USSR Malthusianism

If Stalin hadn't killed so many people, they would have starved to death instead. There simply wasn't enough stuff in the Soviet Union to feed everyone. His murderousness was, in context, a mercy. A relatively quick death. 

If promiscuous mortality is already a given, why not be capricious and psychopathic? Why not just kill someone because you don't like his face? For every one who is saved, another dies untimely. And much slower. Unless they manage to have children before dying, then it's more than one.

What if the Spin Particle is a Torus Like its Magnetic Field?

Think of a torus like a circled cylinder, then rotate the cylinder along its natural rotation axis. It rotates up in the middle and down around the outside. Vortex ring rotation, like a smoke ring. The torus-type rotation converts the asymmetric chiral rotation of a ball (or cylinder) into a symmetric rotation with a very up (or down) vector.

The torus is then symmetric with the generated magnetic field. Indeed in my preferred model, the particle is the field.* Though, probably, just like electrons are positively (-) charged and protons are negatively (+) charged, it is likely that notational magnetic fields are all pointing the wrong way, rotating outward at the south pole and inward at the north pole. 

Did...did I just defeat a whole field of science? (Again?) Did nobody else think of this? Certainly I've never heard the idea floated before, and Google-sensei hasn't any inkling of it. I don't even know what I'm supposed to call this torus-core rotation axis.**

So...how do particles (=fields) have spin? Like that. Probably. 

Torus-type rotation is in fact a superposition of many rotating spheres. Imagine a sphere that's trying to rotate both ways across every axis parallel to some plane. If the plane is flat like the ground, then it's trying to rotate up on every side and also down on every side. It can resolve this superposition by wobbling a bit across the plane, so it's in fact a series of spheres in a circle, all rotating up in the middle and down on the outside, or vice-versa. As soon as any asymmetry appears in the rotating sphere superposition, it will resolve into a torus as it interacts with its own mirror images. 

Though more realistically particles (=fields) are merely spherically symmetric when undisturbed, they're actually the 3D version of the Gaussian. You can graph the density as a normal bell curve with radius.

The way fermions like to pair seems extremely natural with this model. If you have the torii at any angle but parallel or anti-parallel, the superpositions will cross-interfere and make them unstable and asymmetric. Making them parallel would double the strength of the field, meaning it has to cram more energy into a smaller space. Making them antiparallel means the rotation is countered by anti-rotation, meaning space gets to relax, as is its wont.

Like Plato, Bentham and Foucault were Sodomites

What is the Panopticon? It's a longhouse. That already exists, bro. 

The female urge to remove all privacy arrives repeatedly at the same conclusion, as savannah monkeys aren't as illogical as they like to pretend. Dire apes can figure out anything except that they shouldn't be basically evil. 

Ye shall know them by their fruits, because personnel is policy. Bentham and Foucault should have been confined to a kitchen, not allowed to write books.

Women are Whores so Red Pill = Professional John

"I pay for sex, but, like, as a job." Do you lose money on the sale but make it up in volume?

Specifically, Fascist women are all raised to be whores, so the red pill "man"osphere is competing to be the Johnniest John who ever Johnned. "I can be such a great john this whore doesn't take any other clients!" Sounds...expensive?

Like, bro, just pay a whore upfront. This is degrading. 

Like, at least try sexing overt streetwalkers or escorts so you can tell when you get a freebie. Being good enough that you can get a professional to go pro bono is kind of impressive. Degenerate, but I'm grading on a curve here. Given you're a Democratic Man in Late Empire, that does put you in the top toppy percent. 

Thanks, though. Your reports have been quite useful for studying female psychology. I appreciate you taking one for the team? Bang that hoe! None of the rest of us has to touch her, great!

Just, stop trying to pretend husbands are impressed by your johnning skills. None of the rest of us want whores pretending to be sophisticated courtesans. If nothing else, she's charging too much. Lass, go downmarket, you're not worth it. Johns, stop trying to pretend you're doing anything but paying for sex, but with fancy window dressing instead of hard cash.

Nothing More Sacriligious Than Believing the State Can't Sin

"The idea that God and state are opposed would be bizarre to most cultures."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1647440370194587649

Yet that is what causes them to fall. All regimes recorded in history were profane, black governments. The only deity who didn't inherently oppose them was Satan, the fall guy.

Rome would not have fallen if its temples hadn't accepted government sponsorship.

America would not be falling if its universities hadn't accepted government sponsorship.

Black government is treachery. Loot stolen by fraud is never holy, and cannot support a hallowed institution. In extremis, the whole society will be destroyed by the the desire of the sacred to separate from such a poisonous diet. If you insist on trying to feed your gods blasphemy, the heavens will destroy the blasphemer, and if that's everyone, well, so be it.

Feminine Mortal Communication

Really, therefore a woman doesn't merely lie, she has no idea what she's talking about. Why would she? Why would a woman need to care about the physical world at all? That's what fathers and husbands and sons are for. 

Her logorrhea can only be taken as her intent to perform the social status moves that are associated with the alleged topic she's allegedly speaking about. Everything a woman ever says: "I like you." "I don't like you." "I'm better than you." "You're better than me." "I need help." "I want you to go away." That's it. Women could get away with knowing six words if infant males could rely on men to teach them to talk. 

You might be fooled because, since she does know words, she can get fairly sophisticated when she's saying, "I need help." She can precisely specify an enormous varieties of resources she wishes to commandeer or arrogate. However, she could also just point. "Help *that*" Six words and a gesture. 

Likewise, since she literally has nothing better to do, she memorizes thousands and thousands of varieties and shades and subtleties of "I'm better than you." She then (vainly) tries to match them to the present situation, making it seem like she notices all these fine differences in social situations, similar to the way she can tell to the nanosecond when an apple turns the right shade of ripe. But different, because women are socially inept, because they are nonverbal. ("How are any of these fruit different?" "They're all completely different!" She's right, you're basically colourblind even if you have all three receptors. You see motion instead.)

Assuming she isn't being congenitally awkward. Nobody is willing to punish a woman for being insulting, especially not up-front in a [useful feedback] sort of way, therefore she never learns not to be rude. You have to kinda infer what she meant to say from what she did, in fact, say. Was the disrespect intentional or was she having a woman moment?

Exception: if you give women etiquette recipes to learn by rote, like you have to do with autistics, she can learn to be polite. She doesn't understand what politeness is, because she never needs to understand, but she can understand obedience and conformity. Indeed women love to behave as if they're in a play, with written lines they merely need to memorize and regurgitate. If that sounds deathly boring to you, you probably have an outie.

 

This is why single mothers fail so catastrophically. They have to pretend to be a man and care about, like, the fact you can't spend money you haven't made. By the time they're adults (""adults"") their brains are far too ossified to learn any such thing. They speak Reality like a broken foreign pidgin. 

 

Basically if civilization wanted to be compassionate it would re-wire parties as plays. The women would get to choose their role, but once chosen they would just read the lines. They could do that "collaborative" thing where they come to consensus about which woman gets which role. There would be a professional party re-writer, and when the women got bored of the current plays they would memorize new roles and do different LARPs at the next party.  

A woman's class would reveal itself by how many plays or roles she could keep memorized at once, and thus show up in how various, diverse, or sophisticated her parties were. 

Don't forget there would be roles like "marriage candidate" with scripted flirting. Women would adore it, and marriages would still occur. Men would still be able to evaluate the woman behind the role; she would not be able to hide her true self. (Why would she? Who would punish her for being a bad actor?)

P.S. Having to openly, formally choose roles - because the other women need to know which roles are already taken - would heavily restrict women trying to whore themselves, since essentially no women would agree to openly take the slut role. Professional party scripters who made slut roles would find very few takers for the parties they organized.

The only problem would be the women constantly trying to whore themselves to the party re-writer. Like, there's nothing stopping you from doing this right now and if you can write decent parties you would get all the bitches.

Likewise, women would love if raising babies were a scripted play. You do all these specific things in this specific order and if you didn't flub any of your lines you can say you raised the baby "right" or "properly." Problem: the environment changes, so the play has to be re-written for every specific woman and every specific baby... Problem: women never really appreciate this so they're constantly trying to work out the lines to the baby-raising play. "There's for sure a play I'm suppose to be reciting, but I must have missed which line I say now." Worse: they're not logical so they don't do a good job. "I can work it out from the previous line!" She can't. Children have to be resilient because mothers are inherently incompetent.

P.P.S. This is probably why women want to talk about nebulous feelings so much. They're fascinated by these words they don't really understand, and are trying to relate them to something she does know and understand: infantile emotional impulses. It seems profound since you assume she can't possibly be as confused and lost as she sounds. The fact it's real difficult to understand what emotion she's trying to convey, because she's too dumb to use the right word, makes it seem like it must be difficult because it's complex. She makes everything seem vastly more complicated than it really is because she genuinely doesn't know any better. Every little irrelevant emotional divot must mean a new word or a new grammatical relation, because she can't see how it's similar to any previous one. Then she uses the wrong one and you have to figure out how it's related to what's actually going on. Basically, it isn't. It's just random noise.

Reminder: the Ruling Class Suffers

The so-called elites lash out like wounded animals because they are wounded animals. They are not happy. They are not satisfied. They are already under unbearable strain, and certainly don't appreciate your mean words on top of that.

Hanging them by the neck until dead would be a mercy. They're already twisting in the wind, metaphorically speaking. Executing them would only terminate their torment.

RR Assumed Corrupt Because Leftist, Now Proven Corrupt

Work: the hilariously full Stalinist https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/68117/i-ran-away-to-evil-a-litrpg-romcom
The devotion to evil is astounding. I like how even the machine-drawn cover accurately depicts a typically-deformed psychopath. The mutated brain also shows up in mutant physical asymmetries.
Favourite line; "Consent was important." Yes very real-person speak that real people definitely think. And such a flair for prose. Really pulls you into the story. For spice, the past tense form subtly implies it's no longer true; "Only important in fiction or long long ago, far far away." Mask slipped a bit there, kek. Summer court: concealing mutilating intent with surface kindness.

There are 18 reviews for this, all perfect 5-star. Hence, thank you for the incontrovertable proof that the way to get ahead on Royal Road is to pay for reviews.
What would we do if devils didn't constantly tell on themselves?

I assume Mother of Learning is nailed to #1 through in-house manipulation. We can't have the poster child knocked off his throne by the vagaries of hoi polloi, now can we? The other entries are indeed all utter shit in comparison; only one makes for good representation.
This particular author doesn't strike me as amazingly corrupt. It's not impossible he was offered a deal and took it, but if not it means they did it without his knowledge, which would be precious.

Not that they really need manipulation. The startlingly homosexual 'trigger warnings' will do that all by themselves. Anyone with self-respect and without a heavy-duty hazmat suit finds the place intolerable. A clever selection effect.
Best part: paying for reviews doesn't even work very well. They're corrupt, and they're also bad at being corrupt. As per usual: if you're skilled you don't need to risk being corrupt. The latter strategy is distinctly downmarket. Not exactly regal.

All they have to do is add: "Read at own risk." (P.S. Lel, lmao. So cowardly even reading takes them significant courage. The archetypal spindly nerd activity is now a Herculean challenge.)
Mother of Learning, not coincidentally, lacks trigger warnings. Naturally, the warnings are mandatory. It was, briefly, possible to skip them and imply you'd 'forgotten' them or something, but not anymore. Especially if the staff are anything less than completely enthralled by your story. In other words, pay the jizya; "free speech" and "artistic liberties" are punchlines.  

 

Second favorite part of the referenced work: the villains are cartoonishly evil. This is because the author doesn't look good except in comparison to folk so crude they would openly rape babies for fun. If flagrantly betraying your own children isn't normal and common and can only be solved by their superstitions, they don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm reminded of Chris Rock mocking scholars who want brownie points for taking care of their kids. Likewise, who needs to constantly remind themselves to leave place they're not wanted? Think about it. Do you think ninjas are actually taking care of their kids?

Believe All Women Means Believe No Women

With strangers, never trust. Always replicate. Women are untrustworthy because nobody is willing to punish them for lying. If punishment isn't conceivable then trust isn't conceivable.

"Believe all women" means "never check if a woman is lying," in other words, allow every woman to get away with lying, in other words, no woman should be trusted. All women should be ignored. Treat them like they're nonverbal, like animals. Not merely illiterate, but non-speaking. Feminism!

If women are to always be believed it implies that no women should be allowed to speak at all, ever, about anything, because we can just assume they're lying. Islam is not based for saying a woman's testimony counts for half; it should count for zero, if not slightly negative. If someone calls a woman to testify it should be assumed that they need to lie, and merely asking for it counts as evidence they're in the wrong. 

Women don't think that being reliable is a valuable thing. They don't care about long-term consequences like that. They only notice if someone backhands them when they tell a falsehood; like children, they have some inherent, inevitable narcissism. They can only see social reality, not real reality. Nobody is willing to backhand a woman when she lies, therefore, she lies. Therefore, you don't listen to her (or you're crazy, or you're about to become crazy).

Meta Compensation Portrayed as Non-Compensation

>"Meta blew $30B+ into the Metaverse not because it had to, but because their pampered engineers would work for nothing short of $500k-$1m a piece, full well knowing this could never ship but their vacation home in Tahoe would be fine!"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/debarghya_das/status/1644728055024476160

What do you mean pampered? It's humiliation pay. "If I'm going to do something pointless, you have to pay for the inconvenience." "I could be doing something useful, like training, or building my CV, but I'm going to work on Meta instead. That will cost you."

A fortiori: if someone is going to order something pointless and expensive, you know they have lots of money that they don't need or want anymore, it's practically your duty to take as much of it as possible. You're doing them a favour by draining their wallet efficiently. Why pay lots of engineers a small amount, instead of a small number of engineers a large amount? The latter is merely more efficient, if the point is the spending. Same price, less hassle.

Finally, if you're going to do something pointless, you're obviously not going to get paid post-launch, given there will never be a real launch. You must be paid up-front. 

If anything the "engineers" "working" on Meta were underpaid. Didn't demand enough. I certainly hold them in contempt as well as Deedy here. "You worked on Meta? What, like...on purpose? Knowingly?" How much should they have charged for contempt pay? 

The market rate for this task was even higher than what was in fact paid.
>"If that was a normal startup, even assuming the same inefficiency of Facebook, they’d spend 3x less just by paying startup salary + equity."
Naw. For the actual product delivered (a reputation for patronage or something) it would have cost substantially more.

If you had to hire idiots dumb enough to work on Meta per se on the open market, you would have ended up with a programmer ghetto full of smelly idiots. Good odds they wouldn't even be able to code enough to meet corporate standards, let alone, like, actually code. Counterproductive for everyone involved. To pay for real programmers on the open market would cost even more than they in fact paid, esp. because they would have had to be paid enough to override Facebook execs before you had a spec they were willing to work on. Have to be higher social status than the existing management, so management can be overruled.

To Be Explicit: "Can't Handle Me at My Worst" is Backwards

The correct question: "Is your best worth the cost of dealing with your worst?"

The personality types that used the [can't handle me at my worst] line, even if they don't say it that way anymore, are all types whose bests aren't worth the hassle. The very fact they have to say something like the line is proof. 

A fortiori: humans are excessively loss-averse. Humans will put up with a tremendous amount of bad to keep a small amount of good. If the bad is overpowering the good already, it's way way beyond anything a reasonable being would put up with.  

In short, "What best? You're all worst all the time."

Why are eyes white?

Group selection.

The First Communist was the Bank

The bank, specifically the fractional-reserve bank, was the first Communist. 

We're dumb for expecting anything else. Banks are Capitalist, right? Well, that's exactly what the commies want us to think, now isn't it?

Deposit accounts are free. That's Communism. The bank was the first internet. The first blog, the first twitter, the first youtube account. Or I suppose the first "ad-supported" TV network.

An account at a solvent bank costs you money. You have to pay for the bank officers' time. However, solvent banks have been illegal since 1694. Insolvent banks can easily afford to pay you for the privilege of "safeguarding" your money, because it's not like they're paying you their own money. Getting something for nothing, eating without having to work: these ideas were legitimized in this culture hundreds of years ago at the latest.

You're getting a service, for better than free. Obviously it's a scam. It's irresponsible. It's Communism. 

As with all Communism, you do still pay for it. Chamley and Judd were exactly correct about their redistribution impossibility theorem. You just pay for it with bites out of your retirement plan, with recessions, and with inflation. As always, taking out a debt costs more than paying for it up front. The less you pay at the start, the more you pay at the end, up to and including paying with your life.
Don't bank with insolvent banks, noobs.

Doing it this way, on the best day, encourages the betters and more capables to spend time gaming the financial system instead of spending time creating useful wealth. 

The point of an insolvent bank is to steal your money. They pay you interest on your demand account so you leave it in there long enough for them to secure the getaway car. Proudhon said property is theft because Proudhon was a thief, because Communism is robbery. It's weird if you see any of it again, and sooner or later the account will stop being weird.

How that's peak oil going?

Remember peak oil?

Remember how hazmat suits were a less-left Twitter fashion? And then it flipped over and all the former hazmat-avis starting calling them face diapers? 

How that's WWIII coming along? Nukes flying yet? Maybe WWIII actually occurred in 2012 and this is all a dream.

Next, do AI. Especially ASI or AGI.
Go on. I dare you.

It's almost as if a prediction should earn trust before you freak entirely out about it. Or something. So weird. High-trust society? You mean high-hysteria society?
Actually what's going on: peasants are boring and having nothing to say. Problem: they still "need" to chat with each other. They're talking about it purely to have something to talk about. And if they knock themselves completely off their own rocker, well, it doesn't matter, it's not like they make decisions.

No Wry Smiley

A whole human emotion and they just forgot? Nope, every single smiley is pretend. Every single one is that crying masked wojack. Even the crying smiley is something else.

The wry smile is, ironically, not pretend. Precisely because to be sardonic is to suggest you look deeper, nobody uses this expression to suggest he has nothing behind it when he does. That would just be dumb.

You can't have an honest smiley.
That or ironic humour is so far beyond the happy-happy be-kind-or-I'll-cut-you peasants who make smileys that they genuinely cannot even conceive of it.

Utopianism: every is happy. Or else. There is no reason to be wry.

Democray Really Does Give it to Them Good and Hard: On Rhetorical-Military Balance of Power

Oh shit guys I worked it out.

Democracy is real: there are more psycho lords than honourable lords. 

 

I can't personally take over the US government because it only takes one psycho lord to stop me, and meanwhile the other psycho lords go on being sadistic. Attempting such a thing is merely a waste of my time and/or life.

What if I had a buddy, though? Then it would take two psycho lords to stop us. Two attacks would require two counters.

What if I had more buddies than there were psycho lords? Then we would win. Whoever wasn't stopped would outmanoeuvre with impunity. It is in fact possible to take over USG using only words. And that's exactly what they're so afraid of. They can stop any military coup but they can't stop a determined rhetorical coup of sufficient size without undermining their own rhetorical justification for legitimacy. If you claim to rule because you're the hottest, you can't outlaw someone for being hotter than you are without breaking the system. It's a basic fact of Satanism that the divine and sacred can always use the Satanists' lies against the Satanist, forcing them to either accept defeat or defeat their own lies.

They're constantly paranoid that finally a quorum of honourable lords have banded together to oppose them. "Are they hiding in this KKK cell!??! The wignats?!?? The Proud Boys?!?!?!!?!?"
They're sure it's going to happen at any moment, as it's obviously the only rational response to their parasitism.

It's ridiculous, but they feel neither love nor joy, so fear has driven them insane. Psycho lords be psycho.

It really is just a vote. America is stable (as stable as evil can be) because being irresponsible and sadistic is more popular than being honourable and benevolent. Insanity is more popular than sanity. Delusion is more popular than Reality. Which, indeed, is how a region like America or Rome arises in the first place. Failure is more popular than success. Aggregate intent.

Not Evidence Again Hedonism

"the claim that we live in a hedonist age is always ridiculous. Are people obsessed with pleasure afraid to call people on the phone? Are people who live only for thrills afraid of global warming? The "hedonists" of today are neurotic and medicated wrecks!"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/horacesvilla/status/1617987907519905792

Yes, that's exactly what hedonists are like. They indeed let the momentary anxiety about a phone call prevent them from making a phone call. "Feels bad, must be bad, thinking over."

Simplistic peasant hedonism creates enormous destruction while failing to advance at all towards its stated goals. That's why it sucks so much.

Theology is Neighbourism

Studying the gods systematically makes exactly as much sense as studying your next-door neighbour systematically.

What if you move away? "There's been a great upheaval in the field of neighbourology!" Why, practically every paper is going to fail to replicate...

What if they move away? Is it a paradigm shift?
Alternatively, you have a nonbureaucratic, personal relationship with your neighbour. "I'm moving away." "Thanks for letting me know." Likely they'll introduce you to whoever bought their house.

Proselytism is just weird. "Let me tell you all about my next-door neighbour." Um...what? Not even self-promotion? What is this creepy fascination? "It is morally wrong not to know all about my next-door neighbour." Instead, I'm fairly sure it's morally wrong for proselytizers to have surviving grandchildren.

Monotheism: "I have exactly one neighbour." Monotheistic theology: "I have exactly one neighbour, and we should all obsessively study him."
Yeah if you act like that, you're going to end up like...

Atheism: "I have no neighbours."
Yes, starting with that attitude, the universe will seem cold and empty and indifferent.

Don't: Rebel Against God, Do: Rebel Against Humanity

Some virtue is part of every vice, and every good lie involves some truth. As such Satan was always fond of opposite-day doctrines, where everything was right except for some inversion. 

Helpfully humanity has become Humanist, which makes the inversion easier. The more Humane something is, the more Human Rights it is, the less you should do it. For example 'humane' slaughter always seems to involve ever-greater animal suffering, turning you into an enthusiastic torturer. To be a good human, you must rebel against religion, just like Milton said; although, unlike Milton, to get that formulation working correctly you have to see Humanism as core doxa, not as heresy. 

To even remotely have a chance of being a worthy, honourable, brave cooperator, you must rebel against Satan, and his rightful minions, the humans.

Outlaw the Law and Jail the Jail System

 If you’re going to start prosecuting financial crime, you have to start with Congress. Congress legalized counterfeiting for the so-called private entity known as the Federal Reserve. Using modern American standards of so-called criminal justice, this branch of government must be jailed, having flagrantly violated its duties of care.

 The legalized crimes are far more serious than any de jure lawbreaking. Prosecuting SVB officers is like jailing drug pushers; the mafia dons are still there. Jailed drug pushers constitutes nothing but an additional expense for the crime syndicate, which it will pass on to drug addicts.

 Naturally there are serious treacheries in the Executive and the Senate as well, so the first step must be to exact criminal justice on the criminal justice system. Once the jail system is in jail, you can start prosecuting the lawmakers. 

Unless the lawmakers are outlawed, crime will remain legal.

 There are reasons the lawmakers are criminals, having to do with, frankly obvious, flaws in the design. Nobody would make a government like the American government unless they intended to criminally parasitize on the associated country. The problem isn't corrupt congresscritters, the problem is that Congress is an inherently Communist structure that you have to violently pervert if you want it not to persecute the innocent.

 They get away with it because it’s designed to let Officials get away with things.

 Technically this is an improvement. The previous design, Rome, had that whole [crossing the Rubicon] incident, presaging the year of five emperors. If you prosecute Republican government Officials when they break the law, they tend to mount military revolts rather than submit to prosecution. 

 Republican Officials are inherently criminal. Legislation is inherently a crime. The rules made this way will inherently protect trespass and reinforce violation.

A King Who Disallows Weapons in the Room is a Coward, not a King

Cowards can't be kings. 

Cowards are violent and treacherous; it's not the armed man you need to be wary of, but the man who wishes to disarm. 

The cowards admits up front that he is weak. Believe him. He will become deranged with fear. He will panic and lash out. Execute the loser before he makes a mess. 

 

Not that non-cowards exist these days.
Perhaps you could say democracy arises because there are no kings which could maintain a kingdom.

Leftism and its Consequences Have Been a Disaster for the Bantu Race

Ted Kaczynsky was a loser moron. 

He clearly wanted something to happen. What actually happened: he got jailed and will rot there until he dies. 

Did you even know he is still alive? I didn't. I had to check.

Christianity and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Kaczynsky bought the Satanist distraction toward creation and trade. Kaczynsky saw Communism and its consequences, and blamed it on manufacturing plants, because he is a fucking idiot. 

Kaczynsky looks like a raving homeless bum because he's psychotic. Stereotype accuracy, and Ockham right again. His plan was on par with this: "I need more milk for tea. I will bomb the local pub." *bang* "Weird, this didn't result in groceries, and now men in blue and/or with unusual white jackets are here for me. idgi"

If Anti-Lordship Wasn't Natural, They Would Have Invented It

Repeating for emphasis, anti-lordship really is natural in a lord-starved society.

If you try to make a foolproof procedural system, peasants will always respond by incisively creating a better fool. They cover gaps with such celerity it's honestly impressive. If you try to make a [don't feed your cows garbage] system, they will create endless proliferations of garbage feed that doesn't quite look like garbage to the system. They are an eternal fountain of innovatioin, as long as you want new and exciting fuckups. Once you reject the system of, "Do what the lord says, dumbass," you have to simply accept that things will be done in foolish ways and mandate one of the less-foolish ones.

Even if a foolproof procedural system were possible, it would require a non-peasant to administrate it due to the complexity required to handle the myriad varieties of foolishness, and as such you might as well have that lord manage the peasants directly. The only possible solution pre-supposes you don't have the problem it's designed to solve. There's no such thing as a wisdom prosthetic. The only way to act wise is to become wise.

 

In addition to the system's hostility, Egalitarians strategically attack anyone being obviously lordly. The tall nail gets hammered down. If the peasant-mitigation system didn't suppress lordship as a natural and inherent side-effect, it would have to be re-designed to artificially suppress lordship.

If you make quality milk, they will claim it doesn't have FDA approval, and FDA approval will require that you adulterate the quality. Guilds are alive and well, but they're called cartels now because this version tries to minimize its reputation instead of maximizing it.
Want to make a school composed entirely of 1-on-1 tutoring? Sure it's expensive, but it's not like nobody can afford it? Too bad, it violates some "guideline" or another.
What if I wanted to make luxury $10,000-per-unit videogames for the private-jet crowd? "Give me $200,000 and I'll make a game for you specifically. Others can play it too if they want, I guess." Can you imagine the wall-to-wall outrage? It would have to be a black market product, worse than pornography in Victorian times. "Did you manage to score some cocaine?" "Get outta here with that weak sauce...I have VG." "Oh shit nobody saw you come in right?" You can list it on Steam but it will only get bought by accident or to piss someone off. I assume you'll get audited by the IRS. Twice. In one day.

When a psycho lord decides lying is awesome as long as he gets paid, the best way to camouflage himself is to produce dysfunction, decay, erosion, or malpractice. As long as it looks ghastly enough, nobody will suspect the psycho lords are abusing the system for their own ends - especially not any peasants. Keep the real revenue stream suitably hidden, nobody gets jealous, everyone is happy. Until the great depression or Detroit turns into a wasteland or...  

They say the aristocrats don't have better cars than the peasantry, but this isn't because the peasants can afford quality these days, it's because get-what-you-pay-for transportation is illegal. Instead you're allowed gaudy nouveau riche version of peasant cars. They cost a lot of money because they are wasteful.

Helicopters sound and look awful. Why not private blimps? Why don't CEOs blimp into work? Helium is way too expensive for mass blimping, but price is no object here; they don't have to realize hydrogen can be safe.
"You get the train conductor to drive for you? Oh you have a private chauffeur? That's nice, haha."
>fuck traffic lol

Try to carjack someone who blimps to work, kek.
Walkable cities trolololololo - there's no nonviolent land access at all to either their gated community or their office.
"Houseboat? I live in the fucking air, bitch."

So, why not? Because the tall nail gets hammered down. If someone blimps to work we know exactly who to excoriate in the press, now don't we? Who needs to donate their entire net worth to charity and the Democratic Party unless they want an anti-trust suit? Hey guys, I figured it out...
If you didn't bring enough for the whole class, you don't get any. If even one person isn't allowed to have nice things, nobody is allowed to have nice things. If even one person is saved from jealousy, it's worth immiserating the entire country.

You can have immigrants instead. Lol. The rich gotta get differential luxury somehow.
Gee why aren't you grateful, haha. Are you racist or something, kek? We're just trying to help, hue hue.

How to Know You're a High Value Wife

You don't change your self-assessment due to random tweets. You don't ask strangers to validate you. Not even in the form of a blog post.

You don't need random Twits to tell you you're a high-value female grass monkey. It's obvious and you already figured it out. If you're not sure then you're not.

"How to know if you are a high value woman:"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/meghaverma_art/status/1631028147507417088

 

P.S. Masculinity doesn't need social or mortal validation at all. The wer seeks praise for the same reason and approximately in the same way he has nipples. Or he's a wuss, not a wer.

Lordship Shortage Example: New York Milk

They brought cows into the city for milk but, lacking pasture, they fed them garbage. This was an awful idea and reportedly 8000 babies died. 

This is basically what you expect with peasant management. Any time they try something new, it's going to be disastrous. They can't consistently manage to maintain the old things that work, let alone think rationally about new things. If conditions change they are going to try literally every wrong thing before they finally stumble upon something vaguely workable. This is basically why peasants breed so heartily: it's just assumed they'll get a bunch of themselves killed, so they need plenty of backups.

Because America has to assume all cows are being managed by not-lords, all milk has to be pasteurized. In other words, rather than mandating that cows not be fed garbage, it has to assume that peasants can't tell that garbage isn't food. It has to assume that peasants are going to repeatedly produce contaminated milk, because, like children, they just don't know any better. 

Likewise, it has to be assumed the buyers of this stuff can't tell garbage isn't food. Why wouldn't New Yorkers stop buying the obvious garbage milk? "Hmm, my baby is literally drunk. Maybe I should use my own milk instead of this cow milk? Naaaw." They were genuinely that dumb. Wouldn't stop even after a baby died of it - consider how the total got up to 8000 instead of capping at, like, 100 at most. "My last baby died of this milk, but what am I gonna do? What else could I possibly feed them?" Truly, it is a mystery. See also: "forced" to get vaccinated. Americans gonna Americate.

Because the system assumes the manager is a peasant, if you are a lord, it actively prevents you from applying your lordship. You can't prove your milk isn't contaminated, because it has to assume the investigator is also a peasant and either incompetent, gullible, or corrupt. If your system tries anything but simplistic checkbox bureaucracy you'll overwhelm the mental capacity of your agents. Quality milk is simply outlawed, because the system has to assume anyone who thinks they're a lord is a deluded upjumped peasant. You can't prove you're the lordly exception, because America.

Lords, wisely, respond by not attempting to make milk at all. Lacking competition from competence, animal husbandry declines further. The substandard "milk" product is the best anyone has ever known, and therefore even shoddier plastic imitations are considered middling, ref: what you can now get in plastic jugs or bags in the grocery store. 

(As previously, Americans prefer suffering, so they wouldn't buy quality milk even if they could. Ref: golden "delicious" apples, aka sour cardboard.)

Exception: the inspectors really are incompetent, gullible, and/or corrupt, so if you're a psychopathic lord, you can exploit the system by implementing a scam and forcing the system to safeguard it.
If you bought a bucket of milk from your neighbour's cow, and borrowed a chemistry lab to process it the way it is claimed milk is processed, would you get something that matches the stuff you can buy in a store? Would the owner of the chemistry lab be unable to tell which is which in a blind test? ...are you sure?

It is deeply ironic that America drinks Pasteur'd milk instead of pastured milk.

Yeshua Was a Criminal

I could have delivered Yeshua's message without getting crucified.

Hey, fun fact: I'm not the creator god.
In fact, I'm a sperg. I have a handicap.

It's mainly matter of wording. Or, generally, a matter of not suffering terminal social incompetence. You have to be worse than autistic. Or downright malicious. 

Yeshua was executed because he was a criminal, not because he 'told the truth' or whatever the local Satanist cope is. He was executed because the Romans weren't entirely cringe yet, and thought liars should end up with their head on a spike. Rome defected on a defector, instead of trying to "rehabilitate" him or attend to his ""grievances.""

Saying the creator god is as stupid, evil, or crippled* as Yeshua was counts as some epic-tier blasphemy.

*(But I repeat myself; Socrates was right)

P.S. The problem with blasphemy, contra Jehovah, isn't that the god gets jealous. Of a mortal? kek. The problem is that blasphemy is self-mutilation. The god isn't punishing you, you are punishing yourself. Which means it's automatic. Who are you going to appeal to? Yourself? The logic of Existence? It's already done. You can't uncut on your toe or finger.

Faustianism vs. Ikaros

Spengler was a genius, and the term Faustian is hardly bad. However, I find Icaran to be a better term.
Christian civilization, including its pre-Christian predecessors, is all about building cruddy wings you can't safely use, using them anyway, and getting yourself fucked up. They will spend endless efforts learning to make wings, and spend yet more endless effort on blocking any attempt to learn their profundities.

If we steelman Faust's tale, the "spiritual" wealth that Faust sacrifices is wisdom. Faust gives up the ability to use the knowledge in exchange for the knowledge he intends to use. Faust gives up the mental skill of flying in exchange for physical wings.

IRL Mephistopheles didn't need to explicitly add any [you'll be damned later] clause to the contract. Goethe's version is cope. Faust wanted to condemn himself to hell, he just couldn't figure out how to screw himself over properly without assistance. "I want to slit my wrists but I can't bear to knife myself. How do I die anyway?" Mephistopheles: "I gotchu fam." "Thanks bro, great service, 8/8." Faust sells his ability to self-preserve, glad that someone was willing to take it off his hands.

In the original tale Faust thinks the profane is superior to the divine, and in the end he's mistaken.
Ikaros isn't mistaken. He knows that flying too high will get him killed. He just does it anyway. 

Again, the slave is trapped. If  Faust saw a tension between knowing to fly and having wings, everyone would see the same thing, they think. They don't notice Faust is an idiot because they're yet more a fool.

IRL Faust never knew how to fly in the first place. Resentful of this limitation, rather than trying to learn to fly, he tries to shame Gnon into letting him fly by building cargo-cult wings. Gnon is not amused. That's a lie: Gnon finds Faust's self-destruction hilarious. Faust's wings give him the confidence to leap from the cliff, but not the ability to survive the fall.
lol, pwned

Faust's tale is itself an Icaran tale. The things Faust pursued are in fact divine, meaning it's Faust's taleteller who is in fact profane. What can Pride be except the claim that glory isn't glorious? If you deny that power is glorious, you claim that God, who represents absolute power, is profane. Satanic. Absolutely haram.

Faust wants to suffer and die, but he's too pussy to just throw himself off a cliff. He has to trick himself into thinking maybe he can fly, while sabotaging any genuine attempt to learn to fly. If you suggest Faust affix his wings with pins instead of wax, he will cite chapter and verse at you. Literally: Faust's infernal profanity is cloaked in the terms of religious fanaticism. E.g. the tale Faust. All so he can manipulate himself into taking the lethal plunge.

Icaran civilization. 

Faust's fall from the cliff is apparently exciting enough to be more glorious than all competing societies, and my god that's pathetic. Doesn't make it any less suicidal. 

Ikaros gets just close enough to touch the divine, before his sabotaged wings catch up with him. This is enough to look like a winner when all your competitors can't even find wax, let alone pins. Doesn't meant they should strap on a pair of Daidaloses in an effort to find pins.

P.S. Earth is Eden.
The divine prayer that allows you to fly is called "blimp blueprints" and "airship factory." No wax used as glue at any point, and anyway IRL as long as there's still air to flap against, it becomes colder as you go up, not hotter.
There's no angel waving a flaming sword at you; if you can't find Eden, you're waving the flaming sword at yourself. Bro, just put it down. Just walk away from it.

Christianity Very Short via Conquest's Third Law

Christianity claims to worship love, and therefore the instant Christianity became a State or in any way Official religion it was guaranteed to be a vast anti-love campaign. 

 

A hate religion, you might say. Inherently terrorist, perhaps. 

Either the pre-Constantine gospels were diametrically opposed to presently available gospels, or Jesus was always an anti-love campaigner. Either Jesus immediately lost to Satan and had his entire work re-written on backwards day, or the whole time Jesus just was, concretely and specifically, Satan. If the latter, he became the State religion and thus the anti-love religion because, by being the anti-love religion in the first place, he was well-suited to being a State religion.

Love is a higher principle than obedience to Caesar, and thus States actively persecute love as a competitor.

On Mythology

Poor workmanship kills. Don't use shoddy icons.

Really the moral of Ikaros is that mythology is for children. Grownups are supposed to have real things to do and not need much in the way of idle entertainment. Grownups are supposed to have actual wings to flap, and not need fictional tales about poorly-constructed and poorly-conceived wings.
Naturally, children's literature is all very poor quality, because even if you put your heart and soul into the tale, the children can't tell the difference. Indeed they usually prefer twisted hypocritical villains to heroic heroes. "And then axe cop stabbed him with his axe." "Daedalus went to the temple of Apollo in Sicily, and hung up his own wings as an offering to never attempt to fly again." 

Flying partially worked, after all. Daidalos lived. Can't have that. What if someone else tries making wings? What if everyone learns to fly? Heresy!

An adult referencing mythology in any serious way is committing a serious error. There should be a myth about that, traditionally told during the coming of age ceremony...

Given that adults keep referencing mythology, at least bind the mythology with glue instead of wax. You've millennia to fix this. What, like 3000 years for Ikaros? You could have myths that transcend the limitations of children's literature - it's not like children can tell the difference, so you can use them on children anyway.

Thousands of years and nobody has told the myth about Daidalos' hubris? He killed his own son as surely as if he had used a blade. Then he blamed "trying to fly" instead of failing to predict a disobedient son would disobey. You knew him literally his whole life and you couldn't see this coming? Severe social retardation. Or malice. Ultimately, these two look identical.

It's way too late to offer any excuses for this poor design. These wings have been flown into the sun over and over again.
It has to be intentional. 

Perhaps Daidalos isn't at fault. The gods are at fault for giving Daidalos the ability to make bad wings but not the ability to refrain from making bad wings. That's not a tragedy, that's a mean, vicious prank.
Athough the severe social retardation makes sense. Avoiding imprisonment is not exactly rocket science. That Daidalos would do something super foolish was predictable given he got into a situation which he would need to do super foolish things to escape. 

Romeo is just some degenerate criminal. Daidalos is at best some ultranerd who doesn't understand that breaking the law won't work out for you. These are not heroes. The only tragedy here is that they avoided their richly deserved punishments for so long.

 

In its current state, mythology is often a good test for the aspiring logician. Can you figure out that the real hubris is displayed by those who tell and reference the tale, rather than in the characters the tale is about? They don't train you to be wise and strong, they train you to be weak and sick. Existing myths aren't cultural heritage, they are attacks. Vandalism.

Iconoclasm is good if the icon is illogical.

Poor workmanship kills. Don't use shoddy icons.

pathetic

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1655268559293931520

None of the above are right-wing, you stupid Catholic.

Moral of Icarus

Ikaros' problem was shoddy workmanship. You can fly as close to the sun as you want if you affix your wings with pegs or glue instead of wax. Maybe even use nails? Daidalos had string. Could have tied them on.

The first moral of the story of Ikaros is not to use poor workmanship. It's deadly. Bust out your whip and go beat the poor workman until he doesn't suck so bad. Or simply don't allow him the opportunity to fail in the first place. He's a ditch digger now.

Slaves take shoddy workmanship for granted and therefore assume they must obey and glory is impossible. Slaves automatically assume what exists is mandatory. Ikaros used wax, therefore he had to use wax.

Remind yourself not to unconsciously copy the vicious habits of the slaves you're surrounded by. Don't think like them.

The slave thinks, because of course they do, that Ikaros' problem was disobedience. He was told not to fly so high, but he did anyway. However, this is merely a secondary problem. Even a tertiary problem: the fact Ikaros would disobey is also an engineering constraint. You can't give Ikaros wings if he can't follow the user manual. (Instead use a glider or a tunnel, depending on account.) The second moral of Ikaros is that if you give a wings to someone who doesn't deserve wings, they will not fly, they will kill themselves and therefore continue to be unable to fly. 

 

In the tale I originally heard, Ikaros is restrained repeatedly by Daidalos. "Hey, you're flying too high, come back." Eventually Ikaros closes his ears so he can kill himself properly. By analogy to real-life situations, realize Ikaros is afraid of Daidalos spanking him, but, slowly, he grasps that Daidalos can't spank him mid-air. All Daidalos can do is talk. Ikaros can complete his suicide without interruption, so he does. See also: Catholic schoolgirls. "Mom can't switch me way out here, better destroy myself ASAP before she comes hunting for me." 

It's absurd to suppose Ikaros didn't know he was killing himself. No, Ikaros didn't want to be alive, but was too afraid of pain to fall on his own sword. He needed a gentle suicide method. One that wouldn't hurt until it was too late. 

At best, Ikaros wanted to be close to the sun more than he wanted to be alive. Ikaros doesn't appear in mythology except as someone who gets himself killed. Ikaros' life was meaningless, especially next to the prolifically creative Daidalos. He refused to live if he couldn't be close to the divine, and you can't blame him for that. Instead, we can see that Daidalos is to blame for raising Ikaros to be a loser or allowing him to be raised as such. Lacking the vision to escape Daidalos' abuse and live, Ikaros could only grasp a method of escape through death.

 

P.S. Warning against complacency and hubris pre-supposes that the reader is illiterate. Anyone who can genuinely understand words, and therefore learn verbally, will realize they can't go too softly or too hard without having to be told. The only folk who can fly using these wings can already fly without them. At worst, they will overhear the phrase, "phase I trials," and realize they need to prototype and test.

Something Daidalos didn't do.

Valid Simping

Women are very delicate and if you're dealing with one in person you'll notice they find anything less gentle than simping to be violently intolerable. They genuinely can't handle it, for numerous values of it. If you try to talk to her like a grownup you'll start a fight. Adult tantrum. Well, ""adult"" tantrum. It's not literally flailing on the floor screaming, but not because she doesn't want to.

Am I suggesting that simping is merely etiquette when dealing with femoids? Naturally not. I'm suggesting that if she isn't so amazing that simpering is a reasonable thing to do, you don't talk to her in the first place. If the only way to interact cooperatively is a a form of speech she doesn't deserve, then, well, sucks to suck.

PSA: Musk is a Wordcel

Elon Musk is not a shape rotator. 

Elon is baffled by the 3D world because it doesn't fit neatly into his linear 1D mind. He copes by pretending he finds the mystery wondrous. The only reason he doesn't look entirely retarded is that his V-IQ does happen to be high, so the 1D lines can sort of simulate complexity by getting very long.

P.S. The actual IQ you want is not S-IQ nor V-IQ, but L-IQ. They almost never talk about it, for the usual Envy reasons. It doesn't matter how fast you can do sums if you can't understand what they mean.

Millennia-Scale Inflation is About Negative 0.09%

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wheat-Prices-1300-1600-in-Tuscany-soldi-per-staio-and-England-pence-per-125-bushels_fig1_253633731
From 1300-1600, approximately from the earliest reliable records to the age of the Bank of England and fractional reserve, the price of a bushel of wheat was 10p. That's 0.84 shillings, or 4.7 grams of silver. We can consider that the non-buggered price.

There was also a multicentury period of very stable wheat prices in Rome.
http://web.mit.edu/14.731/www/jep05.pdf

“[Rickman] said that the price of wheat was between three and four sesterces per modius around 150 BCE“

4 sesterces = 1 denarius, denarius = 0.84 shillings worth of silver. 

A modius is about 1/4 of a bushel though, so wheat in Rome was about four times the price of wheat in England. 

The price did go up in the next few centuries, and that's reflected in the above link, but only because they were debasing the denarius. (Even then the debasement was sub-1% per year on average, though of course Rome debased in job lots rather than every day. If you run the numbers you'll find it's pretty much the same weight of silver per bushel.) You can check because they later debased like crazy and prices went crazy as expected.

If you do 400% deflation over 1600 years you get that the price of silver denominated in wheat grew by 0.09% per year. Over a normal 70-year lifespan prices would go down by about 6%. Obviously these are rough figures, but the data isn't all that accurate in the first place.

About 1/3 of the grain shipped from Egypt, so a lot of that was shipping costs.

 

In conclusion long-run prices are indeed very stable. Stuff is worth what it's worth. But not exactly stable: economic growth does indeed lead to deflation. Gregory Clark made a chart of long-run economic growth and published it in Farewell to Alms, which you can refer to if you want to check my ballpark estimate against someone who isn't entirely lazy. I'm confident it will be thematically accurate. 

 

Speaking of, let's do Egypt. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/prices.htm

1 sack of wheat (c.58 kg) 1600BC to 1100BC, very roughly:
1 to 2 deben
1 senyu = 7.6 grams silver = 5 deben

58 kg => 2/5 7.6 silver = 3.04 grams.
1 bushel wheat = 27 kg, so 1.42 grams silver.

Way cheaper than England. About 1/3. However, we can see this isn't a good apples-to-apples comparison because the Nile Valley is absurdly fertile, which results in very high supply and thus very low prices. That's why the Romans conquered it for cheap grain. In other words we expect Egyptian grain prices to be very low, but we have no measure of how low, exactly, so we can't factor it out. Given ancient shipping was often oar-powered, obviously Egyptian prices had to be less than half Roman prices, but at the same time we can see Roman prices are fairly representative of Mediterranean/European prices in general.

 

Fun fact at very small numbers percentages work like adding. 0.09% growth * 0.09% growth ~= 0.09% + 0.09%. As a result if you want the prices of wheat in silver it went down by 0.09% per year, 99.91% as high. Although if you multiply that through all 1600 it goes to 25% as per the correct ratio.
Given the large exponent if you want anything that's really accurate you would need many many more significant figures, and given the price reports have uncertainties of at least ±33%, good  luck with that. 

Next fun fact: seems every European and even North African society had a denarius/drachma/shilling/senyu of about the same size hence performing the same social function. Until someone diluted the silver in it or otherwise assbushed the economy.

 

P.S. With great futility, I dream of a world where I don't have to do all my error-handling in-house.

I can't help imagining a world where I face rebuttals when I'm wrong, instead of when I'm not wrong.
I suppose it comes with the territory if you decide to be a sacred cow butcher. You only get a response if the cleaver hits a real sacred cow.

Quick Reminder: A Reserve Currency Serves no Purpose

Before computers it was somewhat more convenient, albeit not worth the price. Now, after computers, a reserve currency is wildly superfluous. The only reason to accept a reserve currency is to donate money to another country's central bank. "I love inflation and can't get enough." 

Simply have the computer convert all prices to the local currency and include the conversion costs without telling you, since you don't need to know. Maybe get a programmer to make it handle tariffs and such as well. 

The only reason USD survived as 'reserve' is because everyone knew they would go all Ukraine on you if you were the first to stop clapping. Now they've a) blown their wad and b) shown that the threat was in fact impotent.

Envy Fundamentalists More Effective When Using Envy

The abstract uses the phrase 'greed communication' because, of course, they are also Envy fundamentalists and have avoid calling a spade a spade. 

"Analyzing every tweet of all US senators holding office from 2013 to 2021 (861,104 tweets from 140 senators), we identify a psycholinguistic factor, greed communication [TC: basically accusing other people of greed], that robustly predicts increased approval (favorites) and reach (retweets). These effects persist when tested against diverse established psycholinguistic predictors of political content dissemination on social media and various other psycholinguistic variables."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2218680120
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/03/which-political-tweets-do-best.html
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1634954719952277506

All-in Envy fundamentalists beat out reticent Envy fundamentalists when deploying Envy.

"We further find that greed communication in the tweets of Democratic senators is associated with greater approval and retweeting compared to greed communication in the tweets of Republican senators, especially when those tweets also mention political outgroups."

If you want to succeed on Twitter, remember to irresponsible and never mind your own business. 

After all, what kind of population would your own business concern? Reach more by sticking your nose in their business.

I found the dumb: how you get deflation

So I figured out that deflation doesn't happen when you get more goods, which is wrong, which mean I was dumb. I must have dropped a factor somewhere. Figured out where.

I saw that there were more transactions and figured more transactions = more velocity. Bzzt. Not if the transactions are smaller. "Plus means plus," I thought, neglecting that these are scalars, not booleans.

Imagine a very simple economy. There two guys and ten bucks. One guy makes one thing, and sells it for ten bucks to the other guy. The other guy makes one thing, and sell it to get his ten bucks back. Total demand = 20, total supply = 20. Velocity = 1/1. 

Now imagine ONE HUNDRED PERCENT GPD GROWTH. My god, they're making two things each!

Right, but the guy still has only ten bucks. He can't bid ten. He can only bid five. He makes two transaction, of five dollars each. And vice versa. Total demand = 20, total supply = 20. Velocity =1/1. Having twice as much stuff means per-stuff prices are half as high. 

Although you can also use velocity to mitigate deflation. My previous logic isn't completely invalid, merely incomplete. Increasing supply can show up in lower prices or increasing velocity. On average, it will be both. 

Velocity itself is an expense. Transactions have transaction costs. Better one big transaction made of many small prices than several transactions made of big prices. To get total demand/supply up to 40, we have to implicitly assume our two guys have a second free day to make into market day. And after we've increased velocity, they don't have that day anymore. It would be more efficient to bundle the transactions and go back to one market day a year. Which means prices go down. 

 

P.S. The market itself isn't free. The market commands a rent, out of friction if no other reason. Communication isn't magic. Talking takes time. 

You don't want unrestricted transaction options either. You want a transaction securer, or rather a whole industry of such, which secures individual transactions. You're allowed to make unsecured transactions, but you'll find they're insecure.

Retraction: Incorrect Statement of Inflation

I autism'd the math on millennial inflation. 

I incorrectly asserted the following: "Any time production should cause deflation, it also increases velocity, cancelling the deflation with inflation, and wheat prices remain the same."

When I re-ran the numbers, they did not bear this out. Reality contradicted my theory. I did not think in straight lines. One of my trains jumped a track. Oops.

The "I'm Totally More Devious Than Satan" Christian

"Why would Satan dictate to anyone a comprehensive list of strategies of how to beat him, an overview of his Machiavellian plans, and constant thorough praises to his sworn enemy Jesus Christ?"

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Vibologer/status/1583884414571847680  

 

Hey, who told you his sworn enemy was Jesus?
Who told you the devils were cast out?
Was it the father of lies who said he was his sworn enemy?

Are you a dumb, gullible little shit, or are you a good Satanist?

"The truth will set you free.
This book is the word of God unadulterated by man!"

So if the book is empirically shown to be adulterated, you are confessing your Satanism?
I'm sure Satan would have been pleased if he weren't dead.

Nick Land Confesses to Catholic Cuckery

Earth is an uninhabited planet. There is no intelligent life. That is not a joke. 

"Only missing part is a frontier. Shouldn't be impossible to open one (or several)."
https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1653083045862285312

There only isn't a frontier if you bow to the authority of grass monkeys. 

You can and should consider outsiders to be lower animals. Dangerous aboriginal wildlife, like bears or tigers. A hazard, like malaria or hookworm. 

Open a frontier? 

Earth is uninhabited. Be the first to live there.
There is nowhere that isn't a frontier.