It's more likely than all these new personnel being deployed domestically.
I mean, you gotta have some excuse for having your budget go up. Why not some competitive Mexican colonialism? "My cutout can beat up your cutout!"
The point is, whatever story they're telling you, you can rule out that story as a possibility.
If you steelman idolatry it goes basic. It's when you worship something that isn't sacred. It's not difficult to make a sacred idol, though you have to be sure not to confuse the symbol for the symbolized target.
Christians obviously have all sorts of idols, it's just not called idolatry because as always Christianity is in fact Satanism and being consistent is heresy against Satan. A non-hypocritical Christian is doing it wrong.
"The west as an ideology has a beginning and an end. Maybe one global
empire centered on Rome was the imagined end but it didn't work out that
way."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/eaterswedn/status/1545123516932038658
Seems about right. Hajnal Europeans bet everything on doing Rome successfully, but that's impossible because Rome was inherently impious. Gnon has words for those who attempt it.
Since everything was bet, everything is forfeit.
Unless Europeans wake up one day, get a cup of coffee, and realize ethnic cleansing is good actually, they will fatally miscegenate with the races they've alloyed their countries with.
Background: you get one generation of hybrid vigor, then endless repeats of hybrid breakdown. Genes are like a symphony, and if you mix two races, it's not that either race is wrong, but that the body is trying to half play each of two songs that don't harmonize. Stupid example: whether an allele is associated with higher IQ or lower depends on what other genes are trying to raise IQ. Mixed races are inherently worse than either parent.
Presumably first due to slaving practices and second due to the Ottomans, Greeks have an IQ of 92. It's no mystery that they produce no more Socrates. Italy has an IQ of 93. Empire is fatal for the race that attempts it. While only the crazy or desperate miscegenate, it turns out there's no shortage of either of those and invasive genes never end up ghettoized.
Since Easterners are far more interested in obedience to persons rather than obedience to nature or any other higher power, they prefer conformity to discovery. Every improvement is a change, and they don't change unless they have to. Even then, it's only changing who they're copying to a new target. Quite possibly they might one day choose death over having to change.
As such, there is no reason to think the Athenian tradition has any chance of survival.
Apparently eating dogs is uniquely "cruel." Why is that?
Answer: they don't imagine eating a dog. They imagine you're eating their pet dog.
Same way women can't think of "men" as a category. When they say "all men are pigs" they mean, "my dad is a pig" or "my ex was a pig." (Often, worse, "My dad was a pig yesterday when he ate the peach.")
You could point out that whether it's cruel or not depends on whether they use the captured-bolt execution method. You could point out that keeping a cow as a companionship pet and then eating it would likewise be messed up, but of course that's a hypothetical and quite beyond their ken. Beef comes from the supermarket, right? What's cruel about disembowelling a plastic package? Imagine trying to imagine a cow while you have aphantasia.
I would like to highlight the solipsistic narcissism. "Eating dogs over there across 5000 miles of Pacific Ocean is about me and my dog."
Voting is really, truly, a horribly awful idea. Good thing it doesn't work.
P.S. In ye olden days, when they said a man had "vision" were they saying "holy shit that guy has an imagination" or something? "Tit-twisting cuntsacks! Guys, I saw a picture in my mind! I'm having visions!" By the knicker-top elastic, that's really something, John. "Dumb daydreamer, stop that and pay attention in school. Look at this homo who sees shapes and colours with his eyes shut."
Cost to raise man: $200,000. Worth of man: $700,000. Crazy profit margins. Salary's low, though. Only $9000 per person per year. Today I'm neglecting the intangibles and the fact the parents tend not to capture much of the material value.
However, the more children you have, the better the salary is. Two children: $13,500. Three children: $16,200. Eight children: $21,600.
Zeroth, note this puts an upper limit on your country-wide average salary. It can't be any higher than some constant * the average profit/kid because there's nowhere else for it to come from. (Unless central bank &c.) There are no activities that produce value without human labour. Average salary is not exactly the same as profit/kid because the generations overlap in practice.
In a non-Malthusian economy, the bigger your families, the richer your country will be. (P.S. population decline is eugenic and in the long term most modern families need to die out. It's worth the temporary privation to get long-term genetic gains. It won't be enough, but nevertheless.)
If this calculation hasn't neglected anything important, we would expect that those with larger families are more satisfied than those with smaller families. The only child seems enviable because they get all of their parents' attention, but in practice that attention is negative or corrupt because they become a reminder of the parent's genetic failure, and thus become a outlet for their stress. Children clearly crave more attention than they need for some stupid reason; alternatively in a large family they can get plenty of attention from their siblings. Children have more free time so you would expect that in a large family, there is more attention available. As long as they're not in school, anyway.
Meanwhile, parents of large families note that it becomes easier the more you have. Apparently the tipping point is around 2. The first two start to help to take care of the third. You also start to get economies of scale. The difference between 0 kids and 1 kid is, to oversimplify, kid-proofing your house. For the second, the house is already kid-proofed, you just need a second bed. And so on.
--
I think folk have few kids mainly as a status symbol. "Aristocrats in the 1500s had small families, and Every Man a King, therefore I must have as small a family as possible." Likewise, peasants had to have tons of kids because so many died that in most parts of the world they didn't even name the kid for a year or two. They don't think about what they're doing or get feedback in any way, it's manic status-striving combined with paranoid conformity.
Because children are profitable, being able to afford fewer kids is a way to show off your above-average salary. Social status is relative, not absolute, so problem: at most half of parents can have above-average salaries... Not to mention the dysgenic effects of an inverse relationship between salary and family size.
When a Christian is preaching at you, it feels a certain way.
When a Wokist is preaching at you, it feels nearly the exact same way.
This is because they are the same religion. They differ cosmetically, but your gut isn't fooled.
Note that a real body of scholars would have names for the set of properties making up the feeling which identifies a religion like this. "Christianty feels hudlrog and sublang, and likewise Wokism feels sublang and hudlorg." With names you would be able to draw lines through that religion and other phenomena and see what specific features they are tags for.
Since you don't have names, you can only learn by painstakingly re-inventing the wheel. E.g. one isn't religion-specific, but instead the feeling of being preached at.
Why do they keep saying never to leave anything out for more than 29 seconds? Why are you supposed to instantly panic and immediately shove everything in the fridge?
Partly to check, I regularly leave food out for 24-48 hours and eat it normally. Never caused me the slightest issue. By contrast, I have caused myself an issue by improperly washing dishes.
Cooking sterilizes. If you leave food out, it will gather the most opportunistic organisms from the air - the ones that find it most delicious. Indeed the pre-industrial way to gather baker's yeast is to wet some flour and leave it out in a dish. Thus, the stuff that lives on old cooked food is exactly the stuff you need in your gut to digest it thoroughly.
They want to lay waste to your symbiotic gut flora by over-prescribing antibiotics, and then do everything possible to ensure it can't come back.
You would think they don't understand the biology well, but intent matters. Intent matters a lot. They intend for you to be unhealthy, and their actions always line up with this goal.
P.S. Baker's yeast is delicious. A bit musty, sure, but it's a good must. I use it like pepper sometimes.
Marmite is yeast extract. Why bother extracting it?
Fun thing I accidentally discovered: guzzle fruit juice, chase with spoon of yeast. It fermented in my stomach, because the juice dilutes my stomach acid enough to avoid killing the yeast. Interesting sensation.
Most Wikipedia articles are extended putrescences of the local cancerous religion. There's a few dry 'factual' articles, drained of blood. The encyclopedia is also far too big to remove every good article.
Yes there's a whole wiki page on how "I refute it thus" is a fallacy.
It's especially good because Berkeley was basically correct. It's impossible to get subjective reality out of objective reality, whereas the reverse is easy.
"Cause it reads to me like either the CIA is operating on some utterly Q-tier logic,"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/17cShyteposter/status/1562320150740643841
The contrary is implausible to me.
Q is American. CIA is American. Prima facie, we should expect them to think in similar ways.
Indeed a leading theory is that Q is CIA, so even moreso.
These two hyperdestructive masters can lay waste to vast swaths of cope. If you understand them correctly and take them seriously, they are extremely dark. Highly antisocial and savage to the ego.
Can you handle giving up the flattery?
Ockham's razor reveals all your fancy ornamentation is foolishness, not wisdom. If you don't have to believe in it, you can't.
Free will means you are responsible. Always. If it happened to you, it's your fault. You chose it.
Even if you explicitly point out the error, Americans still go hard on counter-productive strategies.
As I said previously, losing to the government isn't a failure, losing is the point.
America is a country of rebels. If the government falls, who are they supposed to rebel against? Imagine your dad's funeral is over and you have kids of your own. How are you supposed to go all "fuck you dad" in this situation? Best if dad can live on to abuse another day.
"His general error is what Patri Friedman calls folk activism — a broad pattern of ineffective or counterproductive political action which extends across the entire right-wing spectrum, from moderate libertarians to hardcore neo-Nazis. It’s not just that running wild with a Glock is stupid. Almost everything the right does is stupid. Very few rightists are running wild with a Glock, but most are in some way or other guilty of folk activism."
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2011/07/right-wing-terrorism-as-folk-activism/
"What ABB is doing here is, in plain non-Google English, whining. Whining is the act either of a slave, or a bitch. The slave whines to his master. Master, the overseer is beating me!" Whether the whining is fatal or nonfatal is rather beside the point. Terrorism works assuming it is part of the already-existing government. Hence, it never works, it's a side effect that's part of the fact tyrannies are tyrrable.
P.S. From Patri: "Unfortunately, there is no clear incremental path to such a society." Of course, there is such a path. Use 'trust the science' as a lever to rhetorically force USG to open special economic zones.
However, if you use effective tactics, that would change the status quo, and Friedman, like any American in good standing, is a narcissist. How are you supposed to maintain your Role if the environment changes and removes that Role from the scene? No, on the contrary, if you do anything which genuinely promotes liberty, libertarians will immediately fight you on it. Drives them berserk.
There's an ultra-short full description of America.
Crypto-Pope: "Jump!"
Blue Americans: "We should jump four feet high."
Red Americans: "No no we should only jump two and a half feet."
Then they have bitter partisan fights, sometimes even unto death, about those 1.5 feet. Anyone suggesting not jumping or, worse, walking somewhere else, is studiously ignored or viciously attacked by both parties. Americans then frequently mention that both parties seem the same, before going back to cheering for the blues. Or greens. I don't remember which was the populare and which was the optimate.
Occasionally a neo-nazi or white supremacist suggests crouching instead, and then pats themselves on the back for being [independent] and [thinking for themselves] like the Pope told them to.
At no point does anyone crouch, jump, or walk until they manage to force it to be mandatory for everyone else. Except, as always, the Amish, who are clearly not Americoid and apparently exist purely to reveal the whole thing is a charade.
How to live well is not mysterious. It's been well-known for at least 4000 years. America is a giant project where they try to outsmart Gnon; trying to live badly but succeed anyway. It's not working.
"It's said that most at home traders fail, but this is incorrect: they fail at making money, but they are successful at feeling like a trader. That is the goal; the money is secondary, which is why they fail at making it."
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/03/who_can_know_how_much_randi_zu.html
It is said that Americans fail at making America great, but that is incorrect. They are successful at being American, (a Christian nation,) and that is the goal.
If it wasn't working for them they would stop doing it and try something else. Even the stupidest moron can work out how to thrash and flail.
The American people have clawed back significant freedom in several areas since the 50s, 60s.
Homeschooling was essentially unknown/illegal and truancy laws were enforced.
If the gov decided to "bus" your kids to violent bad school, they were telling you not asking you.
https://nitter.42l.fr/Empty_America/status/1541495635236593665
You can tell someone's really dedicated to their kids when they roll over at the first sign of Official disapproval. Wouldn't want your kids to get in bad with the Regime, now would you? They know where you live, after all.
The American "people" didn't do jack shit.
First of all, the laws weren't real. The Amish gave a big "fuck you" to the education establishment. Go look up when it happened. It's only "compulsory" to 8th grade and all their teachers are local Amish, to hell with your licensing requirements, literally in this case. Are you claiming to be unable to match the oligarchic wealth and military might of the Amish?
I happened so it must be possible. Non-Amish Americans surrendered without fighting. Because they don't have the unflinching courage of a bunch of pacifists.
Second, they stopped protesting. How did they "claw back" anything without even protesting? Without lawsuits? You're not dumb enough to suggest voting did anything? The Regime just got too tired to bother or something. It's not 100% clear.
"Yes, a literal fascist ended slavery and hereditary social class."
https://nitter.42l.fr/GraniRau/status/1560516829814169600
You don't fuckin' say. I'm so shocked.
The world, she is a mysterious place.
Background: every Communist is gay, so gay Communism is redundant. The only question is whether they hide their desire to diddle little boys or not, based entirely on considerations of politics and power.
Does Clinton look like he loves his wife? Obama? Do they even look like they're attracted to them? They're pairs, but they were never pair bonded. If they aren't literally φαγγωτς they might as well be. You can't marry a six-year-old, and even if you could, the twisted relationship is extremely doomed. Looks like most of them prefer beards, but that ain't because they're straight. Why not just grab any old ho and make do?
Bonus round: sodomy is fucking disgusting, even if you're gay. If you're straight and you think having homo sex is repulsive; yes, for a homo, straight sex is just as disgusting, but the competition isn't exactly a better option. If they're bored enough they'll bang their wives, because, again, why not? Your options are: do something gross to get off, or do something else gross to get off. Thus the children help complete the illusion.
See also: all those "jokes" about wives demanding sexual attention. Oh noes, I had to sleep with the woman I chose to marry, how terrible. How could anyone shoulder this burden. The "joke" is that the comedian is a sodomite or is playing to a crowd of sodomites.
What if Stalin wasn't gay? What if he was just kind of a psycho, so he ended up in the halls of Satanist power?
He would inevitably notice, due to the close proximity, that everyone else was a pedophile. He might then conclude, given that everyone he knows is a pedophile, by induction everyone in Russia must be a pedophile.
And that's why he wanted to throw everyone in the gulag.
That's why he was utterly sure nobody but him deserved power, or even mind-your-own-business independence. Locally speaking, he was quite correct.
Why bother with any tactics but meatgrinder tactics? Frankly, the revolting perverts deserved no better, wouldn't you agree?
P.S. I expect in modern times a bunch of politicians pretend to be gay because the attraction of women is basically invisible to them compared to their coercive power addiction. Gets them out of maintaining a fake relationship. Relatedly, when you don't care about your wife, for some reason the risk of divorce is high. Modern divorce is expensive, not to mention embarrassing. Pretending to be gay and having a reverse-beard (probably also pretending to be gay) just makes sense. It's probably not 50%+ only because of the risk of betrayal. Hard to set up that conspiracy.
P.P.S. Darn funny that "he's not really gay" is now blackmail material in the semi-upper classes.
P.P.P.S. Macron acts attracted to his wife, which merely proves the rule: φαγγωτ or close enough. Severe sexual dysfunction.
It's best to ignore what the crazy mob is doing.
Since most y'all are already not doing that, let's laugh at how fantastic this is. https://nitter.unixfox.eu/ManakinSkywalk1/status/1554905506535424000
If you don't know what it's about, a quick scroll up and down at all the Americoids who fell for the scam can tell you anything you want to know.
You could immediately tell something was hinky because husbands and wives deserve each other. Either she was a horrible harridan or he wasn't nearly as bad as he's portrayed.
After a moment it was easy to tell it was mainly the wife humblebragging. "Yeah uh my lawyer husband is so terrible, lol. I hate that after only doing the dishes and cooking and cleaning the house and paying for everything, he thinks he's contributed." How terrible for you.
It's very important to her that you understand how amazing her husband is (and by extension how amazing she is for landing him), but she can't undercut their joint scam comic by doing it openly. I hope she has a Patreon. I'm sure it's well-funded.
Yes, it was all cynical lies from top to bottom.
One (1) reply understands what's going on, everyone else is virtue-signalling. Saying, "Yes sir, please scam me again sir." Don't worry, this demand will be supplied.
Oh, excuse me, two (2). https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Sofies_Truth/status/1554715932324397057
Ref: bearing false witness against the self.
Ref: toxoplasma of rage.
Throughout recorded history marriages have been arranged. This at least biases stable pair-bonding in humans against the women having any opinions about her stable-pair bond. A woman will receive stable and sufficient husbandry even if she's indifferent to her husband, because her father cares about her and his own grandchildren, and thus there is no evolutionary pressure to retain husband-directed instincts.
The women's opinion is disproportionately important for cheating on her husband.
Result: a woman who follows her preferences will (disproportionately) genetically assume she's committing adulterous fornication and there is no future in the relationship. If the relationship is not widely known it will likewise trigger her secrecy instincts; she will assume it is secret because it must be secret. That if too many find out about it, she will have to stop.
Her genes will assume she's cucking her present or future husband and will "enjoy" the process because cucking is a fantastic strategy for women...assuming paternity tests don't exist. Her genes know nothing about paternity tests.
Likewise she will see her much-less-excited sisters in stable pair-bonds, enjoying only their vestigial remnants of husband-keeping instincts.
Basically, coercion is dysgenic and addictive.
It requires future coercion to correct; in this case let women think they're cheating and then shotgun marry them, for hundreds and hundreds of years consistently, until both men and women's genes learn that sex == marriage. Then, once roughly corrected, it is equally important to stop, lest a new distortion is created.
Two kinds. The kind where you're not sure what's out there, so you act as if there's nothing. The kind where you're not sure what's out there, so you act as if there's something.
The first is exactly what its reputation and stereotype say it is. An atheist who is squirmy about it. It's someone who doesn't respect your beliefs but wants to pretend they do. "I think I see nothing, but I'm not going to say so."
The second is humility. After all, it's not hard to come up with folk who thought they saw something and were obviously wrong. Do you have some decisive advantage? Might you not also be wrong? "I think I see something, but I'm not sure what it is or what I should do about it. Nevertheless, I'm going to take a guess." Humility with initiative.
Background: thing-which-moderns-have-forgotten-every-word-for-except-God.
God isn't Godlike; not because god isn't divine, but because you have approximately 30 serious misunderstandings about what 'godlike' means.
Main body: god wants you to have both eyes.
God doesn't give you eyes solely so you can give them back. Don't be like Odin; keep and cherish them instead.
If you want knowledge, don't do weird ritual sacrifices. Just ask. The only thing you need to sacrifice are your lies. The idea is to see more, not less.
Christians are not encouraged to understand Christianity, because Christianity was always Satanism. If you get too concrete and specific it reveals the lies and contradictions, so it's best to "take it on faith," see. The best liar is someone mindlessly and uncritically repeating the prevarications of others.
It's still as transparent as glass but that's nevertheless the best you can do.
Apparently folk don't know how to fit a Legion.
There are innumerable good Legions outfits. Once again, they're sleeping on ion; my favourite uses four xyphos wings, though this is largely AI-banned.
There's also gauss/mauler sniper with bombers or thunders, or mark IX + hephaestus linked + pilums, or some sort of needler + hellbore combo...
Two heavy plus five medium focused forward is basically a reliable Onslaught broadside, less the pulse cannon and instead with fighters. It's really not bad. If the main flux pool seems low to you, then use heavy armour so it can drop the shield without worry. Alt: gauss so it doesn't have to get shot. However, because it does indeed have all these weapon mounts, you do want it shooting the weapons, or you might as well bring two Mora.
I suggest maulers instead of missiles because the AI will waste all your missiles anyway. The gauss+mauler damage profile is agonizing, so the low flux support doesn't matter. If your gauss build can't stay away from the front lines, then use the xyphos on it so the harassers get hardlocked.
Folk seem to like the Legion XIV, so let's do the annihilator version. The AI will a) not close and b) waste all the missiles on the shield, so this is definitely player-only.
Step 1: burn drive up to them and focus your twin storm needlers on their face. When they drop the shield, turn on the annihilators. Congratulations, due to the four xyphos LPCs, it can't shoot at you, so you just sit there until you win. With five annihilators, it will not be long. Also if they do manage to pop a shot off, the rockets will try to block it.
The key is you have eight ion beams but have to pay the flux for zero ion beams = 160 OP worth of vents alone. Not to mention the 96 OP worth of laser gun, at a cost of 60. Yikes.
You're not using any of the small slots, because the xyphos have your PD handled. It's like 8 burst PD lasers, again another 56 OP worth, again at the low low price of 60. They keep firing while you vent and you don't have to pay the flux for these either.
Also they'll body block shots now and again. They don't die, so there's no need for expanded deck crew. You also don't need an ITU. You do want expanded missile racks though.
Alternatively, you can do pilums + storm needler + hephaestus. Firing both guns costs 0.67 flux/damage on shields, 0.69 flux/damage on armour, and given it has both explosive and kinetic, the target can't profit by putting the shield up or down. Especially with the eight xyphos fighters raining on its parade. Contrast mjolnir at 1.25. The mk9 has range, but it also has downtime, unlike both of these guns. Due to the xyphos disabling the PD, the pilums will actually hit sometimes. And you don't have to worry about the AI wasting them.
P.S. Five heavy needlers is an insane amount of shield burst. Pairs nicely with hephaestus. Want HVDs instead for the AI, though, since it has no idea about its own shield behaviour.
P.P.S. Maybe do quad trident instead of double Mora, since it has the OP and you don't have to babysit it to get it to coordinate with itself?
P.P.P.S. For stupidly optimized non-missile damage, use three assault chainguns with two storm needlers. Once they drop the shields against the needlers, just hit 'em with the chainguns to raise their flux and thus their EMP arcs from the xyphos. But then, why would you since the AI can't use this either?
They say science isn't supposed to have value judgments, but this is only because they inevitably get politicized. It's not supposed to have erroneous value judgments, because it's not supposed to have erroneous anything.
However, there are several ways to define value in a scientific way. If you don't like the first three, then use the fourth; you don't have an excuse.
E.g. the fact science isn't supposed to have value judgments is itself a value judgment. Oops. That it's not supposed to have errors is a value judgment. Oops. Fuck off with your politicized moralizing.
It is not only possible, but easy, to show that politicizing and moralizing are inherently of negative value. If you like the results it doesn't have to be politicized. You just buy it. It's only necessary to politicize if someone doesn't like the result; having to do it at all proves it shouldn't be done.
Apparently folk don't know how to fit an Eagle. Clipped Wings - An Eagle Thread
The key is ions. You need a bunch of ions to get anything done. If you try it on a Falcon you'll run out of slots for doing damage, while neither Eradicators nor Champions can load both HMGs and an ion fusillade.
That said yes the Eagle is basically a falcon +50% except it has a giant speed malus for no apparent reason and relatively shitty flux stats since it only has +24% ordnance points. Although apparently this is a normal ratio; the Eagle is 87% as efficient as the Falcon, and an Aurora is 88% as efficient as an Eagle. Hull mods fit easier and the firepower is more naturally concentrated on larger models.
Due to AI being artificial idiocy, the Eagle doesn't have better survivability. The Falcon can flee and the Eagle kind of can't because it doesn't know how to use manoeuvring thrusters in any way except on cooldown. In theory having +50% more slots makes the Eagle better at burst, but this only means it is faster at winning overmatched fights it was going to win anyway.
You could build it to bully destroyers, perhaps, if you have some weird destroyer vendetta. Fleet situation only, since it's too slow to escape destroyer pincers if it tries to solo. Note that two heavy blasters gives you 1000 DPS for 1440 flux, whereas three pulse lasers gives you 900 DPS for 900 flux. Functionally that's 29 extra OP for vents compared to trying to do 900 DPS with blasters. (That's 98% as efficient as a Falcon!)
--
If you want the AI to pilot it, it should be a support cruiser. Give it hypervelocities and gravitons, then tell it to escort a capital, which can then focus on explosive damage. Doesn't matter that it's slow, since it only has to be faster than its buddy. I think having only one ion beam isn't worth the effort. Gravitons do 200 shield damage/sec for 75 flux, plus they cripple fighters and don't cost ordnance points. They scale with themselves; the more you have, the greater percent of their dissipation you're negating. Especially nice when it's over 100%. "Flank this, wise guy." Note that for EMP purposes, HVDs count as half an ion weapon due to their fire rate.
--
For a self-piloted Eagle, use the comically overpowered heavy machine gun. Three of those on the front will strip the shields from any non-Paragon. Step 2: four ion weapons. I found two smalls and two mediums worked well. Use the pulsers, here they're better than the beams for various reasons. You can also go for three small, but having at least one PD laser is handy. On the remaining medium energy slot, use a heavy blaster or a phase lance. I added salamanders since small missile slots are just kind of sad on cruisers. Salamanders feed into the EMP theme and help you deal with faster destroyers or frigates.
Two HMGs and one assault chaingun might also be fun. I haven't tried it yet. I also haven't tried double AM blaster + triple ion pulser.
Anyway, fly right up to folk, pop their shield, then ion their weapons into oblivion. You'll often catch their engines too. Helpfully the Eagle has manoeuvring jets to help charge from their maximum range toward your HMG range. Since they now can't shoot at you, you can vent in their face. Suggestion: resistant flux conduits. Suggestion: have the rest of the fleet geared for endurance and set to defend so they can be a huge distraction and you can flank with your assassin.
If you have a heavy blaster, then normally rely on the ions for defence and don't put your shield back up. Hammer, vent, repeat. The phase lance is easily cheap enough to kill a thing before you need to vent a second time even with shields up, but is slower. Maybe try bringing an escort with finishers and help them out with a blaster.
This loadout destroys the simulator Aurora comically well. 37% more ship that's nevertheless faster? Yeah that's nice, I have three HMGs, your flux stats mean nothing. Hey uh your plasma injector doesn't work so hot when your engines have flamed out. The Eagle does have to keep the HMGs on and eating all your flux due to the Aurora's omnishield, but the Aurora has no armour so the ion pulsers can get through it by themselves.
--
The above loadout is especially bad for the AI because it will flux itself out wasting the pulse ion charges on shields, and has no idea it can and should vent when it can't be shot at. However, it destroys the Aurora so bad even the AI can kill it without a scratch to the hull.
I did try pulse lasers + assault chainguns, but it turns out you really miss the ions and the flux efficiency of the HMGs is very important.
--
Perhaps you could use unstable injector and make a burst-focused anti-carrier assassin? Go around the back and clean up while the rest of your fleet anchors the battlefield.
As most things don't, it doesn't apply to everyone.
Bad question: "Is an unexamined life worth living?"
Good question: "For whom is an unexamined life worth less than nothing?"
The bad question is fully unanswerable without doing mental gymnastics with your definitions. Have to do weird things with averages or have a baroque idea of [examination].
The good question inherently answers the bad question at the same time, in addition to several other virtues. It focuses the mind on the range and why the range is the shape it is. It gets you out of binary thinking into real-number accounting. It acknowledges that debates on this question are a matter of degree, not kind.
Unfortunately I don't care about the answer. I found out by trying it. Having examined my life: yeah, the unexamined version was basically terrible. Now I don't need to know who else would benefit and who wouldn't; I can't and wouldn't de-examine my life regardless of what the answers are.
Still, it's clear that it isn't for everyone, the question is merely when it's wise to trigger the practise.
Further, voting bloc principle. "What if everyone acted like you do?" They don't, though. I don't lead a voting bloc. I'm only deciding for myself. If I had a vast following the calculus would be different, but I don't. (Yes, that does mean there's no solid reason for me not to litter. Whether I do or not is an aesthetic choice.)
This is itself an example of the profits of examining your life. Wards stuff off.
P.S. What would happen if large populations did act like me? Easy: whatever problem the idiot is bitching about wouldn't have existed in the first place. The fact they're having issues is already proving that most don't act like me.
telogender? cyclogender? depregender?
no, never mind, it's nothing
Hollywood really likes to kill your family. (See also: superheroes.)
The only time you're allowed to have a family on TV is when it's a soap opera. (But then soap opera family. Functional.) If nobody bites it, the hack writers can't handle the plot. The relationships are too complex. Have to have scenes with, like, more than two characters interacting.
In Hollywood, nobody has parents. Or children. Or gods, for that matter; not a single speck of real piety. If your family is already gone they'll kill your little dog too.
And then you wonder why there's issues with the birth rate.
Is this something to do with Jewish parents being completely insufferable nags?
Not only can you not have a family in Hollywood, you can't even have friends. You wouldn't dream for a second that any of these characters like each other.
Are these actors supposed to be any good? To me being "friendly" looks like they low-key want to kill each other, but are too tired to bother. Seems to be more acting during interviews than on film and broadcast.
They're going out of their way to be unrelatable, aren't they? If the story isn't entirely irrelevant to your life, their work is not yet done.
I'm remembering the Shakespeare-style formulaic two-regular-blokes comic relief in Pirates of the Caribbean. I'm thinking the writers need training wheels.
It's boring. They start with impoverished worlds and tightly restricted relationships, and then kill some of them. Lame. No wonder they have to lean so heavily on spectacle. It's not like they have anything else to lean on.
AND they're not very good at spectacle. Avatar was the last time anyone put effort into environments.
But seriously Disney has a massive hard-on for making "kids" movies where the parents die. It's a mass child-traumatization firm.
Parents happily line up to have this sewage poured into the eyes of individuals they allegedly love. Supply meets demand. "Honey, all your heroes act as if we're dead. Act as if we're dead too, okay?" Can't say such parents don't deserve it.
Socrates: "Hey guys, you need to answer these questions."
Athens: "No we fucking don't."
Gnon: "Yes you fucking do."
The history of western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. That's bad, because Plato did not correctly answer Socrates' questions.
The history of western politics is simply Athens, repeated again and again: failing to even make a good-faith attempt to answer Socrates' questions, and Gnon remarking, each time, that this is not good enough.
Socrates' questions are not hard to answer. With Aristotle's additions, it's downright trivial. Athens would have had to learn Logos to answer Socrates in the flesh. Aristotle gave them Episteme, honouring the imperial might of physics.
That was a lie: Athens didn't need Logos to answer Socrates. The problem was that they already knew the answers but didn't like them. They didn't have Logos because they already threw it away; honouring Logos would have required them to submit to the wisdom represented by Socrates. Socrates asked the questions because he knew they could not admit the answers were they answers.
Satanism exactly as Christianity describes: rebellion against Existence per se.
The root of all things is Existence per se.
(P.S. Q: How dumb is Academic philosophy? A: It's necessary to point out Existence is the root.)
The criminal primarily victimizes their neighbours, because they're close. Likewise, when someone rejects Existence, the first Existence rejected is the closest one; they reject themselves. Their own Cosmos. It is inherently an ideology of suffering and failure.
Speaking of Christianity, it's a failed answer to Socrates' questions. Specifically a limited hangout. Europeans have latched onto it as a close approximation of a falsification to Socrates' answers that doesn't immediately get them killed. Sadly, Gnon is merciful, or at least lazy, so it is possible to approximate a falsification of something which is in fact true.
Christians like Plato due to being brothers in error. Sneaky rebels instead of honourable forthright rebels.
"I'm not really rebelling against you, daddy Gnon! I'm totally trying my best!"
Gnon: "No you fucking aren't."
A parasocial relationship is generally bad, especially when it becomes a one-sidedly deep relationship.
What do you call this relationship when the other side is an inanimate object, like a film series? At least if it's a teddy bear you can hug it. If it's something abstract all you can do is pine from afar and imagine it thinks about you.
The slaves were never freed. This is not an accident or oversight, the point was that slavery was too good for Bantu-Americans, America wanted it to be worse for them, and the Bantu just sat there and took it. Nobody asked if they wanted off the plantations, because they already knew the answer would frequently or even normally be 'no.' That and wrecking stuff to show they can wreck stuff.
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/ReCaathificatn/status/1554056589077790722
Likewise, nobody asked if kids wanted to be in school.
Partly this is trying to outlaw the lower class by outlawing lower-class behaviour.
Raze the slum, right?
Theory: no slum, no slum dwellers.
Reality: personnel is policy. There are still slum dwellers, but now they are homeless instead of having slums to live in.
Mainly, America hates children for being weak, punishes them by sending them to school, and the parents just sit there and take it.
It is not a coincidence that homework is unpaid labour.
There is no such thing as free speech, for the same reason there is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you're talking with the ingroup, then you're at peace. Peace speech.
If you're talking with the outgroup, then you might be using a trade pidgin; this is trade speech. Passing spices along. The speech is an adjunct to materiel flows.
Otherwise, it's war speech. The audience isn't friendly. They can't hear you. You can only damage them. They only listen to you at all due to various bugs. Likewise, you can't hear them.
The correct response to war speech is always censorship. If they won't shut up, force the issue by killing them. It's very literally war.
Only peace speech has any possibility of genuinely being communication. However, even then, only in special cases. Usually ingroup speech is dominated by groupthink; the communication is wholly hierarchical. The tribal chief tells everyone what to think, and then they do.
Largely I see the whole ncov thing as folk suddenly paying attention to something that happens all the time. Bad flu season is bad, wow. Much panics, many fear.
Okay, but what if the knew they were trying to create bioweapons at Wuhan, so when it escaped they thought they had a real crisis on their hands? Only their bioweapon engineers were incompetent so it was a massive squib. Burger type: nothing.
Yes, it is a bioweapon. Sorry, this is the state of the art of bioweapons. Note whoever was targeted, it hit everyone, exactly everyone was warned bioweapons would do.
Regardless, the main point is that whatever story we were told can be ruled out immediately. Something happened, but it's hard to say what, exactly.
Aside from the fact I learned that the CCP retained the Communist fondness for Potemkin villages.
Anyway, how's about those food plants, eh?
Again: is this something that normally happens and folk have decided to notice this instead of something else, or is there really an uptick of food plants burning down?
How many plants are there total? Over 35,000. If ten burn down a week, you lose somewhat over 1% a year. The actual rate appears to be 3/month.
Defection = defection.
Do I need to explain that, descriptively, the difference between war and crime is a matter of degree? Am I explaining that the sun rises in the morning, or is this controversial?
It's defection, and the correct response is to neutralize the defector. In a war, there's a lot of defectors. Crime usually refers to a small handful. However, logically speaking, every crime is an act of war. If it's necessary to mobilize an army to put it down, then you mobilize an army.
Even something as little as bad words. If someone is speaking unkindly to you and refuses to stop when asked, you can go ahead and declare war on them, because they have already implicitly declared war on you.
Note that war is the default state of human groups, not peace. A formal peace treaty is necessary to define the conditions of cooperation, especially when communication is expensive or otherwise limited. Sans treaty, whoever first consciously realizes they're at war will gain an advantage.
Mortality salience leads to group selection. When folk are neurotic enough to be terrified, they clump together Borg style, trying to become a mass of identical NPCs.
Jews are perhaps smart enough to do this to themselves on purpose to retain their clannishness in the fact of State persecution of clannishness.
Likewise, antisemites, especially the most (rhetorically) violent antisemites, help enforce the ingroupishness norms. "If you stray from us you'll be picked off by yourself."
P.S. Ultimately da joos don't matter and you can go ahead and forget they exist. They don't matter because they are weak, but even if they weren't, the solution is the same regardless of whether they exist or not, so it still wouldn't matter.
