordable.

It's important to repeat these things, because the outside world will continually repeat their lies.

Stellar Path Weirdness: Be Proud of Humiliation

If someone tries to humiliate you, especially if they try so hard they succeed, you should be proud.

They're afraid of you. They believe you're a threat to them, and they should know, shouldn't they? The more resources they spend trying to humiliate you, the more of a threat they reveal they think you are.

When they humiliate you, they say: "You are terrifying." Yes, yes I am terrifying. Thanks. "I can't afford to just destroy you." Can you even destroy me if you wanted to?

Dead-Horsing Salus Populi

If they are your peasants, I don't need to tell you to take care of them. Gnon has that covered.

If they are not your peasants, the only way I can induce you to take care of them is to show up with bigger guns than you've got and force you. In which case: no wonder you weren't taking care of them, they were my peasants the whole time. If I wanted them taken care of I should have damn well done it myself. 

Salus Populi is the apotheosis of irresponsibility. See also: superheroes. Or rather, super"hero"s. 

Don't wave a gun in your neighbour's face and demand to know why they haven't mown your lawn. Especially don't wave a gun and make such demands, and then get mad if they get the lawnmower out, e.g. Afghanistan.

SEC Uses Morons as Excuse to Bully Musk

https://updateonbitcoin.com/elon-musk-is-banned-by-the-sec-from-talking-about-9-topics-on-twitter/

To be an accredited investor thus capable of moving enough money to matter, you have to pass some moderately stringent conditions. 

However, apparently it's fine to be stupid enough to take random tweets as gospel. Corroboration? What's that? Is it tasty? 

Of course, the SEC loves the fact that the fool and his money are soon parted, precisely because it gives them an excuse to bully the folks rich enough to make them jealous. Stripping someone of their qualifications because they're too dumb to live is would be dramatically counterproductive.

Stupid Exchangers Commission. Public choice theory is always right: Conquest #3 is a steel law. The bureaucracy would no only function fine without the white house, but in fact somewhat better. The country would not only function fine if someone set fire to every 3-letter agency, but in fact dramatically better.

Commentary on Revolution (V)

"For twenty-four centuries or so, the West has been dominated and formed by these two men—and by the tension between them. The tension is between the pursuit of truth as doubt in Socrates and the absolute certainty in truth offered by Jesus"
https://www.xenopolitix.com/post/286-revolution-v

I have little to add. But, naturally, not nothing. Xenopol is content to talk about the upsides, being all positive and shit, whereas I'm focused on the dissonant nature of the downsides, when it is possible and necessary to discard these dissonances.

 

"The love Jesus offers is the all-embracing—perhaps all-destroying—love of the Father"

Love without boundaries is to be without boundaries. To be without boundaries is narcissism. Yeshua was literally an insane eldritch god. 

Particularism is holy to Gnon. You can tell, because Creation is highly discriminated. Things not only differ from one another, but differ elaborately and profoundly.
Universal, indiscriminate love is heresy against Gnon. If he wanted you to love all things he wouldn't have given you preferences and dislikes. Or do you suggest one particular unifying preference of yours is more important than the divine? 

Yes. Eldritch gods are typically all-destroying. Indeed to 'unify' means to destroy walls and differences. To destroy all differences is total annihilation. To rewind Creation to before time. If there is only one, there is nothing. 

 

"This is why the West and Westerners are always slightly doubtful; we can never have the absolute certainty found in Muslims; we always have Socrates on our shoulder reminding us to doubt and undermine through dialectic."

This, too, is error. More subtle than Yeshua's ear-shredding raves. Both "absolute certainty" and all-encompassing skepticism are errors. The stellar path, as usual, appears contradictory. Have absolute certainty that you can correct your errors when they become relevant. Be confident of uncertainty. Have utmost faith your ideas are wrong.

In general, your beliefs are good enough. Test: you ain't dead. 

You're wrong as fuck. Wrong about everything. Every single belief is false. And that's fine; practically speaking you're right enough. Strictly speaking every datum is a sin; pragmatically, it approximates truth enough that truth's demands are satisfied.
The point of the method of Σωκράτης is to get better beliefs, because - get this - it's better. 

When your beliefs are flawed, you don't need to go looking for it. Your plans will fail. If a plan fails and you don't notice, it's not a failure. When you plan fails, you can be confident that you can fix it. Be familiar with the methods of inquiry. Be certain you can ask questions. 

If you want, as a hobby, you can also pre-emptively correct your beliefs. Again, there is no need for self-doubt or lack of confidence. It's just a hobby. You can learn. If you try and it doesn't work, then learn how to learn. Can you learn? Can you speak? Can you walk? Can you multiply? You can learn. There's no need to lay weird baroque semi-spiritual emotional foundations. Just do it. 

Σωκράτης: "I know that I know nothing." He knows it so hard he trolled every Athenian he could get his hands on. This is not uncertainty. This is the way.

"Nor can we be as tolerant and easy-going as the Indians, we always have Jesus on our shoulder to tell us that the truth is absolute and must make all bend before it. We cannot easily say, “That’s your god, your truth. That’s fine!”"

In reality, I have my falsehood and you have your falsehood. And that's fine; we ain't dead. 

In the end the truer one will win anyway, whether we intentionally seek competition or seek chill live and let live.

P.S. Holy shit, if there is only one, there is nothing. Perfect cosmos is perfect chaos. Which means, in turn, perfect chaos is a kind of cosmos. Ex nihilo.