Just World by Caste

If you give a coward his own battalion, he will only die on the battlefield.
If you refuse to give a great warrior an army, he will merely raise his own.

If you give a poor person a bunch of money, they don't become rich. They just spend it all.
If you take away a billionaire's money, they just earn it all back. 

If you give a stupid person a bunch of education, that only gives them more to foolishly forget.
If you try to withhold information from a true scholar, he will become wise just to spite you. 

Genius that's worth cultivating doesn't need to be cultivated. You can only repress it through devilish luck or extraordinary effort.
Genius that needs to be cultivated is, by and large, not genius. You have found a pig you want to put lipstick on. 

The question is not about potential, it's about whether you want your geniuses to contribute to your society or to oppose and exploit it.

Army Bullets Smol

Well I feel dumb.
Stupidly obvious reason military ammo is smaller than civilian ammo: it's lighter, you can carry more individual rounds. 

Turns out it's a good idea for other reasons as well, but IMO the above one cinches it all on its own.

Original Cringe

Cringey clown world obtains because all the countries are full of cringe people. 

The term "sin" glorifies what's wrong far too much. Even calling it a sin is itself thing-often-called a sin, the thing-often-called-a-sin of pride. It's too lame to be called a mistake; it can't harm a fly. You're not upsetting god, you're only embarrassing yourself. Even calling this "rebellion" a toddler tantrum gives it more respect than it deserves. The toddler really means it and doesn't know any better.

Lost Art: Enamel

This is done in glass. Functionally artificial gemstones, meaning durable and easy to clean. Difficult or impossible for the colours to fade. You could theoretically eat off this plate daily without undue hassle. 

I particularly enjoy the creative expressions, the shading, and the fact they clearly didn't suffer from prudery. 

If you want a less whimsical take, here you go.

Imagine not being too poor to afford nice plates.

Wikipedia Broke Down and Confessed Democracy = Sophism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophist&oldid=1098051145#Democracy

"The historical context provides evidence for their considerable influence, as Athens became more and more democratic during the period in which the sophists were most active."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You may be asking, "Hey Alrenous, why is America administered by a bunch of lawyers?" I'm glad you asked.
Quote: "the sophists were the first lawyers in the world." There you go!

--

The Left consistently ruins its own reputation and has to shed its old labels and adopt new fake labels. Almost like a lawyer or a sophist or something.

The term "Sophist" was one of the first victims of this dynamic.
"Through works such as these, sophists were portrayed as "specious" or "deceptive", hence the modern meaning of the term."

I remain somewhat puzzled by the way everyone just lets them get away with it. Never forget, DNC = Sophist = Communist = etc etc.
Even in recent times, progressive => liberal => neoliberal => woke... Bruh, this is the most transparent ploy. Call them on it already.

Literally, "Sophist" translates as "wisdomist." In other words, never mind changing their spots and getting away with pretending the leopard underneath has changed, why weren't Sophists laughed out of town at first sight? "Hello, we are the incarnations of Hubris." Indeed you are, indeed you are. 

Imagine I founded the Virtuous Paragons tomorrow and everyone just took me seriously. Big WTF from me, fam. Shit, why don't I unironically found the We're Better Than You club. 

--

If you want to go digging through the old article versions, you can find the one where they straight denied that Sophists caused democracy, but it smelled so viciously of [the lady doth protest too much] they had to stop. Background: Wikipedia is a terrible liar. When they try to hide things, it almost always merely becomes highlighted...
Turns out you can't exactly hire a top shelf Sophist for $0 per hour. It's all wannabees. Excepting of course the numerous edits that happen to come out of DC, particularly Foggy Bottom. Almost as if they're being paid tax dollars to muddy Wikipedia or something. They seem to focus on celebrities, politics, and religion (but I repeat myself), so outside those areas it's fine.

New Feminism Take

What if these women are ashamed of being so weak, so they pretend to be strong to hide from their own shame? They think their men deserve women who don't hold them back so much, but Christianity did them dirty and told them there was no way for women to invigorate their wills, so they have no choice but to turn to delusion.

Fat Control Mastery

Rectification: you don't want to lose "weight" you want to lose fat, especially low-density fats made out of fructose. 

I have mastered weight control but it seems I never actually wrote it down.

Step 1: saturated fats control hunger; a full red-meat-based diet results in essentially no hunger whatsoever. Though you can also just throw some lard on rice or whatever.

Step 2: fasting.
Don't limit calories, eliminate them. Go 48+ hours without eating. Result: fat reduction. Not a result: significant discomfort. For me it results in low energy, but it's not uncomfortable. Indeed can easily go long enough that I get too tired to cook...

Losing weight after saturated-fat satiety is so easy that it doesn't matter at all if you gain it back later. Try not to yo-yo excessively, I guess.

Calorie restriction is weird and bad for you. If you eat, eat until you're full. Maybe don't stuff yourself? However, if you give it a few minutes and you're still hungry, keep going. Calorie elimination is normal and good for you. Indeed if you have a cut or scrape, try not eating for a few days to accelerate the wound-closing process.

Vegetables are for spice, not nutrients. Meat provides everything you need.
You don't get tired of meat any more than you get tired of air. You get tired of herbivorous dishes precisely because they don't provide everything you need and should only be eaten occasionally or by necessity.

Since Tattoos are Fear, Women Can Have Them

You get a tattoo when you're afraid of something. Since there's nothing wrong with women being cowards, some subset of tattoos are fine on women, ironically enough.

No gotcha man, I'm not advocating for tramp stamps. I don't care to define it exactly because I don't own tattooing and as such ultimately my opinion doesn't matter. 

If nothing else, getting a tattoo says you're aesthetically inferior and require improvement. Women shouldn't think that, but asking them to stop is a big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and hence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ all 360 degrees around.

Point of Order: Not Transgressive

The Regressive Inquisition likes to portray itself as transgressive and iconoclastic. This is pure nonsense. 

It was always, since 1776 at the absolute latest, only agitating for its own norms instead of yours. It is iconoclastic against outgroup icons. It is transgressive because its boundaries run across the grain of yours. In other words it's a totally normal monkey troupe doing normal monkey-screeching. (Except slightly more insane than usual, and using a parasite strategy where they camouflage themselves as outgroup.) 

If you look at the "transgressive" things it did in like the 60s, it's the same "transgressive" things it wants to do now. I'm looking particularly at Star Trek; it "transgressively" had a black woman / white man pairing. Sixty years later, they're still hitting the same Revolution drum. If you trace it back further, you will find none of the "forward" thinkers are anything except standard, quotidian, and ancient thinkers, but with a dose of opposite-day.

It was stale on day 1 and at ground 0; it only saw success because its opponents were even worse. 

(So, hint: don't deserve it, and you'll be fine.) 

I will double down: actually it's not iconoclastic or transgressive even in a relative sense. 

Communism's true colour is a bipartisan purple.

The reason the Regressive Inquisition "camouflages" itself as the outgroup is because it was always outgroup. It merely took (some of) the outgroup's reasoning to the logical conclusion, instead of stopping on some unprincipled exception or another. The differences between this ingroup and this outgroup are more cosmetic than essential. 

The Regressive Inquisition casts down the idols that its own host population considers to be false. Sure these idols did little things like prevent poverty and death, but who cares about that? Are you saying you put material comforts above faith in God? Shame on you. Why shouldn't we slay anyone not willing to die for THE LORD? Without the "good" word they will only go on to sin again - we're just helping them avoid a descent into total depravity! Look, guillotining a sinner hurts them more than it hurts you. It's self-sacrifice; they have to go on living in this vale of tears, whereas you are excused. 

It's the conservative right that's transgressive, not the liberal left. They keep wanting to, you know, not-guillotine sinners and foreigners (but I repeat myself). Sometimes they suggest not stealing things that aren't even nailed down! Only sometimes, but still! What heretics! Don't you know a rich man can't fit through the eye of a needle?

You can always tell you have a great cult going when the god is more interested in your willingness to die for it than in keeping you alive. Yeah, er, sign me up. Definitely not deviant at all. The point of the heavens is to defect on its own worshippers, right?

The only reason the Regressive Inquistion looks like outgroup to ingroup is due to the narcissism of small differences. That one's yarmulke is dyed the wrong black! Burn the witch! Nobody who is genuinely outgroup understands what they're even fighting about. Nobody - not even ingroup - gives a shit whether god is three or god is one, but they do give a shit about having an excuse to beat someone down and kill them if they won't grovel enough. "That one's Communism is mauve rather than cerise! Throw the kulak down the well!"

Und so, here we are.

Anglo vs. Saxon = Roundhead vs. Cavalier

The rest of the world understandably lumps Saxons and Anglos together. They're very similar.

However, they're not similar enough to prevent irreconcilable differences. They constantly clash along Cavalier vs. Roundhead lines. If you live locally, the differences are more than noticeable.

Naturally this is [narcissism of small differences], but since Anglos (not Saxons) conquered the world, their tiny narcissistic shit fits have become relevant to everyone else. It really helps to recognize whether you're dealing with a Whig or a Tory. Foggy Bottom vs. Arlington. Etc etc etc. 

The colonies were Saxon, the Empire was Anglo. Massachusetts is Anglo, Texas is Saxon.

P.S. lmao @ white "race." What particular village your ancestors lived in 300 years ago can make it impossible to get along with someone whose roots wind to a few villages over, even if you're both totally deracinated and have lost your history. Just shake and go your separate ways. Don't try to pretend every European should be or even can be on the same side.

Rescuing Civilization

...from itself. "I can save her!"

Option 1: civilization can be saved.
Option 2: civilization cannot be saved; save yourself. 

The market is smarter than you. There is plenty of demand for saving civilization. If it could be supplied, it would be. E.g. if writing a book was the solution...a book has been written before. It's been tried. 

There is much higher demand for looting and razing civilization. The market is providence, and will provide.

On the contrary, it turns out saving yourself is civilization. Secure your shit and mind your own business. If everyone did this, civilization would have no need of being saved. Since they don't, unless you want to go down with civilization when Gnon has his final words on it, you must adopt the minority position. 

If everyone saves themselves, then, ultimately, it turns out the ship didn't go down in the first place. Everyone is fine. 

The ship is going down precisely because the passengers are poking holes in the hull. If you put them on a lifeboat they will only poke a hole in the lifeboat, because, ultimately, they don't like being afloat. 

Your only options are to save yourself, or go down with them. 

And yes indeed, you can save yourself. It's not even hard. Just steal a lifeboat. They're all over the place; unless you try to steal a luxury lifeboat or something equally retarded, it's very likely they won't even notice it's missing. 

Yeshua's saviour complex is specifically designed to destroy you, so give it up like a drug habit. Put your own oxygen mask on first. Put your own parachute on first. When, inevitably, your "fellow" passengers bat away the mask and the parachute, let them. They want to die, and that's they're right. Aren't you glad you didn't try to put their mask on first? 

Civilization wasn't. It was always barbaric, and never civilized, except by accident. When it was so poor it died when it failed to be civilized, sometimes it was, temporarily and in a limited fashion, civilized. Don't be surprised the boat is sailing to hell. That's what it was consciously, intentionally designed to do from the very start. No wonder everyone who gets on it keeps trying to make it go down; being sunk is what's for.

"Saving" civilization is sinking the boat, because it was a lie from the start. A boat specifically designed to go down. Its telos is to sink. The more you shore it up, the more efficiently it will pass into the briny deep.

How well known is it that Anglo society is based on lying constantly?

Growing up as an Anglo child, you're supposed to intuit that your parents and teachers are constantly lying to you. You're supposed to mimic them and lie right back. Status is judged based on how elegantly you lie. If you have something honest to say you're supposed to bankshot it - tell a lie that's kind of transparent, so basically being tsundere. 

American culture is basically Anglo culture. 

Is this well known? Should I explain this in more detail?
Is this weird occult knowledge, or would I be explaining that the Sun rises in the morning?

Nice Houses & Ambition

Blesséd be those of small ambitions.

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/siighchedelic/status/1543308614152200194
Replies good too.

I mean, I like these houses. They're, like, not-boring. Also not-bureaucrat, which is important. Can't really relate to the small ambitions, though. I just know the abstract theory.

Having great ambitions is to be pitied, not admired. A unfortunate blemish of the spirit. 

Though, if you do have them, it's worse to pretend. Fight with all your soul.

Low Friendship Demand => Low Friendship Supply

Friends are under-clustered. Why? - by Ben Southwood

Because you don't value friendship. 

"it’s proximity to job, safe and pretty neighbourhood with good amenities"

Revealed preferences: that is what you value. Your job, then a high-status neighbourhood, in that order.

You don't value friendship, because the State told you not to value friendship. It did this because if you have friends you might care more about what your friends think than about what the State thinks. How disobedient. Render unto Caesar. 

It's nice that the high-A crowd is noticing there's a problem, I suppose, but they will be wholly ineffective at doing anything about it, because peasants aren't lords. "Master master, can I live near my friends?" "No." "....okay...."

NB if cities weren't car-addicted, everyone would live closer merely by default. Maybe you couldn't trivially walk to your friends, but you could drive or take the tram in ~15 or whatever. Have to assume this is by design, that promoting cars was for exactly this purpose, until someone can prove otherwise.

Human Traffick to Martha's Vinyard

Moldbug's "they're totes sincere, for realz" BTFO by one madlad DeSantis 

It's Satanism. Satanists gonna Sate. They're just lying.

Admittedly they're highly convincing, what with all the practice. Cover their tracks well unless you really push the issue, for example. Unless you, you know, have heard of replication. Assume everyone is lying until there's specific proof to the contrary.

New Biden Conspiracy Hypothesis

Biden pissed someone off before the election. He was elected specifically to put him and his crime family into the crosshairs. 

Nobody would pay any attention to some random senator's kid. The Hunter "leak" is all staged - it was a professional op that they "accidentally" let slip to 4chan or whatever. 

Perhaps waited until after ncov so he could take the fall for that too. 2-for-1 deal. 

 

My first point: America is more corrupt than you can possibly imagine. It's basically impossible to be too cynical about these things.

Second point: you can make some truly outlandish stuff fit with the available facts. If the reality wasn't one flavour of outlandish or another, it would all be ruled out.
They're hiding practically everything because it really does have to be hidden at all costs. You have no idea what happens in lowbrow corporate boardrooms, never mind in DC itself.

"Considered Harmful" vs. Legalized Counterfeiting

When your country legalizes a crime, it doesn't stop being a crime, it merely becomes legal, so it happens more often. 

"The engineering mistake is an accounting practice called maturity transformation. In the best CS tradition—I consider it harmful."
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered/

When you mint coins without colour of law, especially out of worthless metals, it is considered counterfeiting. Almost always fraud, as it has the mint's stamp except it wasn't created by that mint.

What is fiat except printing money out of worthless materials? Fiat is inherently counterfeit. A counterfeiting monopoly, backed only by naked force.

Fractional reserve is handing out a coin or bill that was not minted at the mint. It is counterfeiting. 

Yeah maturity transformation is bad too I guess. Fraud and stuff. Claim: "On Tuesday I will rightfully own $300." Reality: on Tuesday this guy will rightfully owe $500 in liabilities. Lie. Lies are bad, mmmkay. Moldbug does mention the c-word once, at least.

 

For some reasons, legalizing a crime and allowing it to occur regularly leads to deep structural problems. Astounding.

Basically: never hold fiat if you can possibly avoid it. It's a serious sin to fail to flip the bird at legal tender laws.

Primitivism is Profitism & Fascism is Absurdly Expensive

"Reading Gene Logsdon's 2010 book "Holy Shit" again. Consider that the most profitable farms in the US today are the Amish, typically on 50 acres, hand and horse powered, taking 920 hours per year in labor time. Less than half a normal working year (2080 hours in the US today)"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/wrathofgnon/status/1145957891607683072

I suspect the main thing is regulation. The Amish don't get farm bill money, which means they don't have to pay farm bill bribes. Naturally, such laws make food more expensive, not less. The Amish sue the black government when it tries to colonize them, and wins because they're serious.

However, it's also entirely possible that using a tractor costs you more money than you gain. Peasants vs. accounting; accounting wins in yet another walkover. I know for sure that cars cost more than they're worth, yet everyone has one. GM gotta get paid, I suppose; the purpose of the American voter is to be soaked by Fascist corporations. "You will own nothing...because we took it all."

Also the Amish food is organic, nutritious, and delicious.

Meanwhile the black government loves large farms, because the fewer farms there are, the fewer opportunities for its brain-dead bureaucrats to fuck up and let someone, like, run their own life. Ideally there would be one (1) farm in the entire country. They wouldn't lay off or furlough any USDA bureaucrats should this happen, of course. If you look, you'll find that USDA regulations make small farms de-facto illegal, and this is no mistake or accident. (Unless Amish, as above.) Or perhaps they make small tractors unaffordable using unnecessary and inefficient "safety" features like they do with cars. 

Just make being poor illegal, and nobody will be poor. Easy! That's totally how it works, right? Someone without brain cancer can legitimately think so? 

"You can get 58 acres for under 200k in Trinity County."

Broke: buying twitter.
Woke: buying a Benedict town. 

Musk has to deal with black-State bureaucrats all day, and has approximately the same life-satisfaction as an Amish farmer. His billions make up for the fact he's not Amish or pseudo-Amish: it's not a great trade. Does Musk work more 18 hours a week?

In a warm climate like California, you could even work two farms by staggering the harvest a little, at 36 hours a week. 

Because the farmers are putting a bunch of Veblenian consumption into the food-production pipeline, there's a bunch of unnecessary work that everyone else has to do to fund their Veblenian consumption; likewise, those feeding the farmer's status anxiety likewise feel immense status anxiety, and need their own palliative Veblenian consumption...

You know, if you worked on average 18 hours a week, maybe you wouldn't be stressed enough to need it.

Was the Bible's Author In Reality Named Lod?

 🤔

On Vengeance & Steelman of Mercy

Vengeance is righteous. Eye for an eye prevents the whole world going blind. It's only slurred as [vigilantism] and suchlike because your greatest local sinner is your black government; for stupid reasons your locals will assent to its assertions, and as such it's a no-brainer for the black government to disparage self-defence. Don't have to think about that one. 

However, mortal comprehension is limited; the layman's comprehension is particularly limited. Although vengeance is righteous it is also costly. Ultimately the purpose of vengeance is to serve the avenger. Refusing to pay excess vengeance costs comes off as being merciful. Once your opponent is neutralized, at least some of the time you can leave the issue to the heavens. You can punish them by sentencing them to live with a sinner for the rest of the lives - namely, themselves. Once they are no longer capable of harming you, the issue is between them and god. Piously trust in the heavens to take care of it, even if you don't personally understand the solution. 

Though if you were truly pious they would have been unable to meaningfully damage you in the first place. Inconvenience? Yeah, sure, all the time. Truly harm? Not so much.
You were only vulnerable at all due to your own sins. 

Given that you were basically the one at fault - you're more or else doing it to yourself - isn't that an argument for mercy? Otherwise aren't you shooting the messenger? Nope.
As per usual, a sin in the past will often demand a future sin. A past defection will require a future deviance to return the possibility of cooperation. Sins collect interest. 

In other words, once someone has sinned against you, you must respond with violence, or you will only encourage future sin. By making yourself vulnerable you enabled sin; by refusing to retaliate you only enable more sin. The righteous will not exploit your vulnerable state; at some point unrighteousness is execution-worthy. There is some level of vulnerability to temptation that should be fatal. If they have sinned badly against you, then they have revealed they are below that virtue threshold. It's time to manually manufacture some justice. 

However, once temptation is deterred and the sinner themselves is neutralized either passively or actively, there is no further need. Continuing is either bullying or impiety. (N.B. bullying isn't necessarily a sin, but you probably don't want to see yourself as a bully.) That is the time where you do the-thing-which-is-seen-as-mercy.

School, as Opposed to Learning or Discovery

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=school

"This is from Greek skholē "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness;"

Athens was a place of learning. In this learning place, skol meant to not-work. The archetype was a quiet garden. Outside, in other words.

A Prussian/American school is the exact perversion of this. It would take dedication and research for it to be more of the opposite of the Greek version.

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/pikeypilled/status/1536473893145399297

Predators Empower Prey; Against Mercy

The predator drives the prey to greater strengths. Mercy, in the long run, is a fatal disease. Ragnarok is real and genuinely inevitable, but IRL you can be strong enough to survive, as long as you haven't forsaken discipline. Anyone granting prayers for mercy is trying to hire Ragnarok as your assassin. 

If, as the silly Norse claimed, even the gods die in Ragnarok, you merely have to be stronger than the gods, now don't you? Turns out the Norse idea of immortals is impoverished, and you can indeed overpower their anemic depictions. Either Aesir are far less immortal than depicted, or they're so glorious they don't die when killed...

Ragnarok has happened before; we're not already all dead. It will happen again. Forsake mercy, as it is trying to make you forsake yourself. 

Wiping out the predator is immoral. It trades away the long term in exchange for the short term. Weakness is a sin and the predator is its nemesis. 

Regardless, weak prey is not glorious. The contest between predator and prey is glorious. All hail Mars, patron of contest, not patron of contestants. If either wins without trying, the other isn't good enough. The only thing wrong about this is trying to separate the unworthy from their just demise. Get stronger or perish. Seek greater glory or forsake existence. 

If you must build a snake-free garden, then it is imperative to replace the natural predator with artifice. Either re-create the selection under controlled circumstances, or regularly venture out of the garden into the real world. Ideally, both. 

Mercy is inglorious. It lionizes the toothless reject. It is the philosophy of the sneaking parasite. Parasites don't make anyone strong; they merely make you sick. Of all unworthy, inglorious things, the parasite is the most unworthy, the most inglorious. It deserves the least mercy, which is exactly why it can't stop talking it up. 

Caveat: women, it seems, aren't there to be glorious. It is normal to mercifully exempt women from the contest. However, the two go together. If a woman insists on seeking glory, then the mercy must be revoked, else she becomes nothing but a parasite. Friends don't let friends allow ignominy to their wives.

And yes there are times when the black government tries to prevent both mercy and contest. Fear not; black government is weak. They can barely get in your way, let alone abjure the law of the heavens. On a seemingly unrelated note, the true moral of the garden of Eden is that even under ideal conditions where is no "evil" in the garden and no "evil" can get into the garden through the fences, evil will form spontaneously from within. Trying to abjure contest is itself a sin; even a (theoretical) omnipotent immortal can't create a circle with corners or a married bachelor, and likewise they cannot create a sinless garden.

Tucker Carlson Proves Journalists Don't Matter

Carlson exists to demonstrate that it appears to be a gossip service because it is, in fact, a gossip service. [What the gossip is] doesn't matter in the slightest. There's no power here.[Who the gossip is from] is everything.

Journalists, like most politicians, are in the habit of getting in front of a train that's already moving and pretending to be leading it. The Regime loves them for this, since they're volunteering to be scapegoats. If they go off message it makes them feel isolated, so they don't. They are isolated all the time - who wants to be friends with a professional gossip? nobody sane - so it's very important that they avoid any possibility of feeling isolated. 

I'm so edgy and counter-signally I'll claim that the obvious is true: journalists look weak, weedy, substanceless, because there is in fact nothing there but a bit of fog. They sound dumb because this field, which, counter-intuitively, is exactly what it intuitively looks like, doesn't exactly attract the brightest stars. 

The gossip-monger doesn't start the rumours, they can only pass the right ones along. They re-write press releases because if they don't do that all that happens is they render themselves irrelevant. Then they realize that a simple ctrl-c ctrl-v accomplishes the same thing, but takes less time.

Human Value vs. Religion

The market is smarter than you but unfortunately it is downstream of religion.

As a result it's incredibly important to have open slave markets or some equivalent. You need to put a price on human life. With a price on it, then it can be accounted for. Then you can get e.g. the correct number of children per family.

When the local religion say life is "priceless" actually that sets the price to be zero. Things you can't buy aren't invaluable, they're valueless, because you also can't sell them. 

Nobody holds onto a life because they can't sell it; rather, they discard it the instant losses exceed profits. E.g. the blood market. You can't buy blood, which means it's sold as if it's valueless; not at all. If you have spare blood you just throw it out, because it's not even worth the trip to the clinic, never mind the return trip. Functionally blood donation only happens by mistake or accident. E.g. murder rates. If suppressing the murder rate has any cost, why bother? They can't pay you for it even if they wanted to.

The security angle: if you're told a thing is valueless because you can't sell it, you're often tricked into not securing it. Result: the black market wants to steal your organs. Result: the black government wants to steal your labour, and you, by and large, just let it. Result: when a firm causes depreciation of your body, you can only demand compensation sporadically and inconsistently. 

Your labour should be considered a joint-stock firm. Except the black government seizes ~30% of your stock for allowing you the privilege of being born. Since you're not allowed to sell stock in yourself, you can't even find out how much this costs you. 

We can estimate though; for the average man it's $200,000. Who cares about estate taxes with a birth tax of this size? Speaking of, your "education" costs you another $200,000 assuming you're only worth minimum wage. Thanks, Obama. Frankly, how is a school shooting anything but a reserved and conservative response to the government nakedly costing you $200,000 and simply lighting the cash on fire?  

The black government obviously doesn't want you to do the accounting and realize that being poor is more profitable than moderate pay, because the government doesn't steal nearly as much from the poor. Indeed a bunch of the cash stolen from average "normal" folk goes into the pockets of the poor. ProTip: if there's a long end of the stick, seize it. Don't wait to be handed the short end, as will happen by default.

 

Banning "slavery" means banning individual subject stocks. You can't sell yourself; you are told you are valueless. 

That said, only a moron would uphold a government that told them this. It's hard to say the morons don't deserve to be told they are valueless.

However, if you want to be healthy instead of laughably weak, it's important to flatly contradict the government: you are not valueless. Do not treat yourself as such, nor allow anyone else to impose costs on said value without paying for it. 

Black Market Implies Black Government

Oh shit.
Well, shit.

I just realized: there's a perfect adjective to describe defective or deviant government. It's black government, by analogy to a black market. 

And yes, black government implies a black market. Indeed it implies, what, three or four black markets? First for the perfectly legitimate white trade that the black government bans for embarrassing it, second a black market for the black goods that the black government needs to run, plus...

Anarchy = white government.
Cooperative government.
Or is it white government = anarchy?
Note that without a black government, there is nobody who can ban government firms. Black government implies government, because government. White government implies government, because there is demand for government, which will be met by supply if nobody gets in the way.

Black government is defined by an illegitimate crime: it governs coercively and involuntarily. Like a black market, a black government is inherently riddled with crime.

Even if you temporarily seize a black government system and dictate it "benevolently," inevitably it will fall to corruption, because involuntary government has no need to provide a service. You can't cancel if the losses exceed the profits. 

Black government is inherently irresponsible.

Necessarily, black government legalizes crimes and outlaws profitable and responsible white trades.  

Every government that shows up in the history books has been a black government. If there has ever been a white government before, the records and accounts of it have been lost.

The first white government, if it escapes the larval stage, will absolutely bulldoze its black competitors. Black governments know this best. They instinctively realize they cannot possibly stand up to a fully-realized white government, and manically search for any infant forms to destroy before they get "out of control" as it's put. 

Exit is critical because white governments inherently age into black governments. It is imperative that they die as quickly as possible once they reach that stage; likewise, since aging is not an intrinsic property of super-mortal organisms like a government, the prospect of imminent demise causes the white government to age much more slowly. In theory zero aging is possible; however it is unnecessary and likely impractical. 

Responsibility is critical. A white government that meddles with other white governments is not a white government.

The above two caveats aside, white government is defined by whatever the customers want it to be defined by.

I believe there is little to no demand for white government. It is in fact rhetorically possible to legalize a white government. China can have special economic zones, as can Honduras. Why not your country?

By pointing out that clearly the existing black government is fine and has nothing to fear from competitors; by insisting that clearly existing black government is scientific and wouldn't object to a scientific A/B test or control group or whatever, you could corner the Pope into allowing your special white-government economic zone. 

The problem is the residents themselves would fight you. Naturally the black government will try to backhandedly sabotage the project, and the local residents would aid and abet them in every way. They will believe every slur thrown, they will report every tiny infraction, they will try to subvert the white government by demanding black services, and it's endless. 

Further, the Amish already use white government; it only doesn't quite count because they have no security forces. I don't even have to argue that a $20 is lying on the sidewalk; I can point to the guy who already picked it up. By contrast, everyone who didn't pick it up - this is a non-scarce, non-excludable $20 - must have no demand for it.
You might be tempted to argue (as younger-me did, exactly as I was told to) they're just too stupid to think of picking it up. Go look at Unz and watch what happens when I specifically point out there's a $20 there and they can just pick up.

Utopianism Opposes Accounting

Utopianism is the idea that no costs need be paid. Utopianism is the idea that you can hold onto everything valuable and yet still obtain more valuable things.

They adhere to the daddy model of wealth because they are developmentally arrested at 3 years old.

Utopians have a problem with time since time is inherently being spent.

Markets, Popes, Individual Cultural Sovereignty, and Counterplay

The market is smarter than you, but unfortunately the market is downstream of religion. The local system of values determines - get this - what the residents value, which is the most important determinant of market prices.

Prices = supply cross demand. Demand = religion. Prices = supply cross religion. It's kind of important. 

You could say it's called the invisible hand due to its spiritual nature. 

Basically the Pope controls the market. It's important to know who your Pope is at all times, and therefore Americans not only don't know, but deny that they even have a Pope. Two layers of anti-security and anti-ownership. 

After all, the Pope told them he doesn't exist. And the Pope controls the religion, as per the name.  

If you know who your Pope is and what they're telling you to value, you can see if a particular price is low because supply is high, or because the Pope is making a mistake and telling folk to fail to demand things that are good for them. You can audit the system of values for consistency.

An Enlightenment principle is that nobody can guarantee that a consistent system of values is good. However, they say this to distract you from the fact we can indeed guarantee an inconsistent system of values is bad. More precisely, the more inconsistent a system is, the worse it is; scalar, not binary. Irrelevantly, I will also mention that the larger a system is, the harder it is to get it fully consistent, and so in fact consistency is a measure of goodness; there is only one value system that's wholly consistent, and it must be a good one by process of elimination.

It's important to outright reject the American Pope. You don't need to know who they are to know they're illegitimate. If you live in the GAE, you need to set a trigger. This habit: whenever you hear an idea, or even get reminded of an idea, ask yourself whether this is from the American Pope or not. Is it something he would say? If so, then discard it. 

Thus you need logic. Some of these ideas are load-bearing, and if you discard them, you need a replacement. If you're addicted to heroin, it's not bad luck or whatever. The heroin is providing for some need; not only that, it's so important it outranks degeneration and stealing and stuff. You can't just quit heroin, you need some replacement serving that need. In the case of degenerate Popery, you need to construct your own, which means applying logic. 

It's fine to put off discarding an idea if you get a backlog. However, only stop working through the backlog if you intend to be a victim instead of a living, vital organism.

There is some cognitive overhead. Generally it's important to keep track of what the folk around you are thinking. If you think differently - which you must if you intend to be healthy instead of laughably weak - this means you must keep track of two sets of ideas. Your own, and what you're supposed to be thinking. 

The main problem is the market is smarter than you even if you're the Pope, but the market is subservient to the Pope. It's an inherently revolutionary situation. The high is low, and the low is high.

However, I believe there is a solution. Would the Pope hide if they had nothing to hide? Would they choose obscurity if they had other forms of security? I think they would not.

Principle: a religion is illegitimate if it has no explicit Pope. Irresponsibility is a fatal accusation. The term "cowardice" is a) kind of meaningless to moderns and b) frequently misused by (of course) cowards. Nevertheless, this is the exact situation which gave cowards their horrible reputation. The modern Pope is a coward who hides from being associated with his own accomplishments. 

P.S. This is why plutocracy always comes after timeocracy. Taking responsibility requires courage; courage is a pre-requisite for wisdom. If you lose courage you automatically lose wisdom in the bargain.

The solution is market competition for Popes. Expose them. Create a market of markets.
Each Pope will have their own religion, which means their own market. However, having made the Popes responsible for the markets they own, the results of the market will be attributed to the Pope. They will no longer be able to blame their sins on anyone but themselves. 

Potential converts, given an open comparison between the options, will choose the correct Pope for them.
If that Pope is self-destructive, the trash will take itself out. The idea is to mind your own business; creating a market of markets makes other religions not your business. Let Gnon sort 'em out.

Too Poor to Afford Flood Protection

Fascists build on flood plains and then complain that their houses get flooded. They're too stupid not to build on flood plains, and, unlike the medieval Japanese, so poor they can't afford to lift their houses off the natural grade.

Being Explicit: No Distinction Within Fascism

You can make distinctions between Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Republic, and Fascism, but the in-practice differences are too small for anyone to care excepting the narcissism of small differences. 

There's a vaguely noticeable difference between feminine Fascism and masculine Fascism, but look: the difference between plutonium and arsenic is "don't eat it, you idiot," a difference of no difference. Step 1: don't be a Fascist. Step 2: you don't have to care anymore. Trash goes in the trash. There's no special trick to forgetting based on what's being discarded; plain forget about it. 

This is the main reason I like the six-point diagnostic. Fascism tries to camouflage itself, because it's hard to be entirely lacking in self-awareness; they know they have something to hide. Pierce the camouflage quickly and efficiently, then discard the apologetic. Trash goes in the trash.

It's all the politics of narcissism, all an attempt to return to stone-age tribal politics so your outdated 100-man-band instincts won't be misfiring except portrayed as somehow especially forward-looking. It's all Sophists cynically exploiting these weaknesses and temptations so that you serve their interests instead of your own. It doesn't matter which flavour of exploit it is; refuse to be exploited. Simply stop listening and they can't touch you.

P.S. But can it really be called exploiting? There is in fact high demand for Fascism. Sophists provide (the illusion of) supply of Fascism. The customers are happy,* the Sophists are happy. What's not to love?

All the whining about the constant litany of Fascist failure, I suppose. "Fascism didn't work, as any retarded idiot could have predicted. We must become more Fascist! Our faith wasn't strong enough!" Not lovable. The bitching gets old real fast. 

*(Until the country collapses and most of them die from falling debris.)

Disposable Cups for Disposable Company

It's not a so-called rational thing, but rather a thaumaturgic law of sympathy thing. Mortals habitually symbolize what they're doing in the tools they use to do it.
In theory you could use disposable tableware to make parties less expensive and thus have more and bigger parties, but in practice this doesn't happen. You use disposable tableware to signal to your guests that they don't matter to you and you shouldn't matter to them either. Competing to be as shallow as possible.

Regardless, Fascists are too poor to afford tasteful cups, not like iron age citizens.