America Summary

America suffers from a lethal affliction. There is a medicine which cures the affliction. However, the medicine itself is stressful. The patient is too weak to survive the administration of the required dose. Its only choices are dying quickly, or slowly and painfully. 

If the patient dies quickly, salvage will be possible. In this analogy, some of its organs will still be healthy enough to donate. If it dies slowly, the degeneracy will thoroughly ravage every tissue. Meanwhile, it will bankrupt anyone trying to delay the inevitable. 

At this point, killing America quickly is a mercy. You keep it alive if and only if you deeply, profoundly hate America, Americans, and their allies. 

Sodom and Gomorrah have come again. The challenge is the same: find 10 virtuous men. The rules are more lax; you have all of NATO to look through, not just a couple cities. 

Just like the first time around, we already know what you're going to find. Perhaps save yourself the effort. 

P.S. It's an allegory. [Look back] == [turn to salt] represents the fact that anyone who doesn't wholly and profoundly reject the American way is going to go down with them. Merely distancing yourself somewhat is not enough.

Moldbug Conspiracy Hypothesis

Being more cynical than the reality of GAE is extremely hard, but I'ma give it a shot.

Moldbug's wife didn't "die" she was assassinated. "And if you don't mislead your flock, your kids are next." 

Moldbug blogged under his real name and then got involved with real money. Two very serious sins. Living in metro cali surely doesn't help. In retrospect, it would have been weirder if his output didn't fall off a cliff and go splat at the bottom. Sins really do destroy you, even if nobody assassinates your wife.

He would take the easy road and stop writing, but now he can't. Under contract. 

If you look at post-mortem interviews, Moldbug looks wrecked. Grief, sure, but there's horror there too, as well as defeat. 

There's even a small chance she died of natural causes and then some deep stater claimed she was assassinated. Why let a crisis go to waste?
Further: you going to claim the massively overstaffed CIA didn't harass him? It would be weirder if he didn't get any creepy 2 am phone calls. They must have been sufficiently creepy, because he hasn't talked about them in public. 

Last real post on UR was 2013.* CIA gained the legal right to harass domestic Americans in 2013. Could be a coincidence, I suppose... I mean, there have to be coincidences now and again, right? Birthday paradox: the odds of a coincidence are extremely high given how many opportunities for coincidence there are. 

*Great post too.

What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible is that he imagines himself not just equal to the wits of the metropolis, but vastly superior. Is it even possible to respond? Shall the man of letters respond: “Excuse me, ‘Dr. Lexus,’ but I am resolutely heterosexual—as if it mattered—and ‘my shit,’ as you call it, is anything but ‘all retarded’?”

Quibble: intellectually, Rome, since at least Tarquin, was a province of Greece. Further, when Greece became too Platonic, it became a province of itself.

P.S. The difference between a sin and a regular mistake is complexity. Sins reliably cause problems that make allegorical sense without any obvious physical mechanism. The mechanism exists, but in these cases it's subordinate to the spiritual realities, thus complex and hard like all theology. 

E.g. selling your soul is real, and it turns you into an NPC. A soulless p-zombie. You can look at the changes in the brain and work out what's happening that way, but it's dramatically harder than just acknowledging that the things called [deals with the devil] are literal.

My boring hypothesis: if you didn't sell your soul to the devil at school yourself, you will 100% sell your soul when you send your own kids to school. Moldbug sent his kids to school, and became doomed.

Hanlon's Razor is Disrespectful

If Hanlon's razor applies to anyone, it means they're a helpless child that shouldn't be allowed out of the house without supervision, let alone be allowed to hold a job with decision-making powers. 

Underestimating your enemies is foolish. If a malevolence model and an incompetence model lead to the same predictions, then they should also lead to the same response: jail time. Ideally a non-degenerate response instead of jail, but you know what I mean. Personnel is policy, and problems are problems. If a person is causing problems, regardless of whether it's malice or incompetence, they need to be replaced.

Hanlon's razor is clearly cope, but not seethe. "I don't have a knife. I'm not stabbing you. You're not bleeding." Delay defensive response as long as possible. Americans like malevolence. The reason any non-malevolent bureaucrat gets talked up is to highlight them for their enemies. Make it easy to find them and know exactly what they're doing. Americans consistently choose to uphold malevolence and interfere with non-malevolence. 

Benevolence is inegalitarian, you see. It's rare and intrinsically admirable, which makes the self-absorbed envious. 

The fact Hanlon's razor is incredibly rude is considered a bonus. Very American. Uphold your malevolent administrators and call them shitheads at the same time? What's not to love?

Incels Don't Exist

If you lower your standards, a partner can be found. 

Stephen Hawking was married. Can you compete with a petty, twisted cripple?
(I both kind of want to know how that works...and rather don't.)

Every incel is a volcel. The question is whether they're keeping their standards high for good reasons or bad reasons. For some, especially males, a partner isn't worth very much. The marginal value of an average American woman is close to 0. Yes, they can get a below-average woman, but then she's worth less than nothing. A partner can be found, but at some point you're trading on desperation rather than attraction. (Reminder that femcels can get sex, but not commitment. They can put out, but can't get it back. Only pathetically heinous femcels can't even get sex. Otherwise it's the same dynamic.)

However, that's not women rejecting them, that's them rejecting women. While indeed the positive-value women are rejecting them, well, if it wasn't contradictory and self-defeating we wouldn't call it crazy. Very American to think you deserve something because you want it. For some reason, children who never grow up can't get sex...

Rather, children who never grow up manifest their lack of desire for sex, one way or another. Obediently being infantilized, just like they're told. I'm sure the good kiddies will get the marshmallow they were promised. Any day now.

For the record, Trump amuses me as a phenomenon. I'm tickled to hear he's said the kinds of things he says. Clearly pisses off many who firmly deserve to be pissed off.

I don't like him as a person. Would not have a beer with. Seems kinda abrasive. I've seen worse, sure - he's no NPR or CNN American - but not good enough. Happy he's over there and not over here. Even more there-ish would be good.

Tucker Carlson needs to work on his fake laugh. Unless it's supposed to be incompetent on purpose? The lower classes get repelled by someone who doesn't screw up enough. Tucker doesn't stumble over his words; perhaps it's a good idea to have a "humanizing" behavioural feature.

Microcosm of True PPP, America vs. Russia and Lawns

"that is $1.42 billion on average for one shuttle launch, while the launch of a Soyuz cost in average $50 million"
There's like 1000 comments so this page barely loads, but https://www.unz.com/article/how-lbj-mooned-america/?showcomments#comment-5099732. 

This is why an American with $60,000 is poorer than a Russian with $20,000. It all works this way. Americans love to choose to do the thing using the most expensive method possible (because [temporarily embarrassed millionaire], because [egalitarianism]). 

Of course they then do the expensive thing with the cheapest possible materials. For normal roads, there are many better designs than tarmac. Then, they use the cheapest possible tarmac on top of the cheapest possible Portland cement. Result: American roads suck balls, just like American shuttles. There's nothing Americans love more than being the stingiest cheapskate about their millionaire signalling.

Bonus round: the best road is probably a tarmac version, and I bet America's Road Czar has proper roads in whatever county he lives in. Because all of America uses tarmac roads, they don't stand out, despite costing 3-10 times as much as roads everywhere else. (He doesn't live in DC, the roads are awful there.)

Likewise lawns. If it's not a 100-year lawn with a dedicated gardener, it's a piece of shit. Thus, Americans would literally die for their lawns. Which look like ass 99.5% of the time, as expected. If you're gonna grow weeds, at least choose a good local weed and grow it on purpose. (Moscow doesn't do lawns, and as a result doesn't look like a sewage spill.) Those tippy-top century lawns are great though.
To say it another way: you definitely do not drive on a real lawn. Not if you don't want to be ritually murdered by the gardener. Gasoline lawnmowers don't even get within earshot of a real lawn. I dunno if they still use scythes, but lawnmowers rip the grass blades instead of cutting them. Very unhealthy. If he even sees a weed-whacker he probably beats you to death with it. That's a mercy - when he last left an interloper alive, he was ordered to finish the job next time.
Meanwhile it's almost weird if I don't see car tracks in Americoid lawns. They like to desecrate their own hallowed ground.

It's not weird that the Shuttle is a pile of junk that costs 30 times as much as a reasonable alternative. It's not weird that Musk can casually manhandle NASA. The opposite would be weird and disturbingly unAmerican. I might have to rethink my entire worldview. 

I have neglected the core problem: parasitism. Every productive American has to carry some lawyer (sophist) or politician (sophist) on their back. In fact the Shuttle itself probably only costs like 5-6 times as much as Soyuz and the other 25 points of factor are kickbacks, pork, embezzlement, and so on. All very legal, though. Not corrupt, see: Congress signed off on these regs.

Russia is "corrupt" which means you can bribe the big vampires to beat off the little vampires with a stick, whereas in America it's illegal to not allow every passing Tom Dick and Harry to suck your blood. Indeed if you take an American aside and suggest they discourage blood sucking, they will get super angry at you. "Fuck you dad! I'll do what I want!" *bends over and presents* Errr, I'm not your dad, genius. Kindly go fuck yourself instead of waving your grovelling slavishness in my face, thanks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In Reality Galt is already living in his Gulch, only he's Amish. The rest of America likes the tyranny and hates anyone who wants to take the "oppression" away from them.

Land and Moldbug as Microcosm

My thesis is that taxation is highway robbery, and the fact the State has to lie about this in the political formula is epistemic cancer, which causes civilizations to fall. Cancer is a lethal affliction. Falsehood is a deadly sin.

Land and Moldbug ran this cycle in micro.

First, they adopted a political science that's superior to democracy. They rewound the tape back to a superior state. Undid some of the democratic degeneration. However, they refused to go whole hog. They neither accepted that the State is inherently criminal, nor did they go full anarcho-optimist and posit a just, post-crime society. Ultimately their political science uses Satan as a core.

Because they hailed Satan, their brain got Satanized, and they lost all contact with Reality. The cancer metastasized, devouring the marginal piety they managed to accrue. 

They were given a choice, and now we can see the choice they chose. They could have rewound the tape all the way to the beginning, but didn't. Their paths are clear.

Hypothetical Pandemic Conspiracy

If your conspiracy doesn't sound venal and stupid, it's unrealistic.

Here's my stupid and venal ncov conspiracy theory: slow news day. 

The Journalists knew they were going to have a news slowdown what with Trump being ousted. As a result, they desperately cast around for something to panic over. When China flipped their lid about a minor virus in that inimitable Chinese way, the Journalists found something.

After double-checking that it was genuinely harmless, they hyped the living shit out of it. (Wouldn't want to have to answer to Satan in the afterlife for telling truths, after all.) And damn did their customers buy it. 

Hence the "pandemic." Entirely invented - because Journalists like ad dollars. 

Everything except the Chicken Little [sky is falling] stuff was merely folk leaping to take advantage of opportunities as they arose. Fauci got to run his mouth off the leash. Pfizer got a lovely liquid investment vehicle - remember they frequently got paid twice per vaccine dose delivered, because government efficiency. Karens got to indulge their lack of compulse control. Journalists got Impact when "regulators" got on board. Et cetera.

Supply. Demand. The market knows.

Particular Gifts

"If you buy a gift for someone and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?"

Siddhartha was correct.
Though I rather suspect his words were later twisted just enough. Let's read only the steelman.

If someone offers you insult, simply don't accept. "No, thanks all the same." Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand. Insults even cheaper; can them by the dozen without spending a penny. If someone wants to waste their breath on such worthless endeavours, that's their call.

If someone tries to humiliate you, turn it down. "I prefer to use other methods to train humility, sorry."

If someone forces you at gunpoint to trample your idols, it's a compliment. "They're so afraid of a bit of canvas and paint that they have to threaten to kill me over it." Recall that if you have a true god, he wants you to live more than he wants you to care about fundamentally meaningless symbols. You're no use to anyone dead.
Conquest #1: they should know whether they ought to be afraid, shouldn't they? Have some faith that their fear will be justified, as long as you don't accept their claims of legitimacy. 

Certainly, if you have been militarily outmanoeuvred, you ought to physically surrender. Weakness is a sin; accept your responsibility and reflect upon your misdeeds. Live, that you might do better next time.

If you spiritually surrender, you accept the gift.

Caino hypocriens is rather fond of being stupid and crazy. If you speak to strangers, you will naturally provoke some of them, especially if you are sane or intelligent. It's a predictable effect, and thus essentially your own fault and your own responsibility. If you do not find it worthy behaviour, then it is your own speeches you need to look at.

Many make the mistake of thinking the speech itself is wrong. No, it's fine: they really are stupid and/or crazy. Being universally liked is something to be ashamed of, not proud. Reworking your words to accommodate stupidity and madness only makes the prose worse. Strictly less valuable. 

Having cray-crays be crazy at you is simply part of the cost of the practice. 

Likewise if the crowd sides with the cray-crays, then they have chosen. At some point, adults are responsible for their own actions. Fraud is inherently limited; anyone who thinks to check discovers it immediately. Even for the oblivious, when the rubber hits the road, it can no longer be concealed.

Simply accept that they have rejected sanity. They are obstacles. NPCs, not people. Simply accept your competitive advantage, and win to taste. Allow them the loss, failure, and suffering that they clearly crave. Free Will is an aspect of the highest law; don't try to abrogate it.

I really should be a librarian

A high-end librarian, but just a librarian. Maybe an abbot, with authority over one (1) abbey. 

I'm not, though. 

Instead, there are no competitors. Nobody even showed up. Doesn't even occur to anyone to try to stop me. Well, okay then. Thanks, I guess. Now I'm tired of winning. I would prefer to face some resistance, but it's better than losing, I suppose.

Communication vs. Politeness

I find most of "politeness" is playing a game where you're not supposed to say certain things and not supposed to talk about certain things, and the end result is that it seems it was deliberately designed to be crippling. Folk spend so much time worrying about how to wink-wink nudge-nudge a topic that they end up never discussing it at all. "He misunderstood!" Yeah it would be a lot easier not to "misunderstand" if you said it straight out. 

The undiscussed topics end up piling up until you have no genuine relationship at all. 

The first dynamic seems to be overreacting to over-sharers. Hey, uh, you're not supposed to talk about how you have to clear your sinuses with saline regularly the second time you have a conversation with someone. Folk experience this and develop an allergy, meaning they won't talk about it ever. At some point in the relationship you are, in fact, supposed to share these things. Admittedly I don't know when exactly. Much like Plato never saw an aristocratic society, I see a lot of over-sharers and a lot of never-sharers, so I'm not terribly familiar with what a healthy golden mean looks like. Merely: due to the fundamental theorem of algebra, it must exist. 

At some point the relationship is supposed to stop being polite. At some point trust is supposed to be earned. 

At some point even if trust isn't earned, you're deeply involved enough that impolite topics become relevant. 

Part of the reason you should reject Americoid socialization is because they have a severe narcissism problem. Narcissists functionally have no boundaries, so they treat everyone the same. They can't tell the difference, after all. Either they're impolite to everyone, or they're polite to everyone. Either they'll tell you about their anal hernias after knowing you for five minutes, or they'll treat you like a retail cashier even after knowing you for ten years. You get them a hard chair as present, and they'll pretend to like it - while you're looking. Either way it's a big WTF moment.

Because narcissism is so prevalent in hyper-Christian America, even non-narcissists end up behaving this way, because they think you're "supposed" to. Like me, they never see anyone but over-sharers and never-sharers. 

In part this is the middle class foolishly trying to ape upper-class behaviour, and confusing viper-pit court politics with upper-class behaviour. Trust no-one, because everyone is plotting to overthrow you or use you as a cat's paw to overthrow someone else. Mai heero, yeah? Egalitarianism means we're all lords, which means we're all supposed to be backstabbing traitors, right? 

 

Seems like most can only make friends in childhood, because you're not socialized yet. Automatically don't over-share because children are shy, and automatically share enough later because they're bad at keeping secrets and generally don't know how you're "supposed" to cripple all your relationships. 

Americoid socializing is so bad it only works if you're socially incompetent.

 

Hard times are hard. On one prong you have to suffer the fake and gay relationships you get. Either you drive away the "polite" folk who are disgusted by over-sharers and are limited to the low-end crass folk, or you eliminate the possibility of genuine intimacy, nipping it in the bud. On the other prong, you have to re-derive culture from scratch, or go looking for very specific foreigners to imitate on very specific points.

P.S. Alcohol as "social lubricant" apparently means you can use "I'm drunk" as an excuse to be impolite without being labelled an impolite person and shunned by "polite" society. 

This means going out to drink isn't for having "fun" it's about deliberately risking having a fight, because you can't have a real discussion about anything unless you're drunk. Naturally since you can't bring up the topic immediately, the frustration and resentment builds up and it's a much worse fight than it inherently has to be.

Yeah it's super fun to have a fake relationship except when you're "drunk" wow why didn't I think of this awesome state of affairs.

P.P.S. On one prong you're "allowed" to say rude things. Being impolite doesn't necessarily mean being tactless, but having rejected any sort of filter you can't ask someone to use tact either. Being rude is practically required. Feels weird if you're all being total shitheads except this one guy, you know? Stands out in a bad way.

On the other prong, you're allowed to be passive-aggressive. You can say the most insulting things as long as they're phrased "politely," because it's "impolite" to point out the insult.

Free Speech = Subsidized Speech

If what you have to say is valuable, your audience will create a black market for you to sell your speech in. Only functionally worthless speakers need the "right" to speak protected. 

As we can see ref: any newspaper, "free" speech is not immune to the pays-the-piper mechanic. Subsidized speech merely lets the State launder its fatwas.

Imagine I actually had to pay hosting fees.
Imagine you, dear commentator, had to pay hosting fees.
Irresponsible speech.

Sympathy for Karens

They would probably be no more than 20% of the pain that they are if Americans weren't so abominably rude. Americans are as rude as they can get away with to everyone all the time. Nobody likes it when you're rude to them.

Digression: due to this background, being polite is a superpower. Bureaucrats can't even and just submit to you. 

However, Karens aren't allowed to call other Americans out on being rude. Which makes them pissy.
Not to mention all the other very-not-socially-constructed norms that are constantly violated, which Karens (and everyone else) have to put up with it. E.g. what if marriage was a promise and not merely a hat you can doff at any time.

All this anger has to come out somewhere, so you get high-pressure squirts out of every available nook and cranny. The instant they're allowed to care about a norm they go wholly overboard. Trying to soothe their frantic stress with an overreaction.

Thanks America. You did done an essential Americanism again. It's very American of you.

How Right-Wingers Protect Labour

Have them hire security.

If you're not paying the piper, you're the product, not the customer. 

Pretty sure "labour" is just a fancy-pants way of saying "peasants," "serfs," or "peons," in any case. Real brainwave: if they need someone else to protect them, they aren't adults. Non-emancipated.

Hypothetical Core of Christian Profanity

Piety makes you strong. The more pious, the more power.

Christians want you to lionize the weak so you reject true piety. 

Things the Cold War Wasn't

1: A war.
2: Cold.

In accordance with prophecy. An extension of the iron of Conquest's Third Law.

It was a warm alliance. FDR and Stalin teamed up in WWII because [heads of Communist countries], and then never stopped. USA + USSR 4 lyf, I guess. (Names not similar by chance, you know.) 

They loved each other like sister and brother. As much as Fascists can simulate love, anyway. Had a few spats. Sometimes your toys get broke. A few million worthless peasants die here and there, you know how it goes. 

You say FDR's New Deal Republic had a Soviet spy problem? Please. Soviets had a horrible American ideas problem. The Soviets were Owenites. Marx was an Owenite - it's not some weird coincidence he was based in London, that's exactly where you would expect him to be. 

The Owenites, of course, were merely taking the Founding Mothers' statements to their logical conclusion. Again, not some weird coincidence they popped up first in America.

Apparently the Russians deeply hate Nazis because Stalin really threw them into the meatgrinder instead of using, you know, strategy or technology or shit like that. (Villeins gonna vill, I guess.) Substantially deadlier than the War of Northern Aggression; not something Americans would really understand. Result: America bought all the way into Stalin's strategic/ass-covering anti-Nazism, because [thoroughly allied], hence America's heretical State Enemy became "white" racists. 

As I've mentioned before, Marx's class-based envy wasn't working out anyway. Racial envy: now you're cooking with gas. 

P.S. Primarily "black" comes from the fact that ninjas all look the same to Europeans, much like Orientals do. You can tell a Frog from a Kraut from a Limey, but from ninjas it's all overly-excited jibba-jabba, so they only get one word or so. "White" is a legal category, not a race. It was invented for the convenience of the Regressive Inquisition, partly in response to the ninjas, and partly because voters aren't sophisticated enough to handle nuance beyond black and white. Thing good, or thing bad? Ug need Big Man tell Ug what like what not-like. When Ug flee, when Ug hug? 

You wouldn't want to confuse poor Ug, would you? He'll run off into the woods if you do, so...

American "No-Fault" Divorce

It's divorce for fault except the man is presumed guilty and can't be proven innocent. 

E.g. alimony makes sense if the man cheated, breaking the contract, and ran off. Since alimony is standard, it means the man is assumed to be a cheater by default. 

Modern "marriage" is a gendered crime men specifically commit against specifically women. Getting married at all is the crime, and divorce proceedings are the women prosecuting the crime. It is a very serious crime. Like murder, there is no statute of limitations. 

Procedural outcome status: manipulated.

Scott Ritter and Some Leftists Aren't Wrong, Surprisingly

Whenever you get ground-level tales about government, you find I'm exactly conspiracy-minded enough. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSkpIq3T-Zc

"Weapons inspector" Scott Ritter spills the beans on how this stuff actually works.
Summarizing something from after the hour mark: "Hey Ritter, I need you to force your way into the Iraq DoD because they'll declare war if you do, and we want to start bombing by next Thursday." 

Next: "Albright wanted me out, but these other guys wanted me in, so we were all scrambling to meet Bill Clinton." Just in case you weren't sure whether the UN being headquartered in New York was about America declaring sovereignty over the entire world.

The best part: Clinton clearly agreed with whoever got to him first. Whichever made him do a public statement first, making it difficult to back down, is the one who won. America does not have and has never had a president.

Further: some real personnel-is-policy stuff. "I want X fired and Y hired." "Nuh uh we're gonna keep X and shut out Y." Nobody gives a shit what the policies are. Hire the right person for the right position and they get you what you want regardless of what the rules say. Anything man can made, man can unmake. You know what's easier than hiring the right person? Hiring exactly the wrong person who will strategically screw it up the way you need. Work with entropy rather than against it. (P.S. Ironically trying to work with entropy lowers entropy production.)

Sure he's a politician too and likely...shading...the truth. In particular, weapons inspector is a Wormtongue position, which means he has a Saruman who was telling him what to do, who he will never mention. However, every time you get clear accounts of these things, including physical events rather than fluffy abstracts, they look much the same as the stuff Ritter describes. He's not making it up out of whole cloth. It is hardly implausible to suppose Albright was a heinous Satanist piece of work. She looked like a witch because she was a witch in the Biblical/Dahl sense. 

P.S. Women really can't shut up holy shit. Don't bring them on your podcasts - they get mad that it isn't their "turn." Bitch, you don't know anything. You sound like a journalist. Or do journalists sound like women?

Unz is Fake-Serious

Very [internet] and worst of both worlds. 

You're not supposed to joke around and have a laugh - it's supposed to be a Serious publication about Serious issues. Trolling is bad! Don't do it! Only you still can't get any work done. Comment section serves to blow off steam, and that's about it.

There's no canon. No responsibility. Feel a bit like Plato describing aristocracy here - I've never seen a publication where you can get work done, so a bit fuzzy on what exactly it's missing.

Clearly fake, though. I do hate calling everything Satanist all the time, but fake is as fake does. 

I guess, let's refer to the Amish. No bishop? No community. There isn't any convention. No norms. No culture. You can't build on what you've said before.

Herd behaviour at best, not pack behaviour.
Good fences make good neighbours - no fences make no neighbours: it's total Hobbesian war. Nasty, brutish, and only not short because it's limited to textual exchanges.

Without responsibility of some sort or another, all opinions are whims. Surface-only. You can't become educated, it's a buffet. "I'll take some of this, and some of that..."
From another angle, every article is supposed to be "accessible," relying on little to no background knowledge. Less profound than a puddle. Having depth would exclude some readers. It would discriminate against part of your possible audience! A good Fascist can't have that, now can they? 

It's not a place to grow and learn. It's a place to stagnate and cuck. It's not a place to become more than what you were yesterday, it's Cope with a capital C. Instead of finding a way to live your own life, it's about obsessing over what the Regime is doing. Okay you're being disagreeable instead of agreeable, but reversed foolishness isn't wisdom. If you take a shitty painting and invert the hues you just get a shitty painting that looks a bit weird; trapping you in the false dichotomy is one of Satan's finest tricks.
No wonder it's so happy about anti-semites. A perfect example of the intended purpose: running away from a trap, directly into another trap. 

The only constructive purpose of such places is to find prey to troll.

Morality is Infantilization

TFW you're a moron. I liken adults to kids all the time, and it still took me this long to realize modern universalist morality is about being a bad little boy or girl.

It's all rationalizations for feeling like you were sent to your room for being bad despite being 36 years old. "I got yelled at. :(" 

I gotta try this next time I'm around kids.
"This isn't a moral thing, I just don't like it and I happen to be bigger than you."
"It doesn't make you a bad kid, I merely put a stop to it because I can."

I don't know how they'll react, so I'm curious. 

P.S. My actual house rule is, "Don't piss off the adults." Likewise the adults have the same rule: "Don't let the kids piss you off." This is in fact for the children. Pissed off grownups will take revenge whether they're allowed to or not. Adults who "have to" let the kids piss them off become resentful, and they will take that out on the kids. They will not bottle it up even if they genuinely intend to. If you allow the anger to come out - or rather, require it - it comes out honourably and responsibly, and the kids understand what's going on. If not, it comes out as gaslighting and guilt trips and general abuse. 

Strategy is ironic: explicitly allowing parental tyranny is less tyrannical than trying to uphold some set of universal principles. 

Plus ultra, property rights. Make the adults explicitly secure their shit. Children can't secure their shit even if they want to, and it's best not to pretend they can. 

How Musk Defeats Poison Pill

Wu wei. He waits and the problem solves itself.

Poison pill tries to increase the market cap of the company, so the hostile buyer can't afford them anymore. However, this is only an effective strategy if the company is chronically undervalued. (Twitter is chronically overvalued.) 

Step 1: Musk triggers poison pill. Step 2: institutional investors pour money into Twitter, Twitter debases their stocks so they can hand new ones out in exchange for this money. Step 3: Musk sells at new inflated price, retracts offer. Step 4: Musk waits for $TWTR to go back down to its equilibrium price; institutional investors lose their shirt. Step 5: Musk offers $43 billion again. 

They can poison pill again and lose even more money, or they can accept his offer. Repeat as necessary.

Unless Blackrock is in fact Fed-backed, of course, and doesn't give a shit about how much money it loses. It can dump cash into that hole endlessly, because it's not their own money. Of course America is already risking hyperinflation, so there's that.

Virgin Birth = Feminism 0AD Edition

"I don't need no man."

More: to get a God you specifically need to get rid of the man. Less masculine => more holy. 

Turns out logic is real, blasphemers. Stuff is in fact what it logically appears to be. Which is, fun fact: Alchemy.

Faeries

Shakespeare was right: there's a summer and winter court. There's also a spring and fall court.

Theology is hard: I'm not sure if the fall court is preservation and the winter court is destruction, or vice-versa. I'm going with the former largely because it's easy to remember. Have a summer-winter axis and a spring-fall axis.

The key feature of faeries is being ironic and tricksy. Summer creates for the purposes of destruction. Winter destroys for the purposes of creation.

 

The spring and fall courts are nasty.
Think of an old painting. If the painting is in bad shape, barely recognizable as a picture, the fall court will try to preserve it. If it's in good shape, the spring court will try to "restore" it. 

The fall court preserves ruins. They preserve wounds and injuries - if you have a gash, the fall court will freeze the flesh. If you have a dislocated joint or broken bone, they will say, "Stop! Nobody move!" If a man is on crutches they will bolt the crutches to his arms so he can't put them away. If you're crazy they will preserve your delusions. If a forest is choking itself they will ensure nothing happens to it.

The spring court restores that which ought to be preserved. If you have a cast on, they will restore you to your cast-free state - before the bone heals. They "restore" your healthy skin with tattoos. If your cancer goes into remission, they will restore it. They will restore life to your canned goods. If a desert forms in a place of peace they will try to invade it. Basically necromantic zombies are pure [spring court]. 

The summer court creates for the purposes of destruction. They create weapons. They create pathogens and poisons. They create fires and floods. Beings of vengeance generally employ summer court tools. It can be bad as well, but unlike the fall and spring courts they aren't inherently nasty.

The winter court destroys for the purposes of creation. They burn the forest so it can regrow. They drop the bombs the summer court builds. A lot of what they do is destroying fall and spring court fae before they can act up. Certainly my personal favourite; spring fae taste like peppermint. Recommended. The term "god" in modern English is usually misleading; Mars frequently acts as a winter court faerie. No, I'm not claiming they're inherently virtuous.

If you make a deal with fall or spring fae, you will get jacked 100% of the time. The correct answer: just don't. They're pests. These are the ones that deserve the insectoid reputation. 

If you want to deal with summer fae, ensure your final end is destruction, or you won't like the results.

If you want to deal with winter fae, ensure your final end is creation, or you won't like the results.

Fiat Currency is the first Product-as-a-Service Scam

No I will not explain.

(That's a joke, of course I will explain if you ask.)

Musk v. Twitter

I thought Musk was awkwardly flailing around at Twitter. Doing the cuckservative thing, basically. He's some some boneheaded things before, such as about AI risk and climate change. 

I was fucking wrong. 

Musk has now come and done exactly what I would have advised him to do. Damn! He's really doing a history!

Thanks for proving me wrong, Musk! I learned something! I don't even know what yet! (Can you tell I'm excited?)

That said, I think 50% of Twitter is very intentionally owned by a coalition of glowies, e.g. maybe a bunch of guys in the same Langley office floor, and they don't have to do silly thing like "follow the law." It's just that to fend off Musk they will have to show their hand. They will be held responsible, one way or another.

The Bible and "Lying"

To be precise the Bible never describes what lying is, so the reason it can't be said to condemn lying is because, "The bridge should stay up," doesn't count as civil engineering.

Like yeah okay the bridge should stay up, but with what? Do I use wood? Steel? Stone? Mortar? How many bolts do I need?

Further, it's one thing when a whole book allegedly on civil engineering is "Chapter 1: the bridge should stay up. The end." It's quite another when the rest of the book is a series of detailed instructions for saboteurs. Yeah the topic is bridges, but it seems that "staying up" is there for misdirection. "See we want bridges to stay up!" Do you now? Then why do you have so many instructions for bombs and strategic places to drill?

This is a book which includes specific instructions about how to weave fibre into cloth. It includes precise geneologies. It says if a man slaps you, to turn the other cheek. When it all of a sudden retreats into foggy abstracts when it comes to lying, you should become suspicious. At best they didn't much care for the topic. Not interested.  The Bible's heroes lie repeatedly and "God" rewards them for doing so. The term [neighbour] is meant rather literally.

In the context of bridges, the smokescreen is a bit odd. In the context of deception, of course the first thing a liar is going to do is condemn lying and claim to be particularly honest. Of course! Naturally! I'm pretty sure it's mandated directly from physical law, like gravity! 

Indeed if you're honest you should almost always go out your way to avoid the topic of your own trustworthiness, precisely because liars are so obsessed with claiming especial virtue. On the contrary, it should be taken for granted that you aren't trustworthy. The honourable thing to do is make it as easy and as quick as possible to verify what you're saying. 

You do the opposite of saying you're infallible, especially if you really are infallible. If you're wise, you don't have to fear anyone checking your work. Show your work and take the risk, because you're claiming it's not much of a risk. If the reader isn't themselves a liar or crazy, they will find that you have reasons for the things you say. 

Plus, if you're a temporal being and thus not infallible, getting your readers into a habit of checking your work will mean they catch the error when you inevitably make an error. Don't be so weak you fear being debunked. First, do no epistemic harm or something along those lines. Turns out scribes did in fact mis-copy the Bible. Haha, whoops. There goes your perfect infallibility - which was obviously fake in the first place because it claimed to be infallible. 

E.g. the Bible does say not to bear false witness against your neighbour. The hyper-Christian Woke take this to heart: they bear false witness against themselves instead. Fully Biblical. 

E.g. Christians everywhere admire technical honesty. "I didn't say I was going to open the window. I just asked if you wanted it open, lol!" Meanwhile they condemn novels and plays as [lying]. The sin, however, is not exactly bearing false witness. The sin is successful deception. Novels and plays do not deceive anyone who isn't asking to be mislead. It doesn't say up front it's all a lie, it's only implied so heavily literally nobody doesn't know; the term 'novel' refers to the fact you made it all up. Technical honesty is deceptive; the liar phrases it that way because they know it implies things they didn't strictly speaking say.

Christians who behave this way are being strategically autistic. Pretending to not know things they in fact know; bearing false witness against themselves.

Morality vs. Mores & Psychological Egoism

I shouldn't have to prove that respecting the local mores or manners is a cooperative necessity, so I won't. However, since the proof is based on cooperativeness, if the mores are inherently treacherous or deviant, the necessity doesn't apply. Domains and ranges.

Christians, due to Athenian influence, started trying investigate universal mores. Surely a system of manners that applies in all times and all places is better than some local peccadilloes? 

Well, spoiler: no. The universal law is that local conditions matter and you ought to adapt to them. Rejecting local conditions is local Gnosticism. You're supposed to look, see and know. You're supposed to be the opposite of an autistic-mode narcissist. Pretending local conditions don't matter is next door to pretending they don't exist; a lie. Gnosticism is a lie, so it's a proper subset of Satanism.

As I keep saying, Christianity is inherently Gnostic and if it appears otherwise it's because it's compromising its own values. Gnosticism proper is merely rejecting "physics" as too local to be morally relevant; using an unusually broad version of [local]. In fact physics is a divine instrument. Turns out, in shocking news, Creation was created by the Creator. 

Physics, seen properly, is one of the most beautiful things observable, and it's not even close. it displays perfect unity of form and function - the function is the form, and the form is the function. Transcendentally gorgeous. It's also unimaginably consistent. Harmonious across inconceivable gulfs. Every physical law sings in perfect symphony with every other. The greatest composer is here. Your "Bachs" and "Beethovens" are pathetic wannabes by comparison. Feeble echoes of the the depthless glory of physics.
Utter slavish fanaticism for Logic, well beyond anything a human is capable of.
Math and physics is seeing the mind of God? Yes. Simply, yes. Turns out they were on the ball there. 

Universal morality is anti-physics.

Universal morality, styled these days as simply morality, is a lie. Local mores arise because they work better than the alternatives that were discarded. It's prudence, not "morality." 

P.S. Frankly it's super weird that morality has its own quale. Why do moral things feel different than non-moral things? Is this the power of being raised in a lie? Is this the incomprehensibly adaptive nature of the qualia system?

The idea that "pragmatism" is somehow opposed to morality is absurd. The idea that self-sacrifice can possibly be moral is absurd. Let's do the self-sacrifice thing as a concrete example. Spoilers: if can be good if it's not really self-sacrifice.

Example one: you really value your town, so you lay down your life trying to kill some criminals who are afflicting the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. This person valued a non-criminal town above their own life. To them, this is simply a good trade. Being prudent and pragmatic. The idea that everyone always values their life above all other things is a lie. A secular-materialist lie. Also a narcissist/Gnostic lie. 

Example two: you really value your town, so you give away your entire life savings to the town. Is this self-sacrifice? Nope. Indeed you're likely to make your investment back with interest. If the town deserves the love (you're not plain delusional) then they will spend it wisely, and you will benefit. Further, someone in town is likely to respond to your "altruism" with "altruism" of their own. If two or three such folk exist, you will end up being given more than you gave away. It was prudent and pragmatic. Even if it's not materially pragmatic, if you did it, it's because you valued giving the money away more than keeping it, and it was a good trade.

If you commit self-sacrifice and it's a good trade, it's not sacrifice. If you commit self-sacrifice and it's not a good trade, then you dun fukt up. That was just stupid. It's not a moral thing, it's an ROI thing. There's a small part of universal morality that's true: there is always a tension between the long term and the short term. The things called "evil" have short-term benefits and long-term costs. The things called "not-evil" are goods because they have short-term costs and long-term benefits. 2 > 1. It's not a moral thing, it's just accounting. Short-term "altruism" is feeding parasites. "Altruism" with long-term benefits isn't altruistic, now is it? Is the stock market a endless font of altruism? Morality isn't a moral thing. Self-sacrifice is always thing-called-evil. Don't reject the incomprehensible generosity of the heavens: do as you're told and be rich.

Pragmatism: it's true that things-Americas-call-pragmatism are opposed to cooperation and long termism. Parasites love promoting self-sacrifice, because you have to sacrifice to a parasite or it will die. Pragmatism arose to try to counter these pro-"altrusim" deviants, but it was co-opted. The incentive is for parasites to say that feeding the parasite is pragmatic for the parasite (hardly untrue) and thus co-opt pragmatism as letting the parasites be pragmatic. 

Example three: you donate to a homeless bum. You don't see them again and don't see any return. Is this altruism? Self-sacrifice?
If what you wanted is for the bum to do bum things with the money, then it was a good trade. You wanted the money less than you wanted the bum to have it.
If you didn't want the bum to have the money, then you're an idiot. Congrats on accelerating his alcohol-induced cognitive collapse in exchange for making yourself marginally more immiserated. I guess that's exactly what you deserved, dumbass. 

Subjectivity is subjective and therefore psychological egoism is true. Nobody can be altruistic or unselfish. It's logically impossible. You values drive your decisions - that's what it means to be a value. You can't feel the values of others, because that's the nature of subjective ontology. If the dude in example 3 knows the bum is only going to do bum things with the money, then he doesn't give the money away. Whether he "should" or not is irrelevant, because he's not going to, end of story. (Also, if it isn't yet clear, he really shouldn't.)

If you decide you want to be "self-sacrificing" that means you value the acts of "sacrifice" more than you values the things you give away. It still isn't unselfish. It's logically impossible to be unselfish: psychological egoism is true.

Because self-sacrifice is impossible, if someone convinces you to do something that feels self-sacrificing, it just means you were scammed. You didn't know the real situation. They're a parasite. Sacrifice for thee but not for me.

Check: if selflessness is the ideal, who can you give things to? An unselfish bum would refuse the money. If everyone is unselfish, all that happens is everyone starves to death. Self-sacrifice is a lie. Selflessness is a lie. 

Self-sacrifice is death, pain, and failure. Its Communism. It's irresponsible. It's devil-worship. Anyone claiming you ought to be self-sacrificing is dishonourable.

 

With the exception of the abstract tension between long and short term, mores are necessarily local because local conditions exist. Local customs, as I hope your quale agrees, are not [morality]. Customary merely means how it's usually done. This is always for a good reason, though occasionally the good reason is, "The locals are foolish." In the long term and on average customs are wise because of natural selection. In the short term and the specific there is no such guarantee. 

Christianity tried to overcome these solecisms by appealing to some universal more, but this is (as expected given the nature of the cult) ass backwards. Indeed if you look at specific examples of these solecisms, they're almost always already appealing to a more universal principle, and that's why they're not working.

Put another way, if your local mores are not prudent, then you die out. The more local and particular they are, the better they will serve you. By contrast, the more "universal" you try to make them, the worse they will perform. As such, it seems Christianity said self-sacrifice is universally moral by back-propagation: only a suicide would want to respect a universal morality, and thus the highest ideal must be self-sacrifice.

If you are correctly "moral," you die.
Is this a mistake? Some foolish oversight?
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”" Romans 12:17-21
In short, not only don't defend yourself, not only don't secure your shit, but actively assist those who wish to harm you.
Hey, uh, how did Jesus' story end, again? And he's supposed to be the paragon of morality?

Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Christian nations are ethno-masochist. 

Thus we can see it's probably not a coincidence that Unitarian Universalism is one of the most destructive sects of Christianity. 

In retrospect, duh. Un-self-ishness un-selfs you. No self, no existence. Death. Annihilation. In Reality, self-sacrifice leads to the lake of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Morality, in the modern sense of universal morality, is a sin.

P.P.S. In the previous semi-working 1950s version, you were allowed to accept things if they were unselfishly offered to you. The idea was that nobody is competent to take care of themselves due to the whole [judge in your own case] mechanic, but others could be trusted to take care of you. In theory, this system lets everyone get their needs met, so is not, in practice, unselfish. Unfortunately, as the Boomers demonstrated, this is false. The system immediately broke down, because it doesn't work. Turns out you know your own needs and nobody else knows your needs, because subjectivity is subjective. It's fine as long as you're responsible and pay for the things you want instead of trying to get them for free from "unselfish" individuals. 

I rather suspect the 1950s form of twisted nonsense is exactly what Christianity was designed to promote. It rewards narcissists who rarely even remember you have needs at all. They become bottomless pits of "altruism" and nobody is allowed to say boo or they're "selfish." Something like 97% of the time if someone calls you selfish, they're a raging narcissist, and you should run, don't walk. Another 2% of the time or more, they're psychopaths.

 

P.P.P.S. Yeshua wasn't the Creator, so Christianity is a form of idolatry. In Reality worshipping as symbol as a symbol per se is fine. Worshipping Sol as allegorically the Creator is fine. Worshipping Zeus as a representative of the overflowing bounty of Creation is fine. Worshipping a symbol as if it were the thing itself is idolatry. Worshipping Sol as literally the Creator is false. Worshipping Zeus as literally king is false. 

Goes double in this case because Yeshua wasn't even allegorically the Creator. Yeshua was the archangel of mercy, the ruler of Chesed. Not Keter. At least, not during his mortal tenure. If Yeshua was promoted to Metatron, it was in fact usurpation, not coronation.

Bible literalism is idolatry and arises because Christianity is inherently idolatrous. When it isn't, it's compromising against its own core values. 

P.P.P.P.S. Call for "unity" are universalist, thus immoral and suicidal. If you want cooperation, pay for it, you irresponsible shitbags. Obviously it's a conqueror playing "nice" and putting their intent to conquer you "tactfully." Check: Lincoln is the unifier and Americans are obsessed with the Union, but in reality it was the War of Northern Aggression, a war of conquest and subjugation. Unity => subjugation, defection, deviance, treachery. Irresponsible. Dishonourable.

Things To Say Out Loud 2: Communism

Communism from crown to sole is about getting free shit. Acquiring goods without having to work for them. Everything else said about it is cope or gaslighting. Snow jobs or defensiveness.

This is why full communism means nobody works thus everyone starves.

General China Virus Take

I think they originally saw the virus as a chance to be seen being all manly and decisive. Willing to make the hard choices and force the populace to make sacrifices. Emphasis on "force" for Mandate of Heaven reasons. 

The problem is the virus turned out to be harmless. Killed only those who already had one foot in the grave. Because the lethality is so low it can afford to be outrageously infectious. This is almost completely normal for coronaviruses, by the way. If you had asked an epidemiologist in 2018 whether corona would go this way one day, they would have given you a frequency per century. Not a surprise to anyone who isn't totally ignorant of the domain. Naturally, "technocracy" means nobody thinks to ask.

Now the CCP is stuck taking extremely forceful measures to contain a nearly ineluctable virus. If they admit the virus is harmless, they lose face. "Yeah uh actually we fucked up. Oops." Even Americans have difficulty with that. Mandate of Heaven mores means uncertainty isn't allowed; CCP has no chance. 

Also there's probably some internal politics going on which I know nothing about. The idea was floated that they shut down some factories just to troll the USA's "supply chain" issues. This is hardly impossible but not exactly a leading contender. Still, it has the right flavour. Maybe it's more of an internal conflict. The dude in charge of lockdowns has a rival whose power base is in Shanghai, so he's locking down hard to try to shove them back a few places. Something of that nature. Maybe everyone in CCP needs a turn at being hard and manly. Hinky stuff going on.

Oh wait I get it.

Azov atrocities have a point. It's to motivate Azov to fight. The more atrociously they behave to Russian prisoners, the more they're afraid of being taken prisoner themselves. Cannot surrender in any form whatsoever.

I'd like to know how intentional this is. Accidental genius, or just what cowards have to do to themselves? Being brave isn't an option, they need to be more afraid of not fighting than of fighting.

Incentives vs. Traitor Mindset & American Negative Exceptionalism

Point 0: morality isn't really real. At most you can talk about upholding local mores - local customs are not "morality" in the modern/Christian sense.

"When considering things happening in the world, do you think primarily in terms of ‘incentive structures’ or ‘good and evil’?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/noxraptus/status/1506573634399313924

Personnel is policy and the obverse of Goodhart's law.

Incentives don't come from nowhere. In the end you can choose not to take the job. (Peasants are, of course, unaware of this brilliant, challenging insight.) If nobody takes the job because they can see the incentives are backwards, then the incentives don't drive behaviour, they destroy themselves.

What are the incentives to create certain incentive structures? It's not turtles all the way down. Ultimately someone decides. As was inevitable, Americans like to deny that lords exist, but it do. 

"There's nothing quite as evil as a rotten incentive structure."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1506604476677115905

Traitors construct rotten incentive structures. 

If you don't like an incentive structure you can declare war on it, raze it, and raise a new one. If war is not being declared, then alliance is being declared. Americanism is a traitor-supremacist social system, so instead war is declared against healthy incentive structures. Such as marriage. Such as having the law punish criminals. Such as allowing Gamestop short-sellers to lose money. Such as parents of a child hit by a car being able to sue the driver. 

Put another way: we have all these secular-materialist "incentive structures." Now, far be it from me to deny that (on peasants) incentive structures work. They really do drive behaviour. However, imagine someone who doesn't particularly value money. Your "incentive structure" just collapsed. It cannot control this person. 

The values come first. The mind, the conscious affinity for one future over another, comes first. The incentive structures come second. The incentive-definers define the incentives that buy the things they want. They design the incentives based on the values of the peasants they're controlling. Money is big, obvious, flashy, and short-term, so it works on peasants, so they use that.

In turn, peasant values come from religion. They come from a Pope. Americans are venal and materialist because they are raised to be venal and materialist, not because it's a universal divinely-ordained fact. Ref: every Amish man could make vastly more money if he stopped being Amish, but he repeatedly (wisely) chooses to remain. He is aware in his guts that being Amish is worth billions of dollars relative to being American; it's not a moral thing, America isn't offering enough money to make the switch profitable. 

Likewise Americans sometimes, despite everything, try to move toward being Amish due to the obvious superiority of more-Amish customs, but their head traitors notice this and make it illegal. Americans get the message and obediently stop trying. They want to be obedient more than they want their lives to not suck donkey shit.

In Reality, Adam's Invisible Hand is always in charge. The incentives that exist reflect the demand of the peoples who construct and maintain the incentive structure. Personnel is policy, and religion determines personnel. 

How do evil emperors get bodyguards? Shouldn't the prospective employees go all, "Actually I don't want to make Hitler safe. nthx bie" Resigning in protest is a thing. Why don't all his bodyguards resign in protest? Why didn't Enron have a catastrophic labour shortage? Even if someone takes the job, shouldn't they get ostracized by all their neighbours? Shouldn't they face "social consequences" or whatever they're calling it these days?

In Reality there is no shortage of evil men to take evil jobs. In Reality, the neighbours are evil too. The local more is evil. The emperor gets to rule because, on average, the subjects demand a defective traitor for the top spot. He would never have come anywhere near peak power if the society at large didn't broadly support him and his supporters. Further, the religion couldn't have made the peasants call for this if peasants weren't inherently compatible with defection and deviance.

From a bird's-eye view it's better to say that incentives don't drive behaviour. Desired behaviour drives incentives. Looking at the incentives informs you about values, which drive behaviour and drove the incentives. Americans want to be traitors, and want to be ruled by traitors. 

So, like, isn't it obvious? If you're not a traitor-supremacist, you need to reject this social order. You live in a society? Okay, well stop. That was dumb, don't do that. Participate only if overwhelming violence forces you to participate - then it's not your responsibility, and you won't be held responsible. Always look for ways to get out from under their thumb.

Explicitly, consciously, verbally declare them illegitimate.
Pray for protection.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's -  nothing.

If you choose to remain with the traitor society for any reason, that means you value treachery over not-treachery.
Well, certainly you are Free to have such a Will. It's a valid choice. You can always choose your decision. You don't get to choose the consequences, however. Turns out postmodernism is false actually.

P.S. Technically speaking peasants essentially have no values. They seem to have bad taste because they're incompetent at pretending to have good taste. They in fact have no taste at all, which is why it's so difficult for them. It never occurs to them that "taste" is a real thing and they can't really imagine what they're trying to imitate. When they inevitably fuck it up they can't tell the difference between what they're doing and what you're doing.

Exception: they have strict animalistic desires such as not getting trampled by the strong horse. Flesh-based reflexes. They don't like responsibility because they sense in their bones they're not responsible; they want to obey instead. Safer, because [not starting a fight with the local Big Man], and the actions taken are wiser on average. (Offer not valid in Global American Empire.) 

P.P.S. War of American Rebellion => traitors fighting for the right to break their oaths. They won, so America has always been a traitor-supremacist regime. Hence, ninth circle of hell. Satanism. The only reason America didn't immediately collapse is because they weren't very devout and furtively compromised their own Satanism in an amusing sort of Gnosticism. To Americans, the lord of this world, the demiurge, is Gnon. Gnon cruelly made the world punish envy, treachery, and deceit, rewarding instead cooperation and humility, so the Founding Mothers grudgingly put cooperative systems in place. Respected property rights here and there, if they really had to.

Luckily their descendants understood their inner intentions and have been systematically dismantling these compromises. Slowly, though, because defectors are defective. Can't concentrate and keep falling to infighting instead of getting on with it.

Sociology of Justice and Power

In America, it's simply taken for granted that the just shouldn't seek power. You can't even discuss it. Someone who seeks power is unjust, end of story.

Result: everyone who has power in America is unjust. All power is ceded to them without contest.

Gee, I wonder who thought of that idea originally. We may never know their motivation. The world is a mysterious place.

something something ghosts

Sanctioning Hollywood is so easy I could do it by myself, as a reminder. The only problem is they're likely to sanction me back and then I might need an ally to not die.

If you were e.g. Russia you could import me and then use me to sanction Hollywood - what are they going to do, withdraw Disney?
I wouldn't be thrilled about having a bunch of Russians as neighbours, but on the plus side they have a bunch of non-hideous architecture and I would be thrilled about the fact the sanctions would take a form that would make me millions or possibly billions of dollars. 

I'm not super thrilled about the neighbours I have now, to be fair. Kinda legitimately prefer grizzly bears to Caino hypocriens. Only real reason I'm not a hermit inna woods is because I'm addicted to technological comforts. Grew up with the wrong kind of stimulation. Secondarily I have a weak stomach and probably can't butcher my own meat, and yet I'm unwilling to live solely on plants. I look around the world, but I don't see anyone I would be excited to hear was moving next door. Very sympathetic to Musk's desire to live on Mars instead.

Folk like Singaporeans and Japanese actually suppress crime, so while they're insufferable the same way everyone is, it's at least calm and peaceful. Also I hear the Singaporeans speak English, among their other three official languages.

What Idiocracy Got Wrong

Openly using terms like "φαγ" and "retarded" is obviously right-wing chud, not left-wing chud.
Excuse me, less-leftist chud, as opposed to leftist chud. Dr. Lexus would call you a racist or whatever. He would use "chud," perhaps. Everyone would have blue hair. They wouldn't watch, "Ow, my balls," they would watch chickens being tortured instead, then say, "There outta be a law!" and go back to watching hogs get tormented. They would impress each other with how horrified they were, but if a genuine animal-welfare group started canvassing for donations they would all find excuses to keep the money for themselves. Maybe a rant about how congress is corrupt or something, followed by demanding free brawndo.

Ukraine War Thaumaturgically.

Azov are actually commies, not nazis.
Putin's denazification initiative is in fact a decommification initiative.
In other words, he's Joseph McCarthy, but with nuclear weapons.
No wonder America is freaking right the fuck out.

The Heavens Wish to be Generous

The heavens are generous because they desire to be generous. They want to look in the mirror and see generous entities. It's practically your duty to accept their gifts. It's not being selfish or greedy, it's about not embracing rejection or privation.

To be generous, the giver needs someone to be generous at. They require a receiver. Do you wish to deprive the heavens of their receiver? Especially when it means giving up wealth with few to no strings attached? Rejecting their generosity is both stupid and mean.

Do as you're told: be rich.

Facists know this: they reject the ridiculous generosity of the Sol, allegorically rejecting the bounty of the heavens. "Skin cancer! Blah gurg arglebargle!" No, they want to be vampires and they want to make you a vampire too.

"Heaven brings forth innumerable things to nurture man." True.
"Man has nothing good with which to recompense Heaven." Twisted.

The point of generosity is not to be repaid. Reciprocalism is hardly bad, but it's merely slow-motion trade. It's not a gift. It's a different thing.

The point of Man is to be someone upon which generosity can be lavished, so that those entities who wish to be generous can have the Free Will to be generous. The recompense is allowing heavenly beings to self-actualize.

If anything, among the gifts the heavens abundantly provide is the gift of humility, a most powerful and glorious virtue. Heavenly entities are incomprehensibly wealthy. The energy Sol provides to Earth, endless and vast as it seems to us, is barely a penny or two to the total energy of Sol. What could a mere grass monkey possibly give in return that would be at all meaningful? Humbly accept you couldn't pay it back even if you wanted to. 

If you had something to offer in return, it wouldn't be truly, profoundly generous. They're offering it because you have no recompense. That's not a failing, that's the point. 

Humbly accept the infinite wealth they wish to offer you. 

 

 

P.S. Need a rectification for the name [self-actualize]. The idea correct, the words corrupt. Talk like a person, not a wanker.

Devil Food

It is said that devils feed on negative emotions. I feel this is correct. 

But what is a "negative" emotion? Sounds like moralizing, and morality isn't real. 

At first, you might at least say they're unpleasant emotions, but Siddhartha was right: they aren't inherently unpleasant, that's something you project onto them. Folk voluntarily seek out fear by watching horror movies or by reading a newspaper - it's not inherently "negative," and likewise I personally enjoy getting angry. 

The "negativity" comes from the perception of being damaged, but in the majority of cases it is mere perception. It's not the emotion that's negative, but the injury. Failure is indeed inherently negative. Being weak is indeed a sin. 

On the contrary, the emotion is there to help you avoid being injured. Simplifying for brevity, fear informs you of hazards. Anger informs you of treachery. Guilt informs you of your own will to treachery. Your emotions are on your side. 

You are what you eat, or perhaps it's more accurate to say you eat what you are. Devils feed on negative emotion because they are formed of negative emotion. 

There is one inherently wrong feeling: self-hatred. 

E.g. saying emotions, which are on your side, are "negative." Stuff that's on your side is bad? That's a self-hatred. 

Self-hatred is self-negating. If you hate yourself, one of the things you hate is the self-hatred. You believe you yourself are wrong, which means you think the self-hatred is wrong, and thus you believe you shouldn't hate yourself. Inherently insane. 

 

Devils are inherently avatars of self-hatred. This is why they are weak. As expected, they are inherently sinful. For them, to renounce weakness is to renounce existing. The Bible claims any idiot can rebuff a devil, and this is correct. They embrace failure and suffering; if you do not likewise embrace their failure and suffering, you give them nothing to work with. If instead you validate their self-condemnation, then they are condemned. "I suck." "I agree, you suck." Game over.

True devils are extremely rare. They are self-destructive, so their masses cannot accumulate over time. For the most part if you don't intentionally seek them out you will not encounter them at all. Even rebuffing them is unpleasant; why do it if it's also unnecessary?

Hatred is a thing that exists, and selves are a possible thing it could be directed towards, and I suspect this is related to the reason devils have to exist in the first place.

Alger Hiss Was Not a Spy & Genetic Roots of Communist Tyranny

Passing "secrets" to the Soviets was explicitly what he was hired to do. He was more of an under-the-table diplomat than a spy.

Only a spy in the same sense that every diplomat is a spy.

Sure you can argue about whether the Soviets were playing the Americans or Americans were playing the Soviets, but nobody was confused about who was at the table. It wasn't hard, since everyone was at the table. Approximately, FDR considered Stalin an American spy, never mind everyone else. 

He was (rather, they were) rigging the game because rigging the game was the plan. Very Anglo. Whoever got behind would be allowed to play catch-up so the game could continue. We were always at war with East Asia. 

 

For what it's worth, I say Communism is American as apple pie. Lenin and Stalin knew exactly what their plan would entail. Causing immense misery was the point. Stalin was a bank robber before he was a head of state. Lenin was exiled for being hazardous waste. Criminal underclass. 

Stalin was never Russian. Stalin was wildly Americanized.
Lenin was a Euromutt who likely suffered regression to the mean and the post-vigor hybrid degeneration. He was a miscegenated mutant with no homeland; a foreigner no matter where he ended up. His mother was a low-end aristocrat and his father was an upjumped peasant; these kinds of bastards are exactly what you should expect if you muddy your noble blood with commoners, no matter how capable that particular commoner is. Social mobility is supposed to be slow; fast mobility is a scam.
In shocking news, the Russian-Swede-Mongol-CryptoJew ended up following a German who published from England. You think you're a [melting pot]? Look at this nonsense.
Tell me you have no idea what your neighbours are like without telling me you have no idea what your neighbours are like.
I said [genetic roots] but clearly the problem is miscegenation causes alienation. This goes double if you're in part an inherently deracinized Gyew.

Reminder: Exit is necessary because corruption is inevitable. If you can't [nope] your country if it gets Lenin'd, then your zeroth priority is to [nope] your country ASAP, before it inevitably gets Lenin'd.

Puritanism is Utopianism

"Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
-Mencken

Most recently in reference to nuclear war vs. a non-Nato Ukraine.
"How can you be happy when there exists racism, sexism, white supremacy...
"We must punish you"

Don't you get it? If anything isn't perfect yet, it must be your fault. The problem is the Puritan himself isn't happy, and obviously happiness is natural and happens by itself. You must be punished, and then enslaved to work towards perfection, so we can finally reach Utopia. 

Clearly, Utopia is the default. E.g. State of Nature. If we are not currently in Utopia, it must be due to the evil opposition of wreckers and heretics. Are you not fully on board? Only 99.8%, not 100%? Well it must be on you, because if you stopped opposing Utopia, it would plain simply occur.

Perfectly rational, see?

Extremely childish rationality, but rational given their extreme disabilities. Fundamentalism is cope for small minds who should never have been let out of the house.

"Covid is terrifying but global thermonuclear war is a moral obligation."

https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1505802533176246272

As I keep saying, they have the opposite-day reaction to threats. Ncov was safe, so they freaked out as much as possible. The virus wasn't doing it for them, so they went for stress-induced kills. Destroy as many livelihoods as possible, because humans need a job & to contribute to the tribe, and peasants can't just assign themselves jobs. If the virus was actually dangerous they would have held hard to "just a flu bro" but done the opposite of taking off the cloth masks during the parties; they would have closed their own neighbourhoods to infectious traffic.

Global thermonuclear war would indeed kill a whole lot of people, so they're way in favour of it. Indeed they're down on anyone who wants to avoid it. Though at least in this case there's the counter-indicator: they will countenance zero personal risk. If there's the slightest chance of being domed by a missile the trigger man won't pull the trigger. 

If Putin would backroom promise to only nuke flyover country and avoid e.g. Georgetown DC, they would go for it in a heartbeat. And then betray him, of course, which Putin knows just fine. This is why dishonourable behaviour is unwise; it cuts off your options and makes you weak.

Journalism vs. Gresham's Law

Bad words drive out good. 

Debasement of language. 

Not an accident. Very intentional. Good words are a threat to the Regime and must be suppressed. Luckily it turns out the peasantry has an endless appetite for bad words in any case. 

Driving out good words with an endless supply of bad is what free "speech" is for.

Hot tip: don't form a regime so delicate that a decent supply of good prose is an existential threat to your society. 

One of the reasons you need to have a real neighbourhood, with both physical and allegorical fences, is because bad words drive out good. Talk is cheap and thus oversupplied, and in particular the worst words are oversupplied. Need to keep this sewage out with some sort of dike. A manned and well-maintained dike, or your neighbourhood will become a slum.

However, publishing is not cheap. Hosting (or paper) and bandwidth (delivery in general) cost money. If the words aren't profitable they will go out of business. In this case market discipline destroys the bad words. Big 'ol prayer to Gnon.

Thus the State must destroy market discipline and underhandedly fund "free" publishing, re-asserting the dominance of bad words over good.