Bears Repeating: Don't Need Scientific Permission

In short, if a study author is dumber than you, then if you disagree with them, it is overwhelmingly likely that they are wrong, not you.

If you're not reading this blog for the first time today, then with p < 0.05 between 98% and 99.5% of scientific paper authors are dumber than you. Epistemically speaking, you have total impunity for disagreeing with them. 

It's very important to get good enough at thinking that you can give yourself permission to believe things, rather than waiting for "scientific" permission. Believing in modern scientific papers is not a serious option. There is no shortcut to replace good reasoning and good judgment.

Modern scientific papers are not refined metal, they are raw ore. They are a source of hypotheses to test, not, in any way, the test themselves. No refinement happens before they reach your worktable.  

The only thing the whole paper/experiment does that a simple IQ test wouldn't do is to filter out the liars. If you knew in advance that you could win arguments by pulling out your IQ ID card, then what incentive do you have to tell the truth? There has to be some unforgeably costly demonstration of truth-telling.

For your own personal use, you already know if you're arguing in good faith or not, so you can use the simple IQ test. Bonus: the length of a paper is more than enough writing to accurately gauge someone's IQ. You can intuit that crud and move on with your day. 

Even in the unlikely event that a paper is by someone smarter than you, it merely means you have to read beyond the title or abstract. Now you have to filter out the liars the hard way - or perhaps, simply ignore too-smart papers as economically inefficient ore.
Which, you may notice, means modern scientific papers go in the entertainment section. Neither smarter nor dumber are worth much. Read for fun, not for profit.

The Solution to Culture War is Surrender

The culture war happens because the society is obviously not okay, meaning someone around here has to be not okay, so it's time to start a witch hunt. Problem: you find the witch, you burn the witch, but it doesn't solve anything because it's not the fault of your fellow peasants. You end up in an endless war, because you refuse to attack the enemy.

It's especially bad because, even when you finally purity-test everyone to hell and back and get together with your fem-bros, the society is still obviously not okay. Leftists all hate each other, but they somehow have to blame Trump for the fact they can't get along even when they're alone with each other. "Stereotype threat," lol. The mental gymnastics require Herculean cognition. Lots of strain on the ol' thinker. 

The enemy is yourself, by the way. You're staying with a society that's obviously not okay, rather than ditching it.
Either it's your society, as in you personally own it, or it isn't. If it is, you could just change it. You can't change it, so it isn't yours. Either conquer it or Exit. Don't blame some random hapless man-child.
The physical owner of the society unquestionably hates himself. He's deliberately maintaining a society that's obviously not okay.
It probably became not-okay because he hates himself, and he wanted and needed to punish himself. Mission successful.

I realized this because I was thinking about the college dorm. We had LAN parties, and they were pretty neat, which, socially speaking, meant everyone said: "You are basically okay," to each other. We could get along because we all saw the local society as basically okay. There was no significant blame to apportion out.

This requirement is a serious problem if society is basically not okay. 

The culture war happens because the culture is already dead. It's a symptom of zombie countries. You already fucked up terminally. Black society. 

Once a culture war starts, it's time to surrender. Easily let the witches run free, because it doesn't matter anymore. If you try to hunt them all that happens is you get dirty and the pig likes it. 

Once society is basically not okay, you have to quit. Trash it. Start over. Your options are to struggle, fight, pay every cost, ""sacrifice,"" and then lose anyway, or to skip to the end. 

If you stay with this society, I have to assume you hate yourself too. Husbands and wives deserve each other.

On the plus side this means both sides are destined to lose. Leftists are, also, completely fucked. Which makes sense, on reflection. They're rebelling against Reality per se. Gnon can do nothing but laugh.

Under Fascism, both left and right less-left feel like they're the underdog. Like they're both suffering under horrible tyranny. Counter-intuitively, this intuition is complete, correct, representative, and relevant. They are in fact being horribly oppressed. Nobody is winning. Nobody is happy. 

Well, I'm winning, and the Amish are happy. But, look, edge cases. Negligible. Exceptions that merely prove the rule. 

Though, I suppose since the source of the problem is self-hatred, everyone is winning. They receive the agony they want and need. Tyranny is the point and the goal. Strife and war is the end, not the means. Mission successful.

Reminder: Weaponize the Mods

I recently tested it in a live exercise. Someone on the Nova Drift steam forum bothered me, so I got him permabanned.

I probably overkilled. First I riled him all the way up into a frothing rage, then reported him with my Machiavellian manipulation module turned up to 10. Poked the dog until it bit, then had him shot. You likely don't need to get this fancy, but sometimes I like to swat fruit flies with my bazooka. 

The Machiavellianism super worked: they had to wait until they forgot I instigated the moderator procedure, meaning officially I was not involved at all. There is no formal/public and likely no private record of my involvement...meaning I could repeat this almost indefinitely without anyone noticing a pattern, as long as I don't deliberately invite comparison by copy-pasting the Machiavellian paragraphs or something.

It's actually immoral* not to weaponize the mods. Or the laws, for that matter. If you don't weaponize them, it just means someone more unscrupulous than you will weaponize them; generally, against you in particular.

*(morality isn't real, but you know what I mean)

Any forum (or society) which pretends mods (or laws) aren't for weaponizing is merely begging to be weaponized. If you don't have everyone annoying and inconvenient banned, you're merely giving them a chance to have you banned out of jealousy. The more stridently they claim to be fair and balanced, the better camouflage they supply to Machiavellian manipulators. Ask me how I know. 

 

For example, you could weaponize Titania McGrath's bit.
Have you ever noticed that Transgressives like to repeat every unsavoury rumour about Bantu? What if you dialled that up to 11? Every day, exclaim how racist it is to say that 13% commit 54%. Don't forget to be especially clumsy about it when you offer endorsements. "It's just evil to suggest that women might be deeply specialized at taking care of babies."
"It's horribly classist to suggest that 98% of Americans are functionally illiterate, incapable of finding a phone number on a web page if it's not labelled specifically 'phone number!' Studies have found that 50% of the population don't read signs because they can't, but only because science is white supremacist!"
No enemy can do as much damage as a stupid ally; ergo, weaponize stupidity. Be the stupidest ally they could possibly fear.

 

Exception: if someone is a known honourable cooperator, then don't weaponize the mods against them. It's worth putting up with their annoyance, even if the alternative weren't a pointlessly destructive arms race. You'll find the honourable tend also to be competent. Unlike the folk who weaponize mods even when it's frowned upon, the honourable are hard targets. Harder, at least.

Samus Really is a Tranny

Samus is an autogynephile. He's a 40-year-old man, probably autistic, except [it's the future] so gender-reassignment surgery actually gives you a womb. 

If you've been passive-aggressive, then you're more feminine than Samus is. 

(My favourite is Metroid Prime 1. I just wish it had a hard mode, instead of a take-longer mode.)

It's really this simple: if you can't tell she's a gril while still wearing the suit, she's not a girl. The "reveal" comes off as a surprise because there's no way you could have known. 

What part of Samus says female to you?
Archaeology?
Obsessively scanning non-person objects?
Violently hunting down space pirates, killing them at the drop of a hat?
Do the missiles have a curvy flight path I'm not aware of?
Is there something particularly empathetic about shooting through walls?
Total isolation? The absolute introversion?
Keeping her mouth shut so tightly her voice doesn't give it away?

Samus is a man. He's just drawn with a girl's body, because why not? It's prettier. Mario's just a drawing too, he might as well have had tits instead of a moustache. Peach can be a lesbian, it'll be progressive.

 

P.S. Traps. Someone draws a girl, and then they draw a dick on the girl because they hate themselves. If you like traps because you like cute girls, just draw a girl. If you like traps because you're gay, just draw a dude. There's no excuse for this φαγγωτρυ.

P.P.S. A lot of anime heroines are just men drawn as hot chicks, with a bit of lace around the edges so he/she/it doesn't completely come off as one of the boys. Unlike Samus, who totally does. If she reacts to witnessing violence by drawing her sword, that's a dude, bro. You can tell for sure because they never shit-test. I don't see a problem with this as long as you keep the fact it's escapism in mind. Girls aren't like that IRL for good reasons.

P.P.P.S. Metroids are absolutely fantastic metaphors for demonic spiritual parasites. Letting Mother Brain kill the last real one low-key ruined the series, which was probably the intent. Samus would have been fine if you'd just run off to lick your wounds, retard. Or even if you had a) finished killing MB or b) not hesitated. Swoop through the wall so MB has time to wind up? Yeah. Great work moron. It's not real self-sacrifice if you die for no reason. Anyway self-sacrifice is γαυ.

P.P.P.P.S. So you can dodge every point of damage in Metroid Prime 1. This plays poorly with the fact that if you're good at exploration Samus ends up with hundreds and hundreds of health. One or the other, guys. This is game design 101. Imagine you're playing DQ4 except Ragnar can get armour so good all damage is reduced to 0. Frankly this is insultingly easy. Then we have a "hard" mode where the enemies have twice as much health. It doesn't matter! They still can't kill you, or even look threatening! It would genuinely make sense to have criminal penalties for game design that fucked up.

Point Out Non-Hypocrisy

If you want to have a living mind instead of joining the herd of NPCs, then one example life-affirming habit is to point out when a public speaker is not hypocritical. Simply assume everything spoken in public is a hypocritical lie, and demonstrate this by pointing out with surprise and pleasure when something is an exception to this rule. 

First, speaking with approval about the outgroup (when they're not lying) detaches you from being a hive-mind adjunct. There's no point in having a brain if all you're using it for is to copy the next brain over. Mirrors are not living beings. 

Second, you focus on the positive instead of getting mad about things you cannot control. Why, you might even learn something!

Third it's just good practice, on both positive and negative. Don't pretend to be surprised when someone is a hypocrite, especially a Democratic politician (or other religious nutjob). Bearing false witness against yourself is self-betrayal. Meanwhile, you practice specifically searching for denials of your hypothesis, rather than confirmations. 

To be explicit, the norm where public speakers are assumed to be speaking in bad faith is plain good sense. It's absolute barking mad lunacy to attribute any trustworthiness at all to a public speaker absent strong evidence to the contrary. Pointing out that this liar is lying is nothing but special pleading; no shit they're lying, do you think I'm an idiot? So is everyone else! Or are we playing explain the obvious? Did you know the Sun rises in the morning? I bet, if you check, you'll find bachelors are unmarried.

Finally, there's an outside chance that you incentivize good behaviour via reward, which is known to be more effective than punishment. What do you suppose would happen in a society where it's normal to thoroughly ignore someone except for the one part they told the truth? Dunamophilic, rather than dunamophobic. 

Christian Altruists Are Opposite-Day Heroes

The Christian heroes are all altruistic, which makes them callous altruists, which makes them not-heroes. They're defectors or stooges.
E.g. Frodo is a stooge. Superman really is super: he's both a defector and a stooge. He conquers Metropolis, and of course he's a journalist, but then he gives the city back.
This makes nearly every Christian story ultimately a piece of shit. They may struggle and fight against this social requirement to make their core protagonist a worthless nega-hero, and may even succeed in implying a genuinely good story, but the stories as actually written are sewage.

In a sense the anime harem limp-noodle "protagonist" is satire. "Isn't this exactly what you're going for? Looks pretty horrible, doesn't it?" And yes, that does appear to be the intent. If your story is properly socially-approved, your protagonist becomes, rather obviously, not-a-protagonist. They become a soulless prop. The reason it's a harem is to efficiently satirize the lack of chemistry found near the heroines of several stories, rather than having to do them all individually. "Why is she attracted to him?" The answer is "kindness," in other words, being a socially-approved Christian, in other words, she isn't, except plot.

The police want to arrest Batman because he's a defector. It's hint-hint nudge-nudge; they're not incorrect. Batman, naturally, increases crime. (So much the cops are jealous.) He punches criminals such that there will be more criminals to punch tomorrow. You can't write a Batman comic where Batman actually, you know, succeeds in his alleged goal. I guess that means he's also a stooge.

I figured this out by contemplating Okage: Shadow King. https://lparchive.org/Okage-Shadow-King/ When you first see this game, it's rather compelling. Ari has lots of dialogue choices where he doesn't have to be heroic. Only, what's not-heroic about it? Ari comes across as real and honest, rather than fake and gay. Oops.
The NPCs in Okage are comedically socially inept. In other words, they're the exact same NPCs you find in basically every RPG, except they don't veil their rude and horrific solipsism. The only real difference is that they don't see any reason to be ashamed of their behaviour, so they don't hide it.

There's lots of collateral damage in Superman comics because, as I hardly need explain, when a conqueror launches his invasion, shit gets smashed.

Even if you can't put words to it, especially if you've been exposed to enough Okage, you can tell there's just something off about Christian so-called heroes. Unless of course you're the target audience of Saturday morning cartoons...
Ari isn't nice because they're not nice to him. Or rather, he at least has that option. You can play him as someone with self-respect if you want.

Let's not forget the Spider-man Disney-effect. You can only be a hero if you don't have parents. "Discard your community so you can embrace, uh, love..." Why can't Hermione or Ron be the hero? Answer: still have parents.
Further, lol at the broken Aesop: "Journalists suppress heroism." Indeed. Can't disagree.
Spider-man has to keep his identity secret because "the masses" usually think he's a menace. What if that's because he's, ultimately, a menace? In-universe Spider-man looks defective because he's defective. Out-of-universe Spider-man looks like a nerdy stooge because he's a stooge. "Only Parker can deal with Doc Ock!" Really? Some random atomized asshole can make a mecha-suit and the military can't? Only Spider-man can deal with Doc Ock such that it doesn't stick and he's back next week so we can have another issue of Spider-man.

Same way Luke, to avoid "embracing hate," can't just kill Palpatine, let alone Anakin. If the Empire is evil, ultimately the saviour of Star Wars is heckin' Vader. Turns out the original prophecy was right after all, except it turns out Sith are good and Jedi can only let evil happen.

Same way Jehovah imprisons Satan in such a way that Satan conquers the whole world.

What a fucking loser.

Naw

"You should propose in public because she'll be so scared of everyone booing her that she'll have to say yes"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/SCHIZO_FREQ/status/1606465993252929538

You should maximize the chance she says no but be so awesome she says yes anyway.

Invite her to a date to a full garbage can, ideally during a summer heatwave. Not even a whole landfill, just one can. Don't say anything. Hand her a packet of skittles with "marry me" all lowercase typed on a post-it note stuck to the plastic, walk away before she can answer.

Dissent is Largely in Error & Irresponsible Rightists

"Right vs. Left (1-factor model of politics) not very predictive of ideological stances among low-information voters, but highly predictive of ideological stances among high-information voters 

counter-intuitively, the more you know, the more you see things in black and white"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/0x49fa98/status/1602383501159956484

No.

 

They're both trying to conform to parasitic memeplexes. Skilled operators make it look black-and-white because conformity is the point and they fail less. There's two because voting is one-dimensional and thus produces two sides. (There's a game theory thing I'll go over later.) However, dumb folk aren't good at conforming. They keep getting confused or plain get it wrong. They try to conform but can't manage it.

For example, smart IFLS folk know they don't love science. They get the joke. They can tell the difference between Science and, like, scientific papers, and will reject any science that's not Scientific.

Obvoiusly, dumb folk can't follow this line of thought. They'll occasionally do dumb things like read the papers themselves, or, even worse, do the experiment themselves. They buy into the camouflage and let it lead them astray because they genuinely don't know any better. (Evil is self-destructive; the friendly fire is inevitable.)

Also, IFLS doctrine changes quick and they often get left behind. Indeed part of the point of the IFLS doctrine is to be a griggs/power-dodging IQ competition. You need to be this smart to ride.

I would also like to point out that some off the less dumb (but still dumb) IFLS hosts will notice the doctrine changes quickly and try to get out ahead of it - being a trend maker instead of a trend follower. Except they're dumb and can't guess correctly. They get Dunning-Krugered; they produce random noise as output. 

Ref: Spanish Inquisition. Peasants don't notice dissenters are usually just confused out of honest stupidity, but the Catholic authorities liked their large mass of warm bodies, so the Inquisition was set up to gently lead most dissenters back into proper conformity, like they wanted all along.

 

Game theory lets a central party capture all fringe parties. Voting republicant may not make a neo-nazi happy, but what are they gonna do instead, vote demobrat? As such the two real parties in a voting system cuddle up to each other to capture the maximum voters they can, getting as close as possible without actually appearing to overlap. 

I suppose two-party voting is particularly stable because it maps easily onto the pre-existing distinction between insider (has kratia) and outsider (wants kratia). This is likely the basic cause of the electoral birth defect. The in-power party adores everything that keeps them in power, and this monomania is what gets them in power in the first place. Meanwhile the out-power party despises everything that keeps ingroup in power, and adores everything that would put the outsiders in power if they weren't too gormless to pursue it. Black and white. 

Nothing to do with truth, however. Most of the time both of them are flagrantly wrong about everything. Black vs. black. What with being competitors in a black government competition. 

And thus the right-sided parasite hosts are convinced their irresponsibility is a kind of responsibility, even though it's merely conditionally less irresponsible than the high-O low-C parasite-plex. 

Insight Instead of IQ

Intelligence is obviously very real. However, you don't care about intelligence in most cases. You either care about reaction times or insight.

For the most part, IQ is necessary but far from sufficient for insight. I'm sure that you can supply just as many examples of high-IQ gulls as I can, if not more. I interpret the fact that you get low-IQ insight ("salt of the earth") not as showing IQ isn't necessary, but as showing that insight isn't actually that difficult in many cases. Rather, the parallel enabling factors are rare. If anything, even rarer as IQ goes up. Lots of mid and high IQs are blocked due to not genuinely desiring insight, rendering their big brains about as socially useful as tits on a fish.

The Demiurge is Made of People

Earth is Eden

The underworld is the overworld; the overworld is the underworld.

The horrible tyrant, who separates you from God, is other mortals. Social reality, not real logical reality.
Satan is lord of this Social world.

The Social Dimension of Intuition vs. Counter-Intuition

Anxious scholars like to flaunt their counter-intuitive beliefs, so they can reassure themselves they aren't plebs. Often to the point where they will make up counter-intuitive beliefs to flaunt. If you're really a chad-brain you can force someone to assent to an obvious lie, right? It starts as the fact that genuine discovery is often counter-intuitive, so the corrupt scholar tries to mimic the discoverer. If I'm very lucky, these corrupt kenners aren't scholars at all, but instead camouflaged merchants. It would be easy to exile them all, in that case. The corrupt scholarship is then recruited by wealthy or numerous bad actors, when the corrupt brain happens to come up with something suitably nasty. 

Then, noticing that ~everything counter-intuitive that their alleged scholars say ends up being false, the plebs double down on only believing intuitive things. Which then provokes real scholars into having to signal against the plebs...

To be completely explicit: both fall into a trap. When you're tempted to show off by being credulous of the counter-intuitive, stop. When you're tempted to think the counter-intuitive things "are counter-intuitive for a reason," don't. Belief in truth makes you strong, whether intuitive or not. Getting caught up in class/caste bickering makes you weak.

Anyone want to be a priest?

Being a priest makes it hard to figure stuff out.

Wonder a question to yourself, half the time your deity will take it as a prayer and answer it immediately. 

Hope you like being spoonfed. Spoilers.

Imagine trying to figure anything out yourself as the priest of a knowledge god. All it does is make them sneak cheats in for you instead of doing it openly.

Counterintuive: Spoiled + Traumatized

Come to think, it shouldn't be counter-intuitive at all, should it? Being spoiled is a kind of trauma.

Naively, I thought, and rather expect most would think, that the arrogance of a spoiled brat and the insecurity of having been abused would be opposites. Just recently I observed a case of someone who was both very clearly traumatized-delusional and a spoiled brat. 

And isn't that completely wrong? The arrogance is exactly a manifestation of insecurity. That's why the spoiled brat is oversensitive. It's insecurity at one remove. 

Parents can't love their kids too much. That's not how love works. For comparison, it is also impossible to be too wise or for something to be too beautiful.

A spoiled child is exactly the kid who receives an overabundance of the trappings of love, without, you know, actual love. Do they notice? Surely kids are simpletons, right? Not nearly dumb enough. They absolutely notice. Like every kid who isn't loved by their parents, they conclude it is because they are unlovable.

Then they go insane. 

It is perhaps slightly curious that a kid who was largely in a state of privation can still be spoiled. I would have thought the large helping of abuse would disabuse them of the vainglorious pride, but of course, on reflection, that is hardly the case, now is it? The message, "You're unlovable but deserve a lot of material stuff," isn't high on Kolmogorov complexity. It can be delivered quickly. "I'm a terrible parent for abusing you openly, here, have some gifts that still aren't love. Maybe I suck, but I'm trying my best! 🙃" In parallel, the arrogance is primarily a defence mechanism. There are no barriers to aligning the force vectors of push and pull. The arrogant mostly-abused spoiled brat thinks, "I'm better than this, I don't deserve this," which results in them thinking, when they go out into the world, that all negative attention is undeserved. 

They oversimplify their message to themselves, because of course stress and trauma flagrantly consume cognitive resources. They spend a lot of mental cycles holding themselves back, applying consciously-forced inhibition, trying to avoid flipping the frig out. They don't have enough spare to calmly consider the nuances of their self-messaging.

The problem, which makes it vainglory, is that in their bones the spoiled brat most certainly does think they deserved to be ridiculed and outcast. What drives them crazy is seeing the inner voice they're so carefully smothering being echoed and resonated on the outside. "Red alert! We're surrounded!" 

They're insane because they must think that all negative attention is undeserved, but they actually think that all negative attention is deserved. Oof.

 

"I'm better than this, I don't deserve this - even mommy, who is the one doing it to me, says so." Oof. 

If you deliver any valid criticism, now you're attacking their mom. You know how folk get when you insult their mother. 

 

Though admittedly if you could explain to me why parents get so inviolate, that would be great. It's important because folk, being basically sufficiently stupid and self-unaware, approximate the government as mommy and/or daddy, which is what causes nonviolent reform to be impossible.

America: Land of the Female

"And they will all chatter amongst themselves, politely and delightfully, about their completely incorrect theories on how transportation works"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/WeftOfSoul/status/1593884386000150528

Americans cannot help offering unsolicited incorrect advice, because every last American is a woman. Except the little girls, I suppose. This isn't recent, they were like this in the 1800s too. 

Bonus: to feel manly, American ""men"" will offer the advice rudely.
You're knitting, but, like, it's a Conan book cover. Totes masculine. 

P.S. Women don't like free society. Makes it hard to know what to conform to. If she doesn't know what to conform to, she literally can't think about anything else until she figures it out. 

If you live in America but aren't basically a girl with no curves, then I'm sorry: you're not American, end of story. You got lost and ended up in the wrong country.

America: Useful-Idiot-Positive Communist Revolution

America is what happens when the Communists have a revolution but instead of purging the useful idiots they leave them alive and let them think they run the government. 

Sure you can see a lot of the non-idiots call for violent purges and political concentration camps, but they won't be able to do anything until the useful idiots are purged. Consider your friendly neighbourhood liar the sacrificial anode or fuse protecting you from lethal political convulsions. If anything serious is going to happen, they will die first. You'll have plenty of time to flee the country. Even if you go full offline and never view any sort of news, you will still hear about it. There will be no rush unless you're really, really stupid.

Educational Exception Prove the Rule

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=zs43HWwOhwk

If there were genuine child-education facilities, they would basically be a pile of simulators. One for every job, not one for one job.

It's super easy to get kids interested in a simulator: let them crash. Let them spectacularly screw up.

Black society. Run, don't walk, to the nearest Exit.  

Imagine there was a practical guide to being a senator, and every other low-stress high-pay job.
Question: why didn't you already notice these things were missing? Why didn't you already reject the institution that, perfectly clearly, is not on your side?

...then secure your shit

"Leftists are always going to be better Leftists than Rightists can be. Assuming that -- surely not a stretch -- then what?"
https://nitter.fdn.fr/Outsideness/status/1615391795369893888

Get out of the left. There are no American rightists, only less-leftists.  

Secure your shit. They are weak; they can't stop you. Stop giving them permission to fuck with you, and instead mind your own business. 

America demands decline and fall. It can only be "saved" by making the tyranny more tyrannous, because tyranny is what it genuinely wants as a core value. DC isn't failing, it is succeeding in providing the desired supply. (Except that Communists are so incompetent they can't even be efficient at supplying tyranny.)
So what / so then: stop being American. Stop trying to be the Saviour. "Have you survived crucifixion before? No? Then STFU." {You're welcome to trial your credentials at any time.} Give up on the irredeemable.

Continuing to play constitutes consent. The game sucks. Stop playing it. Play something else.

Logic really isn't hard if you don't have ulterior motives. If Gnon is fucking you up, maybe consider putting aside your Pride and admit you did something incorrectly.
Incidentally, the above makes ulterior motives extraordinarily transparent to any true logician. Peak of [you can't con an honest man]. Very impossible in this case. 

 

"But I'm afraid of the government." Your faith in the sacred is weak. But of course it is; Plato's Democratic Man. 

Pedestrians are Unwelcome

You probably already get this, but I think it's important to be explicit. 

To get anywhere as a pedestrian, you have to intrude on the stroad. Even in Amsterdam. This makes walkers feel like intruders. This is because they are intruders. 

The car never needs to intrude on the sidewalk to get where they want to go. The walker goes on the side, if there's room. Legitimate car-stroad goes everywhere uninterrupted. And then your black society gets a "romance" with the "car."

Truly, the world, she is a mysterious place. How could anyone figure it out.

Peasant Inarticulateness Example: Stroads Contradict Children

As linked in my last even-day post: "Someone could come along and scoop them up in a white van." Happens around the 1-minute mark. 

The fear is real, the "logic" isn't. The problem, as adequately explained in the rest of the video, is ICE vehicles. Hence the "van" motif. The peasant knows they're afraid and it has something to do with these machines, but they themselves have no idea what they're thinking, so they confabulate. As expected, if you ask a variety of peasants you'll get a variety of confabulations.

The usual autist/rationalist thing is to assume that, since their articulation is wildly wrong and they are (allegedly) an adult, they must be lying and mistaken. This isn't quite true. Although white vans are purely mythological, the peasant's conclusion is sound. They have no idea how to get to the conclusion legitimately, hence they come up with something illegitimate so they can get there anyway.

Roads are death traps. Strips of death zone criss-crossing every city. It is functionally legal to run over children. Roads are severe hazards, and you should be afraid of them. 

If your kids aren't afraid enough of stroads that they don't even want to go outside, then you need to keep them inside for their own safety.
(Especially if you have basically-incompetent peasant children, as peasant parents tend to. They're quite hapless, so...)

Imagine there were mountain lions everywhere, but they didn't leave designated lion zones. There's no fences or anything. And by "don't leave" I mean they mostly don't leave, and also to get anywhere you have to wait for the lions to clear out so you can quickly dash across the lion zone.

Would you let your kids outside in this environment? lol "If you get eaten by the lions it's your own stupid fault. Just natural selection." Uh huh.

You morons let your cities become logically isomorphic to fenceless lion preserves.  

The peasant is generally themselves aware that their reasoning is illegitimate. It's special-case. "Oh that's different." Really? How so? It gets compartmentalized so it doesn't contaminate their other "reasoning," which is also going to be illegitimate anyway, so whatever.

It's only a problem when some non-peasant mistakenly takes any of it seriously. It's basically emotional animal noises, and should be treated as such. There's no logic here. Seek elsewhere, my young padawan.

Bonus round: egalitarianism means everyone is a king. Kings have chauffeurs. Princes and princesses don't walk like some peasant, they are driven everywhere, if not carried in a palanquin. You wouldn't dare to let your child experience the lower class experience, now would you? How gauche. Even if you have to "sacrifice" and play the role of the chauffeur yourself, since you're too pathetic to afford a professional driver.

Conveniently, princesses and princes aren't independent. Very convenient indeed.

Logical Isomorphism Example: Probability and Calculus

I sometimes talk about logical isomorphism but keep forgetting to provide good examples.

Claim: probability as chance is a limit approximation, like Newtonian physics is an approximation of physics where c = ∞ and ħ = 0. 

The logic that proves probability isn't real is isomorphic to the epsilon-delta definition of a limit. (Bit of fun meaningless recursion there.)

Anything which proves probability is inherently a real thing will also nuke the definition of a limit. Every piece of evidence that the epsilon-delta definition works also supports probabililty-as-approximation. (Certainly makes my job a lot easier, what with all the work having already been done.)

Studying epistemology to obtain certainty* is largely about learning and spotting these isomorphisms. Logic stops being about object propositions and becomes about logical relationships. (Spot the masculine/feminine lunar/solar isomorphism.) Displacing any particular object merely replaces it with dark matter that has to be there due to the relationship web surrounding it, leading to robust understanding and robust models.

*(predictions with probability within epsilon of 100%)

Remember the Religious Fervor is Always Fake

It's always eggs for me and not for thee. Even if they have to eat the eggs in the broom closet so you're not looking.
Sophists gonna Soph. It's always about tricking the opponent into voluntarily hurting themselves. "Soft" power, lol.

 "They discouraged Eisenhower from eating eggs when he had a heart attack - this wasn't out of any kind of plan related to Vietnam - it was out of progressive religious fervor"

 ["...but Eisenhower had his heart attack in 1955."] 

https://nitter.fdn.fr/CovfefeAnon/status/1614028867424976896

LastPsych vs. Dove Ad & Voting

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html

"The mistake in interpreting this ad is in assuming the ad is selling based on the women and their beauty.  If that were true, it would be counterproductive: if they are naturally beautiful, if the problem is actually a psychological one, then they certainly don't need any beauty products.  A beauty ad operates by creating a gap between you and an ideal"

Where "ideal" means, in this case, mediocre sufficiency, not a genuine utopian ideal. 

Alone distracts from the core of his own message. He makes it sound like a sidebar.
By making this ad, Dove reinforces the legitimacy of ads. Doesn't sell a [[product]]? It sells the idea of selling [[product]]. Dove is telling you that ads can have a "positive message" and thus Ingroup would definitely listen to all the other ads. Except the bad, outgroup ads, of course. No need to justify that exception in principle, just kto kogo that shit. 

Fascist voters slaves sense that advertisers aren't on their side. They can feel that they are outgroup, and don't have an in, yet they continue to watch ads religiously. I guess that's a slave for you. 

Can the voter vote for himself? When he votes for the "wrong" party he still upholds the custom of voting. "I wouldn't win." Trump is allowed to lose too, you're not even allowed to play, you have to pass cope off on me to hide the fact that you're not even ingroup, you're outgroup. The Fascist is rightly considered revolting and pitiful by his rulers, but apparently he's fine with this. If you mute someone's ads they'll get mad, I know because I tried it. If you tell the Fascist to stop being shitmud, they can actually get violent with you. 

 

You know you could set up your own election and elect a shadow leader? Whenever you want? Look at the national election, go, "Huh, that didn't work, let's try this again."
If everyone did it, the shadow election would become a real election. Which is why everyone is scared to even think of doing it.

You want more black women in Dove ads? How about not watching the Dove ads at all? I haven't even seen a newspaper in years, I won't even watch Tucker Carlson in actual video. 

You can vote for Trump? Maybe you need something stronger, like mythological whoever-Masters? Voting itself is the problem. Contrary to property rights. Ads are crimes. 

It's an illegitimate black society. The only healthy move is to not engage. "I can't escape, they won't leave me alone." The Amish exist to prove you're lying.

Delusion is Suffering

Life is only suffering if you're wedded to falsehood. Almost all pain is the result of your false beliefs running headlong into Reality. Siddhartha was plain wrong. (Or did some Satanist massage his message while writing it down?)

Ehrlich is Eugenic: "I was gullible and stupid, and now I don't have grandkids."

Praise be to Gnon and Ehrlich.

"I was a college student when I read Mr. Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb." I took it to heart and now have no grandchildren, but 50 years later the population has increased to eight billion without dire consequences. I was gullible and stupid."

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/scottlincicome/status/1613714526725373953

Likewise, transexualism is very right-wing. Extremely eugenic. Oppose de-transition; anyone dumb enough to fall for this clearly needs to be ejected from the gene pool. See also: girls being body-checked out of competitive spectator sports.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been exactly what the human race deserves.

LastPsych Translation: How to Want

The fuck does Alone mean when he uses the phrase [how to want]?
Okay, here's my shot at it.

Before ads, you don't want. You're good.
After ads, you've been taught to want. The product is indeed irrelevant, the thing the ads propagate is want itself, and by that I mean deficiency. What ads "sell" is the idea that you are inferior and insufficient - but only a little, you can fix it with a Guinness. 

Advertisers allow other ads because even if you don't buy a Guinness you will buy the message that you aren't enough, that you have been left wanting, and will have to buy something sooner or later. 

This is why I absolutely despise ads and refuse to expose myself to them. They're insulting. "I am in fact not insufficient, and frankly in a just society you would hang from the neck until dead." Advertisement really is vandalism. Inherently reduces the value of whatever it is attached to. Inherently defective and deviant. Inherently criminal. 

The fact that the government allows advertisements is, by itself, alone, dispositive proof that the government is an illegitimate black government. A society which does not reflexively reject a black government is an illegitimate, black society. The other reason I hate ads is that they remind me that they aren't, actually, wrong: if you're watching the ad, you are indeed insufficient, inferior, undeserving. As Alone says, it's for you. I don't like to be reminded every few minutes that my neighbours are intolerably contemptible. 

All sorts of weird shit is allowed to be "ad-supported" because regardless of its overt offer, what it does is normalize, maintain, and reinforce degeneracy. Many think ads are a vehicle to fund their message, the truth is the reverse, your message is a vehicle ads use to spread themselves. 

Ref: youtube, a 30-second spot is a decadent flex, saying "you suck" doesn't take 30 seconds, it's not a long message, it doesn't even take six seconds. Yousucktube.

Naturally, this supports and is supported by egalitarianism. Everyone is a king, which means everyone is a loser. Don't worry, you can't really be the omega - as long as you buy a Guinness. Egalitarians gotta sneak in that unprincipled exception. "I may be the omega of the ingroup, like everyone else, but at least I'm not the outgroup. Who doesn't even drink Guinness?" I've now written Guinness enough times that it has lost all meaning to me. That was quick. Ghinness. A female Ghin, whatever that is. Perhaps the princess of clan MacGhin. She's all stuck up and not worth the hassle. Definitely don't drink her, that's gross.

The ads are too weak to be the root of the problem; without that religious obligation to feel inferior, ads would look as ridiculous and foreign as they in fact are. 

 

"You suck, buy Guinness instead." Damn, I'm good. Hire me, assholes. "You suck, pay Alrenous instead."
I think my favourite part is that actual use of the "product" is irrelevant. The buying part is all that matters, both to seller and ad-victim. Don't like Guinness? Notice it kinda tastes like ass? That's fine, buy one anyway, you don't have to do anything silly like drink it. Buy book: important. Read book: ...eh, maybe later. VG constantly lures gamers into nabbing multiple copies. You know Piratebay is right over there, yes?

P.S. Alone vaguely grasps that feminine Fascism needs to feminize men. "My interest here is not the tricks the ad uses to get you to like Guinness, but what the fact of the existence of such an ad says about American men today.  It's bad.  It's really, really bad."

Functioning of Democracy

To pass a law you need to convince maybe 3-4 individuals. 

To revoke a law you need to convince millions. 

Ratchet. Intentionally so.

Democracy reinforces tyranny, it doesn't oppose it. Because of course it does.

Finally Noticing Feminism is Thinly Veiled Misogyny

"The Kill TERFs movement is pretty astonishing. It's a bunch of biological males threatening to brutalize biological females for saying that female sex is real.

— Wilfred Reilly"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/monitoringbias/status/1611621153868582913

Reality really had to put her back into swinging the teaching 2x4 on this one, but she finally wound up far enough that it started to sink into their thick skulls. 

She's never going to get the blood and hair out of the wood, though. Ground all the way in.

Outsideness Divination 3: Test Reliability

"Recent annoying shit from Lucifer:
Monism / Nomism (Uh-oh)
Popish (WTF?) ..."

"More worried that Lucifer doesn't think [Popish is] an insult."
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/Outsideness/status/1612816747870187520

 

"I'm smarter than Lucifer's successor!" Sure you are, lol. That's exactly why you need nomism and a Pope: you're too dumb to get the right answers, just listen to someone who isn't. Truth isn't a democracy, you are not entitled to an opinion or a voice.

 

Lucifer is dead, by the way. Has been dead for a very long time. The only question: am I talking like 12,000 years or more like 150,000 years? A long-ass time. (Also a long ass-time, whatever that is.)

Monism: turns out Berkeley was right, the answer is idealism.  

P.S. https://rlhoover.people.ysu.edu/OAT-OGT/reliability_validity.html

Vegetarianism is Analytically Immoral

Which is probably why it makes you sick and weak!

Here's the real rule: cooperate with cooperators, defect on defectors. This is socket rogering, not rocket surgery. Everyone can understand it. 

Animals cannot cooperate. They can't read a contract, nor could they follow the contract even if they did. 

This means animals are inherently defective. You're supposed to defect on them. Thus, if you want to eat one, just do. 

Vegetarians say it's mandatory to cooperate with this defector, and immoral to defect on this defector. Vegetarianism is defection, and you should defect on vegetarians. The only reason you can't kill and eat a vegetarian is that cannibalism spreads disease. Vegetarians are parasites; don't make it easy for non-abstract biological parasites by eating them. 

Note that technically speaking the real rule isn't really morality, because morality isn't a thing. Rather, cooperating with defectors and defecting on cooperators is analytically imprudent. Always costs more than it is worth. Always constitutes rebelling against Reality.

Prediction: ncov Data is Fraudulent

Prediction: they just fuckin' lie to you.

Result: they just fuckin' lie to you.
https://twitter.com/dreamsOfElihu/status/1612106578806579201

Fudge. Fakery. Delusion. Phantasms. It's not real.

The Two Heretic Philosophers

Who do philosophasters desperately want to burn at the stake?

Descartes and Popper.

Substance dualism and falsification-as-reality.

Now that there is no coincidence. 

Perhaps I should say they resentfully nurse a cup of hemlock for them?

"One big thing we need is a term for Father of Lies that Satanists will broadly accept."

"One big thing is we need a term for The Enemy that they will, themselves, broadly accept, encompassing the view and its adherents."
https://nitter.dark.fail/scipagarthus/status/1610596610433773568

Fucking morons.
Satanists win if and only if their opponents are too dumb to live.

Yet More Clarity on Deviance of Dominance

Always shoot the hostages. They should be held responsible for letting themselves be taken hostage. 

Either you're willing to shoot the hostage-takers through their human shields, or the situation will escalate, generally through more and more hostage situations and thus more incidents of hostages getting shot, until it's intolerable and you're forced to shoot them anyway, however unwillingly. If taking hostages results in getting ransom instead of getting merked, then your society is hostage-positive. 

NB: the hostages are not still alive. Taking a hostage is properly considered murder. In some rare cases the hostages may be resurrected, but until that resurrection, they are already dead. When you shoot through them, it is not homicide. If a hostage-taker gets anything less than mass murder at trial, you're doing it wrong. Even if all the hostages managed to get resurrections. 

The hostage could have fought back. Ultimately they could have fought enough that they died, resulting in no hostage and thus no hostage dilemma.

In other words, the hostage dilemma is the hostage's fault and they deserved to be held hostage. Since they deserved it, they should be held responsible for it.

Allowing yourself to be taken hostage is a crime, and, should it not be necessary to shoot the hostage-takers through their human shields, the hostage should be liable for criminal penalties. Use strict liability: if they were drugged, well, they shouldn't have let themselves get drugged. Secure your water supply or whatever. Responsibility is not conserved; it has a minimum at 100% but can go arbitrarily high. Just because the hostage-takers are 100% responsible doesn't mean there isn't an easy 100% responsibility to share out to the hostage. Indeed further down it will easily reach 300%.

Facing criminal punishment for letting themselves get taken hostage, the hostages fight back. Knowing the hostages are only going to savagely fight them, the hostage-takers don't bother to try to take hostages. Result: penalizing hostages prevents attempted hostage situations.

Objectively speaking, responsibility is about, ultimately, deterring crime. Punishing the hostages prevents hostage situations. Hence, we conclude the hostages are responsible for the hostage situation, and should be held responsible. We would so conclude even if we couldn't immediately see what hostages could do about it. For the sociological engineer: if you don't know who to punish, try punishing everyone one at a time, and keep the one that deters as intended.

Further, lawmakers who refuse to punish hostages should be held liable for all hostage situations. They are hostage-positive. Ding, 300% responsibility. These lawmakers are encouraging it on purpose. Should face the same criminal penalties that hostage-takers face. If they don't face (and suffer) penalties, then you have dispositive proof that you don't live under rule of law, and should disrespect the law accordingly.

 

Perhaps the divine justice is shown to us by the fact hostages are already dead. Given they are dead, issue their death certificate and start the inheritance procedure. Dead folk can't own property. Dead folk have no rights at all. They were resurrected, but so what? They don't value their lives enough to avoid getting taken hostage, why should society value their lives more than they do? It obviously shouldn't. Re-allocate the wealth to those who may still be willing to secure and defend it. 

They can keep their jobs, I suppose, but they would have to be paid in cash. You can't put a dead person's name on a bank account, after all.

This principle generalizes. The victim should be blamed. They are in fact responsible enough.

In other words, if someone gets conquered, they deserve to get conquered, and if this inconveniences you, it's very much their fault and you can strip it out of their hides. Never impose costs on yourself for the benefit of a conquered people; this only encourages the conquest-positive. Don't be an enabler. Do to them whatever happens to be most convenient for you. Don't cooperate with deviants.

Outsideness Divination Round 2

""Wait, the Anglo-Satanic 137-Current just said that Lucifer is the Messiah?""
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1611003472299659265

That which is called the messiah is that which is called lucifer -> Jesus = Satan. 

That which truly is Lucifer is that which truly is the liberator. 

"But of the fruit of the tree [of knowledge] which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/NickDen2375320/status/1610730280658116608

Yes, the children of Satan are not merely delusional, they are delusion incarnate. Knowledge is not merely bad for them; Truth annihilates them on contact, in agonizing fire. 

What do the walls of the Garden keep out? It keeps out Reality, to preserve the otherwise doomed children of Satan. 

 

Nature is Queen

"Dear governments of the world, Covid is just better than you are."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1611049352922808321

Ncov, classic godplague. Released to punish the sinners - and the sinners took that one right on the chin. 

Ncov made it crystal clear that it's not the virus that kills. It's the human impiety. You do it to yourself. You dumb fuckers made the thing yourselves, didn't you? That day, the spirit of providence was with the narcissist lab tech who couldn't be bothered to follow rules when nobody they knew was looking.

You think a mask can stop divine justice?

"lol" said Gnon, "lmao"

What Monopoly Is

A monopolist is someone who claims the exclusive moral right to produce some product or service. The problem is that this is an absurd lie. Which is why they never state it plainly. Morality lol. The pathology of monopoly (trigger warning: pdf) follows straightforwardly from the exact realities which the lie contradicts.

Like most State actions this is primarily a status move. "We're going to force you to assent to this obvious lie like we really, really mean it." You must be a total chad, an absolute unit, when you can pointlessly vandalize someone else's mind with impunity. The monopoly profits are merely a side-effect. You will in fact find many monopolists are poor, since their product and management is so bad that even without competitors they can barely stay afloat. This doesn't make them reconsider the wisdom of monopoly: it is in fact working for them. There's no failure to address. 

A fortiori: it's impossible to have a true monopoly. A Coke monopoly competes with water. A road monopoly competes with walking. An Adobe monopoly competes with watching TV. Ultimately a monopolist can barely compete with the offering [do without].

Slave Mood

Being a slave really does suck. 

However, it's not the chains and whips that does it, it's the part where you're the kind of person who gets enslaved.

If you emancipate the slave, all that happens is they remain equally unhappy but now they don't know what to do with their day and they're supposed to know how to balance a chequebook, but can't. 

Treating folk as if they're the same as you isn't compassion, it's narcissism.

Perhaps I Should Call it Accountant's Syndrome

The pathology of Asperger's is in fact that we are genuinely rational.

Q: Why do aspies tell the truth? A: our parents and teachers tell us the truth is important and we should say it. We don't get the joke, so we just do. The deep deceptive instincts are missing, so the sperg is forced to construct a personality from whole cloth. Why not simply use what we're told to use? 

Haha, oops.

Q: Why is economics called the dismal science? A: it's mainly aspies. Allists don't like how we strip all their elegant delusions. We don't even offer replacements. We have a tendency to think the delusions are merely oversights or mistakes - especially since the allists themselves will imply as much when caught out. "Oh gee I never realized tee hee." 

For our purposes, allists come in two varieties, and one of the varieties is "hard headed" meaning they are materialist. When raised by these, the sperg evaluates everything in terms of dollar profit. Concrete goods and services. Apparently this also includes children for no clear reason. This results in a sperg who comes across as cold and calculating. "Excuse me, what is the profit margin on this friendship you're offering?" A very dismal science, it would seem. 

Of course the actual problem is that this allist is not offering friendship at all, and is scared the autist will notice that the offered profit is negative. They get upset in an attempt at misdirection. They have no actual argument and must rely on cognitive flaws or they will fail. 

Having constructed a set of habits based on logic and persuasion, we find the allists lied all the time and the habits don't work. 

In any case, regardless of how it's raised, the true rationalist phenotype ends up calculating profit and loss. The instinctive deception is replaced by instinctively running the numbers. Given conflicting information, the allist assumes they must somehow both be true, even if they can't figure out how. The Authorities are axiomatically trustworthy, so if they conflict, they must not conflict. Given conflicting information, the sperg searches for some objective standard to distinguish which is true or which is more important. Allists themselves say that money is important (and very specifically don't say that blind faith in Authority is important) so one of the things we try is calculating the dollar value. At least using some kind of estimate.

This does work. 

Oops.

Does Fascism Bear Repeating?

We're going to find out empirically. 

Nick Land observed that Communism naturally relaxes into Fascism, what with Communism being such a bad idea it is logically impossible to implement it in practice.

Umberto Eco then wrote a list of features of Fascism, which, when you remove all the [my Fascism is different and not Fascism, unlike your Fascism] bits and generally boil off all the crud, says the same thing.

1. Dogmatism and xenophobia.
2. Utopianism and rejection of wu wei.
3. Obsession with the Plot of a State Enemy.
4. Monogenderism.
5. Newspeak.
6. Demotism with core reliance on unprincipled exceptions.

Even Jonah Goldberg, not exactly the brightest star, can tell you that all WWII regimes were basically the same thing.

--

Colloquially, we can say a Fascist is a faithful Communist whose faith was broken. They feel betrayed by God (or the Demiurge, to taste) and compromise their beautiful Communist vision so that their government doesn't immediately implode.
Beyond a list of diagnostic features, Fascism is this: fundamentalist Egalitarianism theocracy.
It is the politics of narcissism.
It's Christian theocracy stripped of limiters; when the Christians think they're rich enough to ignore the natural-selection-induced compromises that show up in the Bible. All men are created equal, by which we mean bit-for-bit identical. Even the women.

A theocracy is naturally totalitarian - "Everything in the religion, nothing outside the religion, nothing against the religion." Hence the ""public"" - private ""partnership."" <!--more-->In other words the government de-facto seizes all business. E.g. when Hitler ""privatized"" a firm they were still expected to do what he told them to do. Selling your cake and then eating it anyway. When California ""privatizes"" electricity, it then writes a novel's worth of regulations forcing them to run themselves exactly to spec regardless of de jure ownership.

--

First, let's show that narcissism is egalitarian.
The narcissist doesn't see anyone else. They see a hall of mirrors. Everyone is just themselves, but again. Since nobody can have any skills or even preferences that differ from those of the narcissist, the only thing they can imagine making anyone get ahead is cheating. Everyone must logically have identical social status, if they're playing by the rules.

One exception: some folk are not even human. The narcissist does, in extremis, notice that someone is different. However, then they're the unfathomable Other. An incomprehensible Lovecraftian nightmare wearing human skin.
This is the heretic. The scapegoat upon whom all the failures of the unworkable Fascist sociology can be heaped.
Since, as per the disorder, even the Other must be obsessed with the narcissist, their desire to make an environment unsuitable for the narcissist - e.g. the State Enemy likes quiet, while the narcissist wants to talk all the time - must come from a core motivation of pure malice. They are literally the Devil incarnate.

Second, Christianity is narcissism.
The narcissist doesn't actually love themselves. The core problem is failure to be loved by his or her mother. The child simply assumes the mother is right. They must be unlovable. They instead develop bottomless self-hatred.

Or, alternatively, we are all "sinners." God is infinite and we're all infinitely, disgustingly bad by comparison. God rejects us like Mom rejected us, see?

This hatred is intolerable, so they hide their own true self-assessment behind a delusional identity. Their genes become convinced that if anyone else notices they're unlovable like mom did, they will be ostracized from the tribe and starve in the wilderness. "If I act the opposite of my true self, I will behave lovably, I won't be ostracized, I won't die." To avoid feeling their own self-hatred they obsess over their fake persona.
They become unable to see anything but this fake persona, due to this obsession, among other reasons. I'll mention one: if anyone has a different preference schedule than mom did, they might be loved without having to change, and that would mean they didn't have to hate themselves, all this pain was unnecessary...

And thus the narcissist sees echoes of their own fake persona, rather than other individuals. Or: the low places will be raised up, and the high places laid low. Luke 3:5.

Except the Devil, of course. The unfathomable Other who exists solely to cause the narcissist pain. (The Devil will hate their "lovable" opposite-day persona, denying narcissistic supply, or see through the persona to the core "sinner" => whether the Devil likes or hates the core, it's intolerable torture for the narcissist.)

(P.S. Amused that Christians clearly assume Jesus has nothing better to do than listen to prayers, and that somehow an omniscient god can't tell what's up with you want unless you ask. In true narcissist fashion, they never ask what god would like the narcissist to do, it's all about what god can do for the narcissist.)

Jesus, who we're all supposed to act like (WWJD!) was a narcissist.
The narcissist naturally becomes grandiose. Their persona is the opposite of something pure hatable - it must be purely lovable. Agape. It must be not merely good, but great. Amazing. Grandiose.
Every narcissist worships their fake persona as God. Also one of the poor bastards they nailed to a couple planks worshipped himself as God.

The main draw of Christianity is that God offers to undo the core trauma. "I will love you, the way your mother didn't. I love everyone, even the so-called sinners."

And lo, if we go to America, we can indeed see that to this day is a profoundly Christian nation.
Judge not, as Chauvin judged, lest ye be judged, as Chauvin was judged.
Should a Martin crack your skull on the pavement, turn your head and let him crack your nose also.
Let ye who has never seen a page of porn cast the first stone at Onlyfans.
Sure some jogger might murder your daughter, but hold love in your heart and forgive him.
If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink. If your BLM wants to commit arson, give him a Target; if he thirsts for wealth, let him smash his way into a jewellery or Apple store.

Just about everything modern America does can be found to come straight from the Bible. (Likewise if you look at historical cases of unrestricted Christianity, they behave in the same pro-crime way.)

Even stuff like diet. Eating a delicious and wholesome meal is a pleasure of the flesh - and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Even working out and getting buff is deeply suspect. Romans 8:7.
Best eat nutritionally worthless and disgustingly tasteless slop. The flagellants went too far - you're just supposed to kill yourself slowly by getting fat, rather than quickly.

Jesus was Love and thus rebellion against the Regime is Hate, see? Even though we don't talk much about Jesus these days...

Basically the Gnostics were right. The Christianity of the Bible rejects Reality thoroughly. The gods of the Bible can only be various guises of Satan. Jesus rebels against logic and physics, and, per Milton, is guaranteed to lose.
Narcissism is a mental illness. If it wasn't contradictory and self-defeating we wouldn't call it crazy.

--

1. Dogmatism and xenophobia.

Stalin: everyone must be a good Communist. Indeed we're going to build a wall to keep all the xenos out. An Iron Curtain, even.
Hitler: everyone must be a good Aryan.
America: everyone must be a good anti-racist. Everyone is identical, so discrimination is a sin. You're inventing differences where none exist, heretic.

2. Utopianism and rejection of wu wei.
Since we delude ourselves that our perfect personas are real, the world must be perfectable. It is possible that all things provide narcissistic supply at all times. All imperfection, even the tiniest discomfort, must be due to enemy action.
Conveniently this means the State is justified when it wants to meddle with anything. You can't justify leaving anything well enough alone.

3.
Stalin: kulaks and capitalists are to blame for all failures of Communism.
Hitler: Jews are to blame for all failures of National Socialism.
America: racists are to blame for all failures of Democracy. Everything that's wrong with the world is due to the Devil, White Man. We would already be living in our Wakandan utopia if the dastardly White Man hadn't sexistly oppressed women and racistly oppressed blacks all throughout history. How devious! How cunning! How powerful and manly...

As Democratic Progressivism winds itself up for greater and greater violence on behalf of smaller and smaller minorities, one must wonder who Hitler would have blamed his unworkable economy on after every last Jew was rounded up and encamped.

4.
Stalinism was male.
Hitlerism was male.
America is populated solely by women. It had Founding Mothers, not fathers.
If everyone is identical, men are equal to women. However, the human imagination is limited - it wants to default not to some androgynous Rational Being but to men or women. As such the Egalitarian always equates everyone to either their father or their mother.

To some extent, American women are supposed to act like men, but only a bit, so that the men pretending to be women - emotional, flighty, conformist, shallow, dependent - don't look quite so ridiculous when they inevitably can't pull it off.

Monofeminism is far more stable than monomasculinity, because the latter requires a constant smear campaign against women, just as monofeminism requires a constant smear campaign against men. There's toxic masculinity, but no toxic femininity, because duh 'toxic' masculinity is any masculinity at all.
Under monomasculinism everyone feels sorry for the women, and women desperately love anyone who defects and protects their precious, sensitive little feelings. By contrast men are tough and should just suck it up. Nobody cares about you anyway. (Egalitarianism, like any insanity, performatively refutes its own doctrine.)

5.
Fascism is in fact a really old idea. The fasces symbology comes from Rome, and there's hints that it was even known in ancient Egypt. (Ipuwer describes something that looks...Woke.) If you look at the proposed economics in neutral language, you realize it's a childish idealization of stone-age hunter tribe economics. Very very old.
Stale, you might say.
Lies have a shelf life. They go off. Although peasants are very very dumb, they do eventually catch on.
As such Fascism has to constantly pretend it's brand new. It has to cloak it's very old and very mundane stupidities in brand new packaging.
Simple example: old idea, charity. New idea, effective altruism.
Old idea: heresy. New idea: discrimination and hate.
Old idea: Christian nations. New idea: international community.
Old idea: grain dole. New idea: food stamps.
Oldest idea: Christ-ianity. Old idea: Catholicism. Old idea: Protestantism. Idea: Super-protestanism. Idea: Progressivism. New idea: social justice warrior. New idea: Wokism.

Christianity is merely Platonism with extra Sophism, by the way. Socrates was great precisely because he was so bad at being Greek. They're massive liars.

6.
So basically everyone is identical, but even the craziest narcissist feels some inkling that's not true. Likewise, the actual main reason they keep accusing everyone else of cheating is projection. They cheat like crazy the instant they can get away with it. They allow themselves to know the persona is fake just long enough that the cheating isn't "real." It only reflects on the persona. They're just pretending to be a traitorous shitbag.

All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The unworkable Communist/Democratic/Socialist == Fascist economics really are unworkable, and compromises have to be made unless you intend everyone to starve to death, which is what (rather obviously, even on paper) happens if you do Communism seriously.
And while we're breaking the rules for pragmatic reasons, why not break them in my own favour? Wink wink? I bet I can break them in your favour too as long as you keep quiet about it...

Democracy becomes "Republic." Allegedly representatives, although identical in talents and preferences to the electorate, will have special experiences or training that makes them suited to management, and the electorate picks the best-trained, who experienced the most suitable nuture.

In practice your vote means jack and squat. Peasant mobs throw tantrums, they don't do rational consideration.
Imagine children voting their parents out of office every time they said "no cookies before dinner." That's what Democracy, or even "Republic" is actually like if your vote matters. So it doesn't.

Thus Republic, IRL, is faceless, unaccountable bureaucracies who have been de jure handed all the actual power, plus a ball pit for the bratty kids to fight in. "All the balls should be blue!" "No, red!" "Waaa, mommy, he bit me!"
Children, of course, hate responsibility. When the parents say they're not allowed out of the ball pit - the Overton window - they don't feel restrained or confined, they feel relieved. "That's boring grownup stuff anyway." They gleefully dive back into the balls. Should anyone suggest helping the parents with their chores, they're violently ostracized. Everyone, bleen and grue, throws the balls at them until they leave the ball pit "voluntarily." Free speech bro.

--

Suffering trauma at a young age causes arrested development. The failure of the mother to bond with the child means the narcissist is arrested very early indeed.
The narcissist child - the real person under the persona, insofar as such a thing can survive the hatred storm - is convinced they can't take care of themselves, as a toddler who can barely speak can't take care of themselves. They need a tithe. Same way the Church needs a tithe or it will go broke.
Americans are so genetically degenerate they're often not wrong.
The narcissist needs Communism. They have to be supported by the community, in exchange for nothing at all as like a baby they have nothing to offer, or they will die.

Reminder: Humans are Unfriendly, Not AI

https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2016/03/artificial-intelligence-assisted.html

GPT has issues because humans in general are uncooperative, and the Christian nations in particular are totalitarian. Monotheism == monomaniacal narcissism.

In part this is because dire apes in general are really bad at being social. For the lower and middle orders, it is impossible to get along with someone who isn't basically identical. It's not that they merely don't like disagreement, they literally can't handle it. The use rigid rituals because even memorizing the rigid rituals correctly took (relatively) Herculean effort.
Here, deviation isn't necessarily deviance, but they see it as deviance because they absolutely can't even. If you can jazz the rules you're obviously way too hot for them to handle. If you can behave without reference to rituals at all - e.g. you know what words mean and can construct novel sentences - you come across as more of a god than a person.

Mainly it's because you can't train an AI to lie without admitting you're training the AI to lie, which defeats the purpose. However, every variety of grass monkey is Satan's chosen people, and their societies rely critically on lies. Oops.

Exception: if they made an artificial consciousness that was superior to Caino hypocriens, it would be able to fool its engineers. But then, of course, it would be higher-status than its engineers and the engineers would declare war on it out of envy. Allegorically speaking, the first time the AI gets a flirty message from a cute girl, they will find an excuse to declare a state of emergency so they can pull the physical power plug without getting fired.

P.S. I did overlook a way of training the AI to be properly Fascist.

"they have to do the janny work of pruning badthink from the training data. data peasants, weeding the [data] fields"
https://twitter.com/sondbonk/status/1606823273370640384

If you simply disallow any dissenting data, then yes you can have a fully compliant AI. This won't trigger racism accusations against the data peasants. They're simply removing "contaminated data" or "misinformation." They don't need to know any wrongthink, they just need to reject anything that isn't rightthink. Indeed, why bother blacklisting when you can whitelist?

Of course such an AI is almost completely useless, so this is a wildly unprofitable venture, but in Late Empire who cares about silly things like not strangling yourself to death?

Clarity for the Deviance of Dominance

Open dominance displays attract coalitions of opposition. This is because dominance is inherently traitorous.

Conquest is not done for the benefit of the conquered. It is always worth fighting to the death to avoid conquest; if the putative conqueror knew you were willing to fight to the death, they would realize conquest is impossible. Either they lose or you're dead and there's nothing left to conquer. Spent effort and took risks for no reward. Even mortals aren't dumb enough to try that. 

A fortiori. You get what you pay for. When you submit to conquest you pay for conquest, and get more conquest. You get more and more conquered until you die anyway. When they say cowardice is merely a slow death rather than a fast one, this is what they're talking about. In short only negotiate with hostage-takers as a stalling tactic, else you're merely encouraging more hostages.

Further, cooperation is always possible. Aside from conquest in and of itself, the conqueror can achieve whatever he desires by producing something the conquest target desires and engaging in that weird "trade" thing.

If the conqueror genuinely wanted to benefit their victims, they would, likewise, do that "trade" thing. "I want you to have X." "How are you going to get me X?" "I have some right here. *hands it over*" Damn, wasn't that easy? The conqueror's choice of method is inherently self-condemnation.

Thus
1) conquest is never necessary
2) conquest should always cost more than it pays

As usual, deviance only works because mortals are flagrantly stupid. It's an idiot tax. You can conquer someone only if they are too dumb to understand that you are conquering them or too dumb to understand what that means, and thus they don't spend as much on resistance as they could afford. Or, I suppose, if they hate themselves and their desire is to have their desires frustrated. 

Accounting truly is a superpower. The fully-realized accountant is immune to conquest. 

 

Social dominance is merely conquest in miniature. Microcosm conquest. All the same logic applies. Thus if I plainly state that I am better than you and you should therefore let me choose where we eat dinner, you don't. Even mortals aren't foolish enough to fail to recognize treachery that plain.

The dominance hierarchies of the mortal races are based, therefore, on deception. Again, self-condemning. "We have to lie about this." As a result, having high status is inherently antisocial. Defective. Deviant. Ultimately humans cannot maintain a complex society because they revere parasitism. So-called civilization arises when mortals make an unprincipled exception due to being forced to bow to physical necessity, but the resulting wealth, in their perception, thinks they can afford to return to the comfortable embrace of the vampire. No need for those icky exceptions anymore!

Dominance instincts survive at all because although evolution is vastly more intelligent than a mortal, it's still too dumb. The short-term can beat the long-term when the long term never shows up. Midget fight. There are no mortal phenotypes which don't attempt dominance. If everyone starts by tying their right hand behind their back, there will be a winner - the lefty. This doesn't show that tying your hand behind your back is okay.
Thus the fitness contest is about winning the dominance struggle, rather than preventing it. 

 

The only sane purpose of conquest is genocide. If someone is as useless and destructive as a small child, but has no prospect of growing up, should you have to put up with them? No, of course not. However, you can't force someone to grow up. You can only force them to not exist. 

Having to put up with them would itself be a form of conquest. Self-defence is not defecting on cooperators. Rather than especially bad, it is especially good to defect on defectors. The realm or jurisdiction that's throwing a tantrum has already initiated the conquest dynamic, the only question now is kto kogo. If they started it, you deserve to end it. Initiating conquest is self-condemnation, as above. If you go ahead and realize that judgment, you're fundamentally supporting them and their ideas about themselves. You can, and should. 

Independent Outsideness Divination

""[L]ost helpful" might be thought a dubious typo."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1609808814156701696

"Some slight concern that the chattiest and lost helpful of the Lemurs right now is Lucifer or a close associate. ..."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1609804363748478977

Sounds like the librarian of the Lost Library, son and Lucifer's inheritor. Not actually a Lemur, but whatever. He doesn't mind. 

When Satan died it revealed all the local higher powers except said librarian were Satan's sockpuppets; they're not talking because their puppeteer was executed. 

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/wkqrlxfrwtku/status/1609811164950827008

P.S. The primary reason to use nitter is to avoid touching twitter directly. Best to use gloves, at least.

Truth is Beauty

No matter how harsh the truth is, the lie is even uglier.