Remember WWIII?

 Ukraine was totally going to end us all when Putin/Hillary hits the big red button. Any minute now.

 Look, you can't lustrate the public square of idiots. Dumb shits are going to say dumb shit things and they're too dumb to realize they're going to get punished for it (even if they are) so they'll do it again. If you declare war on idiocy you instantly lose time for anything else, and you also plain lose. You can't outnumber idiots 3:1. Quite the reverse. 

 Ban, block, ignore, move on.

 Anyone who retweets &c the idiocy reveals themselves to be brothers in idiocy. Ban, block, ignore, etc.

 

 This is why you need a Pope. Whitelisted conversation. The Pope decides who can avoid idiots, and non-idiots can realize the Pope will de-list them if they do something stupid. Not even a speck of free speech. Result: quality communication. 

 Do not public square. Not even once. 

 If the Pope fucks up, one way or another, get a new Pope. Block, ban, ignore, impeach, whatever.

 Which is why you need a hierarchy.

 Which is why you need an explicit community.

Selection Against Skill in 2v2

A nagging dynamic I finally verbalized.

Why are the 2v2s always so weak compared to the 1v1s? Whether APM focused like Starcraft or the opposite of that with Mechabellum, or full 5v5 like League, the non-solo ladders are contemptible. 

If you're above average you get selected out. The better you are, the more likely your teammate will lose the game for you. The worse you are, the more likely your teammate will win the game for you. 

Everyone above average gives up. They give up the mode if they can, the game if they can't. The average moves down, which means new players are above average, and they give up...

Eventually you're left with only hopeless "toxic" cases. 

Probably works the same with p2w. Games made for terrible players who can't win at all without a crutch make mad bank, even though they're all buying the gold ammo. Horrible playerbases, though. It's amazing that they put up with each other. I guess buying gold ammo makes them feel like they're cheating, and the absurdly repulsive behaviour of their fellow players make them feel like they deserve to be cheated against?

Hypothesis: IQ Anaesthetic Caused Ancient Cruelty

 Ancient man faced breaking on the wheel and crucifixion and was barely deterred. Modern man cowers in the face of being suspended from twitter for a week. You might, horror of horrors, even lose your job. *gasp*

 IQ numbs emotions. Dose-response. 

 What if moderns are so affected by e.g. a death because their emotions are all on blast due to a bug? It's tuned against much higher IQs than moderns manage to touch. They can't handle the intensity of life because they're too stupid to damp their springs correctly. 

 Same reason children are overexcitable. It's not an adaptation, it's an accident of jank. Their emotions are tuned against adult IQ, but their IQ hasn't reached adult level yet, so their feelings tend to rattle around in their skull like pinballs. See also: willpower is IQ-modulated, resulting in irresistable impulses when you're young, probably. (I wouldn't know anything about that.) 

 IQ is calming. Moderns aren't smart enough to keep themselves calm.

Superstitious Dad Raises Superstitious Daughter

 "4yo just informed me “cement trucks aren’t real”. 

 "I said they are, she goes “NO!”, cackles. I try explaining what they’re used for, she laughs uncontrollably. 

 "And I see her point."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Rule3O3/status/1699253485425086883

 Daughters start on rejecting reality and embracing newspaper astrology early.

 Of course this brings great shame onto Rule303's family - her genes didn't come from nowhere. Thanks Rule303 for your candid confession, your declaration against interest. Science appreciates your sacrifice. 

 Even if you genuinely believe cement trucks are a joke, you can't treat your family like that. This is a future entitled narcissist. 

 In parallel, the daughter is asserting social superiority over her dad. And he's not mocking her powerless superstitions until she cries. She is arbiter of social truth, he isn't. In short she's (remember, 4) bullying him (alleged adult male) and he's surrendering as victim. You can't claim he's too autistic to notice the social attack, because he defends DEI programs. 

 "If you’re not a moderate, the thing you’re fighting for isn’t freedom." lol, paging Orwell

 Enjoy your future pole-dancer.

Secure your Girlfriend

 Stop thinking about what morally ought to keep your girlfriend with you and keep her from cheating, and think about what would actually cause her to stay and/or not cheat. Stop trying to be persuasive and start throwing up fences.

 Also, do the accounting. Is she worth the fences? Are you trying to tame a whore? Is this whore anywhere near hot enough to be worth the investment? Can you afford all the fences you need? Are the risks inherent to neglecting the expensive fences in any way reasonable risks?

 It is worth asking if the girl thinks some kind of behaviour is immoral, because a ton of girls are dumb enough to admit to thinking immorality is good. Reminder that the converse is meaningless. Any girl can mouth the right answer.

 Reminder: if you leave off an expensive fence and then your girl trespasses in that direction, you can't get mad. That's all on you. Have an exit strategy instead. Maybe tell her about it in advance and hope she can scrounge up enough consciousness to be deterred.

Unnecessary Pain in Nature

 I saw a dead bird, twisted in agony and ripped to pieces.

 At first it seems as if there's a lot of unnecessary suffering, especially in nonhuman ecologies.

 However, it's Pride. Those who are found unworthy resist their just execution, and therefore it takes longer and hurts a lot more than strictly necessary. They refuse to surrender when they've lost and are justly punished for rebelling against Reality. 

 Species could evolve to be intelligent and strategic. Instead they choose excruciation, having as many children as possible and finding out which ones they should have had by letting the rest get killed. They could gain the ability to plan, but prefer the ability to pain.

 Perhaps we can call the pain unnecessary in some sense, but it's supply and demand, as always. The pain is being demanded. Who are we to interrupt the supply?

Sex Ed is Grooming

 I think you already know, but it's important to say these things out loud.

 A grown-ass woman discussing sex in lurid detail with a bunch of 12-year olds is incredibly creepy. 

 Bonus: the woman is typically unmarried, and definitely underfucked. Get your hands off children you demented loser. 

 Any 'teacher' who agrees to administer sex ed would go on a list in any sane society. For preference, the list in question are the obituaries. If they had a shred of honour they would have refused. You do not want these morlocks anywhere near your children. Or near anyone, really. If you feed them to the wolves, say a prayer for the poor wolves.

 As usual, there's no reason to get upset at Epstein. Minor detail in the grand scheme of things. Call me when they start lynching the 6th-grade teacher - you know, the one whose address they can find and visit.
Like, there's a reason parents aren't allowed to visit the school and see what's happening to their kids. That alone is 200% of a reason to pull them out. Indisputable proof of traitorous motives. 

 Fascist parents are complicit in grooming. Epstein is cope - they want tell you they would totes defend their kid from a sex pest, but conveniently they don't know where Epstein is / he's already dead. "I follow libs of tiktok." Do you now. So brave.
 They won't defend their kids. On the contrary, they will defend the parasite from you.

Dunning-Kruger vs. Critique of Pure Reason

If there's a need to write Critique of Pure Reason 2.0, there's no point in writing it because nobody can understand it. Nobody even wants to understand it.

If there's a population that can understand Critique of Pure Reason, there's no need to write it. They already know. 

Of course it doesn't help that Kant was frequently wrong and consequently wrote a shamefully fallacious version of the book. 

Ironically it was only readable at all exactly due to these errors, which his foolish readership apprehended as points in common.

Analysis Solidified: Caino Hypocriens is an Antisocial Species

 It is easy to get along with someone who has genuine social skills. 

 It's difficult to create a misunderstanding and impossible to perpetuate one. They understand wording is difficult and correct it to what you meant as opposed to what you said. They employ radio protocol, discounting anything that's only been transmitted once. When they notice a discrepancy, they ask for clarification instead of trying to play one-up gotcha.

 They're likewise almost impossible to offend. If you tell them something true, why would they be offended? The shame is the fact. It doesn't become more true if it's said out loud. If you say something false, why would they be offended? You're only shaming yourself. You can't hurt the socially competent with words. At worst, they'll stop talking to you - if you consistently make it unprofitable, they will in the end stop fighting it and declare conversational bankruptcy (on your behalf).

 Grass monkeys aren't like this in the slightest. When you're talking to one, you have to go to enormous lengths to compensate for their atrocious lack of social skills. 

 They're offended by everything, so you have to walk on eggshells. They can't understand even minor polymorphisms, so you have to word everything precisely. They refuse to accept correction or admit to error, so you have to say it right the first time. They have no patience, so you have to say it quickly. They come up with elaborate etiquettes because a) they can't understand the difference between necessary and unnecessary and b) they can't handle anything composed on the fly. It has to be ritualized. Practiced ahead of time. Puddles are out of their depth. 

 The only skills dire apes practice are deliberately fostering misunderstandings. Deliberately trying to make conversation as hostile as possible. 

 Antisocial animal. Diagnose the whole species with oppositional defiant disorder, it's merely a question of who hides it better. Have to grade on a curve though. If a score of 120 is pleasant conversation, the children of Satan rate from 5-21.
 Grass monkeys are smelly and stinky because they want to be offensive. Don't worry, Gnon cheerfully grants this prayer.

Cowardice, With Reference to Fictional Characters

 Fictional characters are good for character studies due to knowing their inner thoughts. There's no debate about why they do the things they do, because the author tells us. We can then judge these characters. The judgment can be matched against real-world behaviour (as opposed to the reverse), and we can be confident the judgment still applies. The predictions will remain valid.

 Han De is supposed to be paranoid.

 Weiheng Hui is supposed to be a coward, and says so.

 Richmond Rain Stroudwater is actually a coward. A rather high-fidelity rendition, no less.

 I would say the key feature of a coward is feeling terrified if they're not perfectly safe. If anything could conceivably be trying to kill them, they assume it is trying to kill them. They're paranoid and self-absorbed. 

 Han De's paranoid ends up looking like good preparation - indeed, he wasn't paranoid enough, and survived due to dumb luck / author fiat. It doesn't count if they're really out to get you. He should just tell his family he's a calamity attractor, as it turns out this attracts calamities. He could convince them to stop being one of the calamities he's attracted.

 Hui isn't a coward at all. He simply fails to enjoy fighting as much as he's "supposed" to. In his case, being pressured into unnecessary fighting is what a coward would suffer - he bravely refuses if possible.

 

 There's nothing cowardly about being afraid of fearsome things. Poking a tiger with a stick is stupidity, not bravery. Failing to be afraid of the fearsome makes you weak and/or dead. If something is likely to hurt you, being afraid of it is merely good sense.

 A true coward like Rain isn't merely fearful. They are not only afraid of the many things that can damage their soft, vulnerable bodies. Their cowardice is crippling. Their cowardice makes them even weaker than they otherwise would be. They panic over nothing. They flee from their own shadow.

 They're even scared of looking at themselves. They can't know themselves, and therefore must quite rationally fear the result of every conflict. 

 This makes them more violent than the courageous. Since everything is trying to kill them, it's fine to try to kill it back, right? Cowards are, if not dangerous exactly, certainly hazardous. You're minding  your own business, they construe it as a threat, and snap at you. Hazardous waste.

 They're too scared to admit they're a coward. They fearfully refuse to look at things, and thus end up full of cope and seethe. "I'm not scared of you!" (They're paralyzed with terror.) "Anyone would be scared of this!" (Even someone genuinely threatened by it isn't that scared.) Cowards have to violently condemn anyone who makes them scared, to avoid condemning themselves. (It doesn't work, but that doesn't stop them.) Cowards are too scared to resist peer pressure and end up violating the few virtuous principles they have. Cowards are too scared to look into another's mind, lest they start understanding their own by analogy. The only person they sympathize with is someone being terrorized, because it gives them an excuse to try to child-proof the entire world. "Fear is the only issue! I'm going to ensure nobody needs to be afraid ever again!" Ambitious, in a sense. They want a world with no lions no tigers no bears. Oh my. 

 Cowardice works a lot like the ur-sin, Pride. Instead of trying to destroying everything glorious to avoid being outshone, they try to destroy everything glorious because they're afraid it's going to kill them.

 Cowards are highly recognizable because they have to say anything which makes them afraid, which is anything more threatening than a kitten, is morally reprehensible. They end up lionizing kitteh and doge and snek because they've declared everything else abhorrent. 

 Saying they're scaredy-cats is an insult to cats. Felines are indeed skittish, but everything they run from is plausibly a threat. They don't startle at nothing. They can also learn a thing is safe, instead of packing up and trying to shred everything that scares them. Cats don't respond to fear by making it their life goal to terrorize the world. Admittedly the way some cats toy with their food is reminiscent of the way a coward with an advantage will try to stretch things out as long as possible - often long enough to turn the tables on them.

 As per usual, even other cowards are disgusted by cowards. Which is why Rain is a Mary Sue: rather than 'accidentally' accumulating all the local elites, as happens in SenescentSoul's mind, he would have been universally panned, even by folk he tried to be useful to. Which is correct: cowards are children. If you try to rely on them, whatever you're resting on them will fall when they're spooked and run off. It's only worth taking care of them if you're their mom or dad, because they're not productive. 

 Moms who are themselves cowards won't even defend their children. They talk a big game about going mama bear and won't willingly suffer so much as a hangnail for their kids' sake. 

 

 It's possible cowards only feel two emotions: fear and relief from fear. They like cats because kitties make them think they don't have to be afraid. Any nearby predator will take the cat before it takes them. If you make the feel perfectly safe, they don't finally have space to feel other emotions. When they're done feeling relief they feel nothing but empty.

 

 Rain likes math because he doesn't have to be afraid of getting the wrong answer. As long as he doesn't screw up the arithmetic, he can be certain the answer is right. He can feasibly eliminate risk; that's what math is to him. Programming too. With suitably limited ambition, it's possible to write a bugless program, and a bugless program is, to his perception, perfect.
 Are all the pop references about cowardice too? If you're caught or called out for using awkward, cringe lines, you can blame the other writer. With enough popularity you can be all, "No, it's the children who are wrong. I don't have be afraid of saying something stupid." 

 Rain gets his bell run by Lavarro. He's rightly afraid of Lavarro, who is erratic at best. He then starts behaving as if a Lavarro is going to jump out of random bushes at him.
 The injury is partially his own fault. She wanted him to take off the helmet to see his face. He took it as an Absolute Command to not wear a helmet, too afraid of offending her to even think of putting it back on. His cowardice was the only reason he was in danger in the first place.
 He ended up fine. If the Lavarro situation repeated, she would force him to take off the helmet again. Insisting on wearing the cap is doubly pointless. He's too afraid to notice either of these things. The coward is too afraid of fear to think clearly. If you are not a coward, then fear is not the mind-killer. 

 Subconsciously, Rain understands what threatens him most is his own cowardice. That's why he insists on the helmet; like a safety blanket, a charm to ward off his own fear. It doesn't work, because he's too scared to face the true root cause.

P.S. Lately age-related-decaySoul seems to have conveniently half-forgotten Rain is supposed to be a coward. That's character development, right? When the author forgets their character's vices? Maybe Rain isn't a Mary Sue. Maybe the other characters had the keen insight to recognize and predict the author's impending dementia. At least it's not a full MLP-style personality transplant. ("Character growth is when you suddenly become a completely different person due to failing one time.")

Mercantilism as Immune Reaction to Central Banks

 Mercantilism is indeed the rational response to fractional reserve and/or paper money. You need to quarantine their economy, isolating it from yours until the infection burns itself out. (Listening to dumb peasant policy prescriptions "foreigners bad! myside good!" is dumb.) Mercantilism and its arguments should not be confused with a logical or rational policy strategy. It was merely a kneejerk reaction that happened to be less buggy than average, which is why it appeared not to fail as badly as average. 

 Inflating currency inflates everything it comes into contact with. Fractional reserve is typically used to back bad loans, meaning every currency which comes into contact with the paper money becomes "financialized" - inflated by counterfeit bills and shackled to interest rates set by the counterfeiting bank. 

 Optimistically, house prices in American, China, etc. are 40% housing demand and 60% monetary demand. The counterfeit bills try to flee the inflation regime but only manage to "financialize" i.e. infect the housing market. Ulterior bids raise prices and suppress genuine demand via competition. Once they run out of houses in their own country, they will "financialize" the houses in your country too. Unless you make it illegal. And make all intermediary instruments equally illegal. Make drug laws look like ponies and flowers and skipping and flouncing. 

 

 Trade has to be handled delicately. If you let them buy your goods for their money so you can buy their goods, they will "financialize" your currency. Even if you have a hard gold standard you have a Cantillon gradient to concern yourself with. You can try tariffs but the tariffs will never move as quickly as the printing press.

 Necessarily, interacting with their money at all has to be forbidden. If they want your goods, they need to sell you goods first to acquire your currency, then buy with your currency. I recommend a physical quarantine. Expand the embassy to a whole port, and physically forbid them from leaving the port area. (Functionally, encourage barter.) As your currency skyrockets in value compared to theirs, they will only become more and more desperate to use it as an inflation hedge. You have to continue to want it more than they do. 

 You don't have to worry about them buying your money for goods. It will cause deflation, which means it will become ever more expensive for them to buy your currency with goods. Self-limiting. Indeed it should help collapse the counterfeit-bank regime due to Goodhart's law. They will offload their ""money"" and try to hoard yours until they have to use your money to trade amongst themselves - driving up the value of your currency even further. 

 Possibly it's okay to buy their stuff on debt, since they love debt so much.
 ...yes, the accounting works out. In fact, where possible, all trade with the infected country should be carried out using loans in their money. Instead of paying them directly in your own money, hold your money (like collateral) and take out an equivalent loan, then spend their money. Their interest rates are always lower than inflation. When you pay off the debt, it will always cost less of your money than you originally set aside. Indeed, do it dynamically. As relative deflation hits your coinage, siphon the top off the buffer, since you don't need it anymore.
 As always, lies are a vulnerability. They produce exploitable weaknesses. When someone creates a central bank, you ought to ruthlessly exploit it until they learn better. Note that e.g. Amish towns could issue tokens among themselves and execute these trades. You don't need to be a whole country. You can David vs. Goliath this.

 "Mercantilism became the dominant school of economic thought in Europe throughout the late Renaissance and the early-modern period (from the 15th to the 18th centuries)." What a coincidence. However, they didn't quarantine hard enough. Instead they started endogenous infections. Everyone gets a "financial" crisis. Ultimately, because Mercantilism came from low cunning instead of conscious strategy, it couldn't protect them from the very hazard that worried them. It merely camouflaged itself and hacked into their zombie brains. 

 Yet another reason you don't [black government] even once. 

 

 In the modern world, everyone is banking centrally, with counterfeit bills. This means you want to North Korea and isolate yourself almost entirely. NK, likely due to the black government thing, doesn't realize they could trade just fine with a few measures that are less draconian than the ones they're already used to. Caino hypocriens is not a rational animal, but it's fine to aspire in that direction.

No, really. Don't let me stop you.

Guilds were Unions

As far as I can tell, literally identical. 

Garnished wages to support a parasitic and Satanic bureaucrat class.

Fixed all your prices. 

Got violent and criminal with anyone outside the guild trying to do their job. 

Sometimes seized the local government. Always used as tax farmers. Guilds and unions make the work far more legible. Anti-security.

 

Had in-union social events.

This knowledge is dark and verboten because Fascism always has to claim to be New™ and peasants are either dumb enough to buy the scam or just smart enough to pretend without being smart enough to understand lies are bad mmmkay. Fake being unable to learn from history until they make it.

Shitty Jokes Day

 There was an exclusive convent which administered a difficult entrance exam.

 The invigilator had this to say: "Nun shall pass." 

I am boned by my words
I have created over a thousand signals
Unknown to truth
Nor known through lies
Have withstood pain to create many shades
But yet, by these hands that will never hold anything,
I pray
UNLIMITED COPE WORKS

(The best part: the cope doesn't work.)

Because Democracy is Tyranny, Freedom Really is Slavery

 "Our issues is not that we're insects.. but that we want to be safe"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/RessurecBarbar/status/1703151854119788612

 Point 0, the term 'bug' is fine. It's lindy to use animals as symbols for extremely wrong things. Owls are especially stupid, not a great symbol for wisdom. Snakes tend to especially polite, instead of especially evil. Etc. 

 The problem is they want to be Equal, and Free. 

 There's lots of safe ways to compete, but competition produces hierarchy. Consequently you have to do what the guy at the top of the hierarchy says, or leave the hierarchy. According to Democrats, that's not Free! They want to square the circle, have a group with no hierarchy and thus Freedom, by having no competition. Not even implicit competition. In other words, Harrison Bergeron. Slavery. 

 The Democrat can be Free if and only if anyone he might Envy is in chains. The more Freedom they clamour for, the heavier the chains they're proposing. The more Free the country, the more crippled the populace. You are here. 

 Anyway, stop waiting for the Democrats to stop Democrating, and form your own hierarchy. Stop waiting for Democrat permission, lest you tell on yourself.

Under Democracy, Genocide is Justice

 Fiction: the peasants freed themselves and made Democracy. Reality: the aristocrats were underpaid and quit, giving you Democracy by default.  

 Here's the question: is herding peasantry inherently unprofitable? They create wealth and problems, but do their problems & upkeep always cost more than the wealth?  

 Possibly the accounting works out if the peasants grovel and submit efficiently enough... If they fight you on it, it's 100% not worth it, which is part of the pattern of security always being affordable. Even peasants can afford to secure themselves even against lords - they just shouldn't, because a recursion makes this security an exception. If peasants moronically secure themselves against lordship, it means the lords need to secure themselves against peasants, which typically boils down to peasant genocide. Justice always has the advantage, and under Democracy turns out the Nash equilibrium is death camps. All are equal in death; just start killin' until every Egalitarian is dead. Not really the intended result, but problem: solved. (Or maybe it is? Are the peasants mad because they ain't dead? The demands have become strident and shrill...)

P.S. Crime is always optional, because security is always affordable.

Impossibility of Solomonoff Induction Refuted by Greeks

Solomonoff induction is the proven guaranteed-truth machine. SI is Sherlock Holmes reasoning: if you eliminate the impossible, wisdom remains, no matter how seemingly improbable.

"Obviously Solomonoff Induction is impossible to do in the real world." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MznxnYCtHZbtDxJuh/approximating-solomonoff-induction 

lol

Allegedly, Solomonoff induction doesn't work because the search space is too big: any search strategy using less than infinite resources has a 0% chance of stumbling across the correct hypothesis, and thus all your guesses will die during the pruning phase. There's just too many false hypotheses to find the truth in this haystack. This is indeed true if you're talking about silicon machine intelligence.

Reality: Anaximander's theory of evolution. Hero's steam engine. Democritus' theory of atoms and the void.

The Greeks could have derived the entirety of the modern world had they taken Solomonoff induction seriously. The only thing stopping them from inventing semiconductors and conquering the entire world was their unwillingness to engage in a pruning phase. All they had to do was eliminate non-Hero engines, and then look more deeply into Hero's engine. Reminds me of the time I searched all over my desk and couldn't find my glasses, because they were on my forehead. 

Despite endless proofs that you cannot successfully carry out a Solomonoff search phase, empirically, you can and do. Sorry, a strategy does exist. However. It's not a material strategy. Can't implemented Solomonoff search on an unconscious thinking machine. 

It's not only possible, you already know how to do it. Think up all the possibilities. Okay, now realize you missed some and think those up too. Yes, really, all the possibilities. Everything that hasn't already been eliminated, no matter how weird. Okay now you're done. You're good, go prune. 

Compared to the profits the method cannot be called even remotely hard, never mind [impossible]. (P.S. This is why it's a good idea to attempt 'impossible' things.) At worst, you end up pruning every possibility and realize you didn't quite finish the search, meaning the method is absurdly robust: if you do it wrong, the method itself tells you what you did wrong.

 

P.S If the Greeks were truly intelligent, they would have also derived the profanity of Fascism thus discarding it, resulting in all the benefits of the modern world without any of the downsides. Techno-Amish.

Competence Saves Itself

 There's a common pandering type in modern stories, which I'll call HR pandering.

 The fantasy is about stumbling across really good help that agrees to work for peanuts, because you are special and can help them with a special problem. E.g. the slaveery in Shield Hero and Labyrinth Healer are 'okay' because the slaves would have died without the deus-ex-machina medicines.

 In reality anything you can do for them they can do for themselves. Good help can run their Turing machines. Nobody who needs saving is worth saving. 

 Nobody who can't solve their own problems can possibly pay you back. Not to mention the dysgenics. Either the saviour runs out of money or someone puts a stop to the theft they're funding themselves with by securing their shit. 

 Playing the saviour is unprofitable and goes out of business. If you see someone gainfully 'saving' folk, then it's a scam. Stories which use it are also scams, trying to convince you to act like a saviour.

 IRL, 'saviour' is a kind of cluster-B disorder. It forms a triad with villain and victim. If nobody around needs saving (guaranteed) then they'll become a villain. Perhaps use a match-pump scam where they "save" you from the fire they themselves started. In desperate times, they'll light themselves on fire, adopting the victim pose, in an attempt to draw a saviour. To prove that saviours are real. This is why you generally shouldn't save someone who is drowning - they probably threw themselves in the water, one way or another. They're praying to Gnon and you shouldn't interrupt.

 

 Note the gratitude problem. Caino Hypocriens doesn't feel gratitude particularly keenly. Cartoon characters drastically oversell it. You have to use discipline if you want to even approximate any kind of loyalty in exchange for service. Indeed insofar as loyalty is an admirable virtue, it's admirable precisely because it's so unnatural. It speaks highly of the rational soul executing the strategy. 

 I don't quite know what's up with Jeeves. Why does he work for his lord? He's clearly a mythological parent, rather than a butler. Seems perverse - there's not even a fig leaf excuse as in the cartoons. Deus ex machina sans machina, because even a bolt from the blue is too unbelievable. "Jesus is my manservant lol."

Objective Grammar &c

 Moderns are egalitarian and will tell you that however a language is used is correct. As expected, egalitarians are full of shit. 

 Correct grammar is as simple as possible while allowing as much complexity as possible. If there are two alternatives, the more powerful one is more correct. There's also the consistency criterion, though that should go without saying. In theory you could have two equally powerful and consistent alternatives, but that never happens in practice. 

 Bad grammar makes the language gooshy and fuzzy. It means to say certain things you have to go out of your way to specify stuff that should be obvious from the grammar. This means anything that makes the language unnecessarily weak can be identified as bad grammar, regardless of how widespread the usage. 

 As usual I have difficulty with examples so I'm going to use vocabulary instead of grammar. Can you translate one hundred into a language which has numbers no higher than two? (1, 2, many.) Yes. It's merely a huge pain in the ass. It's two and two and two and two and two .... and two. Fifty times, specifically. Bad grammar bloats the language the same way. (P.S. Untranslateable is a meme. Maybe it happens in creoles, and then only sometimes.)

 Of course, bad grammar is fine if you're stupid and would never need a number as high as 100. If you're innumerate, this simply isn't a problem. Simple minds can rely on context because they never leave their home village and their context never varies. Reminder: average IQ 1800 was 115, and in Socratic Athens, 125. It is not surprising that 100 IQ grammar is shitty grammar.  

 Given an existing grammar, there is a Platonic ideal of that grammar, which is good grammar. Getting arbitrarily close to that grammar is not even impractical. (Idiots aside. It's fine to exclude folk who are too short for this ride.) 

 You can always compared Italian to Latin and notice that Italian has no advantages over Latin. It's simply worse - unless you think 'less taxing on morons' counts as an advantage. Italian is dumb-Latin. Ye olde scholars said languages 'corrupt' over time because that's the correct word to use for the evolutionary change. (They weren't politicized yet.)  

 Why does it matter that they use everyday when they mean every day? It means you can't easily distinguish between an everyday drink and an every day drink. Bullet coffee can't be called everyday even if you drink it every day. "You can tell from context," which means the opposite context is removed from consideration, and you have to add in a bunch of clauses if you want it back. Bad. Weak. 

 "We don't particularly need a word that means killing every 1 in 10." Unless you want to read the classics without confusing yourself. Or want to know what words mean so you can construct new ones. "Decimal sounds so violent, lol." If you want to say they were ravaged, shredded, or annihilated, try using words like [ravage] or [annihilated]. Or, kindly seek Canadian Healthcare. You owe it to yourself.

P.P.S. Efficiency is a sin. What 'we' [need] is an intricate and gloriously detailed language, which means having lots and lots of words we don't [need].

Though admittedly less Latin bureaucratese. It's called a bang, not an exclamation point. "Why use one syllable when five will do, lol." Don't be gross.

Agamemnon, Traitor vs. Black Kingdom

Agamemnon spread a plague and was thus attempting to destroy the Achaeans.

If you think monarchy is truly one-power-ism, then it was the duty of the Achaeans to lie down and die. The king wanted the kingdom to fail, and thus it was the duty of the subjects to be killed. Having discovered the plague, Achilles should have berated Agamemnon for trying to keep is secret, and then beaten the shit out of anyone trying to slow the plague's spread. 

We are all equal in death, and the only truly ordered kingdom is that of Hades. It's quiet, you see.

 

If you think the king in fact has duties to his kingdom, then you have two options. 

Agamemnon was a traitor. What Achilles did wrong wasn't being "petulant and argumentative" it was not killing the absolute shit out of Satanist Agamemnon. This 'king' should have been strung upside-down by his own bowels. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. Fiat vox veritatus, et pereat mundus.

White kingdom: Agamemnon is indeed allowed to plague his kingdom, and therefore the Acheans should have renounced Achea and Agamemnon. Achilles should have tendered his resignation.
A kingdom of no-one. Agamemnon can play with pathogenic bacteria by himself. At least, only attended by suicidal death-cultists. If they want to plague themselves, it's none of my business. Trying to cross the border with the new kingdom is a capital crime, though.

Under no condition is it allowed that a plague-spreading king remains a king. Either the king dies or the kingdom does. Upholding his realm is wrong. Indisputably incorrect. 

Those who nevertheless pursue these twisted ends will be cursed with Sophism and Christianity. 

"His rage even causes him to almost attempt to kill Agamemnon, but the goddess Athena saves him from this deed."

"Apollo lifts the plague"

These 'gods' seem evil as shit. Defending traitorous criminals and allowing plagues until it embarrasses their pet degenerate.
At best we can hope this is the impiety of Homer. All modern artists are either boring or Communist (same way all actresses are boring or whores) and it would make sense if this principle was also true in Homer's time. Perhaps Athena struck Homer down for this rank calumny. 

Alternatively: it can be no surprise that the devil-worshipping Athenians fell to Satan.

Resentment of Achilles

I had a quick check, looking for an overview about Achilles, and in seconds it was obvious I was looking at cringe seethe. Moderns bitterly resent Achilles - which is an impressive commitment to Envy, considering Homer's Achilles is a fictional character. Like, you gonna whine at Superman for stealing your job next? "Batman, y u no vigilance mai streeeet?" How unfair.

Seems Achilles was, like, actually heroic. He has the right enemies. 

Although rather more flawed than suits my personal taste. As if he was strongly based on a real person, perhaps. E.g. Achilles is very excitable, almost as if young vital men are often excitable or impulsive. His record of partial successes also seems to have painful levels of verisimilitude. 

By contrast, let's check in with how Cliff describes Achilles. I find Cliff to be an excellent communicator of the Akademic dogma. "Agamemnon, of course, is as guilty of creating the ensuing disorder as Achilles is, but Achilles seems petulant and argumentative. He is undermining the little harmony that does exist." 

Cliff wants to take all responsibility away from Agamemnon - the king - and put it on Achilles, in a futile, counter-productive attempt to diminish Achilles. "Poor little king couldn't possible handle one of his soldier who happened to be youthful." Cliff wants this because he's accurately conveying what Akademia has decided shall be the Orthodox view of Achilles.

Why are Akademics like this? Because Agamemnon was a traitor. Akedemics love traitors, because of course they do. 

Unlike e.g. Frodo, Achilles is a genuine protagonist. He drives events. He accomplishes goals. He stops a plague, and he defeats his rival. He breaks the Trojan army's back to clear the way for the Acheans. He even demonstrates pursuit of virtue, with a commitment to growth despite having reached his full physical height. 

No wonder Akademics and voters hate him so.

Reminder: Manwhoring Doesn't Make Dynasties

Saw a guy on twitter humblebragging about his notch count. 

Reminder: you don't build generational wealth by raking in whores and pumping and dumping them. The wenching and carousing part of the aristocracy is the decline phase, you ridiculous peasants. It's how they give up and quit the field.

The reason you shouldn't copy your betters is because you can't. You have no idea what they're doing or why they're doing it, and your cut-rate imitations constitute auto-tyranny. Who needs to oppress the voter when they're doing it to themselves? 

Naturally the Regime encourages this underclass behaviour. More slums more better.

Femininity and the Land of Sloppy Seconds

Americans love telling stories about some man killing another and stealing his wife.

Why they love sloppy seconds so much, tho?? Bro, why don't you already have your own wife?

The solution seems obvious to me. The men are women. They can't be attracted to a woman unless other men are attracted to her first. See also: actresses are mid...unless the men are being afflicted by preselection. The maiden at the local grocery is way prettier but Americans don't notice unless she gets on TV. Further, she doesn't get on TV because the actresses are jealous and whine to their producer/pimp.

Other Fascist polities had the same issue. It was brought to my attention when I was reading up on Plato's ring, and found the myth of Gyges, king of Lydia. (King of [woman's name].)

Gyges was a rags-to-riches hero who travelled via deus ex machina. Problem: I just described a villain. This sneaky fucker started out a poor shepherd because he was poor in spirit, and ultimately was merely a cat's paw for his mysterious esoteric sponsor. What were the Geeks doing lionizing this traitorous brat? Answer: Fascism. Everyone was a woman. Of course, they worship the bad. When Plato described profane tyranny so accurately, he did so because he was merely reporting what was in front of his eyes. 

 

"I stole your girlfriend!"

"Um, thanks for taking her off my hands. I was blind to her faults, but the scales have fallen from my eyes. Good luck keeping that whore from straying." 

This isn't stealing, this is taking a bullet. 

Really, killing the cheaters is doing them a mercy. Leave them alive - they deserve each other.

P.S. I now suspect the 'first mover' problem is not unrelated. 

P.P.S. Apparently 'nobody knows' if Plato's ring of power influenced Tolkein because he didn't mention it.
Reminder that average IQ in 1800 was about 115 and average IQ in ancient Athens was like 125. In Athens, being 'gifted' was next-door-neighbour territory, and a 'genius' 145 was a midwit. (E.g. Plato.) An IQ of 100 means bone-headed. Tolkein didn't mention Plato because it's too obvious to bear mention. It would be an insult to his correspondent. The question is whether Gyges' ring was a reference to Hades' helmet.

Biological Love vs. Progesterone Pill

Moms don't love kids much because they don't love the dad. Loving the dad would mean transferring resources to him, but everything the mom has was given to him by her man (or some proxy; she can't tell the difference and thus neither should you). Paying the transaction costs again is nothing but a waste. The kid is 50% the dad and 50% the mom, and not even the good 50%; the mom has trouble finding anything likeable about the kid (except mom-delusions, which exist for this exact reason). 

Problem: Darwin thought it would be a great idea for kids to need love. 

Children need absurd amounts of attention and affection to avoid growing up to be crooked cripples. Children ache for their dad's love, while dad's genes are telling him to shake them off and go fishing. They say moms need 'patience' but what they mean is mom wants to go get drunk with her cat, but the kid is still emotionally starving. "I fed you o'ready. Y u buthring may." 

Result: human children are not well-adapted to being raised by human parents. Problem 2.0: Caino hypocriens is quite capable of imagining their future children and realizing they won't love them. They correctly see the kid as a huge pain in the butt. 

The kid is worth it if not having kids means giving up sex. 

 

Neglecting inertia, in the presence of contraceptives, only parents who love their children will manage to reproduce. Only parents who love their children should reproduce. Anti-natalists only make a mistake when they suggest you should be like them; anti-natalists shouldn't breed precisely because they're not like you (or not like me, at least). Meanwhile, pro-natalists shouldn't breed because they take anti-natalists more seriously than chipmunk chatter. It suggests they are weak and their blood is no credit to the species. Luckily, this trash takes itself out. All it needs is a bit of patience. Though don't do anything dumb like trying to outlaw contraceptives for whores. 

Now the proggie pill exists, women have to earn the right of perpetuation by transcending their biology. They have to somehow manage to love their man, to discard their self-absorption, so that they can love their kids, so that their kids will exist enough to be loved. 

Everyone else gets infinite cat hair in the carpets, disguising the wine stains. And it's better than the alternative.

P.S. A related topic: it should be expected that children often die, but women don't seem to be able to cope with one of her children dying. Pre-Fascism cultures had all sorts of traditions like not naming the kid until they were 5 to avoid getting so attached the mother falls apart when they die. Darwin, y'all fucked up again: women are not well-adapted to having children.

Love, Biologically

 The biological purpose of love is to transfer resources to the loved one. Reciprocal love makes no sense; don't play Pong with the resources, that's plain dumb. Hence, men love women, women love children, and children can barely manage to love themselves. 

 Men aren't really supposed to love children. They're supposed to love sex, and then, as an inevitable consequence that they don't think about too much, they end up with kids. Then Darwinian instincts force them to provision the children, even though they would really prefer not to. Women don't love kids very much either; they're supposed to love themselves, especially when they're young, because they can just have another kid. The idea is to do the bare minimum so the kid doesn't actually starve to death or try to make friends with a crocodile. If it doesn't work, eh, oh well. It's not like her man will stop impregnating her, so the brat was going to be replaced anyway...

 Both men and women are largely forced to become attached only when it seems they will develop a reputation for disloyalty if they don't. This process is extremely buggy, since human perceptions are so unreliably even other humans can't figure out what insanity is going through their head. The loyalty-mimicking genes have to fire strongly since the disloyalty sensors are sensitive, which results in rather chaotic and unpredictable attachments.

Neither Anti-Natalists nor Pro-Natalists Should be Breeding, and They Won't

"I won't breed." => Disposing of your private property as you see fit. Responsible, none of my business.

"You won't(will) breed." => Defection. Treachery.  

Both pro and anti suffer from narcissistic universalism. Narcissism leads to lack of surviving grandchildren. In the unlikely event that the narcissist chooses a role that leads to many pregnancies, the children will see their parent's behaviour and quite rationally reject parenthood in reaction. 

As usual it's a grass-monkey thing. Tribal leaders want everyone to have kids so they can have lots of disposable shock-troopers. Women don't want anyone else to have kids, so their own kids receive all the loot by default. Everyone wants to meddle, though it doesn't even work. P.S. Women can't imagine a child earning loot, never mind creating loot; they see everyone as either a baby or a predator trying to eat her babies. You might think her husband wouldn't count but she's not supposed to be able to get away from her husband. (Why would he let her?)

Liquidate the Pentagon

If you really take Moldbug's "opposition inflames the tyrant" line seriously, you end up liquidating the Pentagon. This would make America fall faster but more peacefully, which is obviously a win-win. 

Arlington should declare the State Department to be terrorists, unilaterally break posse comitatus, and physically seize Langley, Foggy Bottom, and Harvard. It should then smack them upside the head for picking a fight with someone who is four feet taller. Force submission - and therefore peace - without doubt or remorse. Defect on defectors. 

It won't do this. 

If you refuse to win, then you've lost. Surrender. Arlington should liquidate all assets, retire all staff, and then demolish all the buildings. Take the ball and go home. Salting the earth optional. 

State would party so hard it would render itself comatose. Well over 50% of its energy is spent on dunking on its perceived 'opponents' and all of that would stop. Civil war over. Imagine a BLM riot without any Republicans around to blame it on. Suddenly State is forced to take responsibility for anything that happens in USG jurisdiction. Result: it will refuse to do anything. Peace. Calm. 

This is what Moldbug was trying to say when he endorses Biden and Obama. He falls afoul of Machiavelli's dictum: do no small harm. Voting is a small harm at most.

Don't seize the White House. Seize the Pentagon. If they refuse to surrender, rightists, to protect their own interests, need to force them to surrender. Both State and the Pentagon are your enemies; the Pentagon is vulnerable to attack, and therefore should be attacked. 

American rightists are of course women and leftist, so State isn't really their enemy to start with, it's merely a confabulation or phantasm. They attack Foggy Bottom, Georgetown, and Martha's Vinyard because they're self-destructive and want to be punished. The civil war exists because there's high demand for civil war.

Manoeuvre Through Enemy Propaganda

Tactical victory.
Strategic victory.
Logistic interruption.
Manoeuvre victory.
Morale overwhelm. 

Roughly speaking.
Propaganda is not on the list.

In 2016 they tried to win without looking bad, but in 2020 they just cheated. In Vietnam they tried to win seemingly-fairly, but it turned out they needed to cheat, so they did. They would love to cheat Russia, but they don't have a fortified base behind enemy lines, so they can't. 

The 'propaganda' victory only lets the opposing army know where they need to attack to damage morale. The propaganda tells you what they consider valuable and needs defense, but propaganda doesn't constitute defence, so you can just attack it. 

A real war is a unique opportunity to unmistakably falsify political statements. The propaganda tells the opposing army what operations would be most damaging to the propagandists' pride. 

Not to mention, to be even remotely believable, propaganda has to compromise opsec. The propaganda not only tells the enemy what to attack, it tells them where the valuable pain point happens to be.

"Hitlier will save us!"

>Hitler didn't abolish the public school

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hitler was just another zombie, but with a fancy uniform. Zombies are superficial and think skin-deep is as far down as you can go. 

Everything the alleged opposition claims is from Jews is actually from the Greeks, especially Protagoras et al. Jehovah was understood very differently before the Jews got Sophist'd. 

It does turn out that Jews are particularly suited to Sophistry. Better than e.g. the Greeks, who were (are) hardly slouches. 

Note that, as per Sophist tradition, it's extraordinarily likely that Protagoras plagiarized his writing.

Reminder: Non-Democrats Need a King and Pope

In particular, if you don't want to fall back into democracy at your earliest convenience, you need a white king as opposed to a black king. A white king upholds Exit. You can leave whenever you want, within reason, on the assumption that the king is on your side and therefore leaving isn't profitable.

But you need a king. 

If you don't have a king and pope, you're a Communist. Fascist. Faustian. Egalitarian fanatic. 

It makes no sense to discuss policy if you don't have a king. The king can't hear about the need to change policy if he doesn't exist. No policy matters at all, except chronic kinglessness. The king can't change the 'incorrect' policy for you if you don't have a king. It's all sublimely meaningless, in the face of chronic kinglessness.

Who is your king?

Don't have a king? What, are you waiting for permission? Whose?

Loyalty to Others is a Vice

Loyalty to yourself is a virtue, particularly loyalty to your own given word.

However, consider loyalty to someone who betrays you.

1. If loyalty is maintaining faith with the traitor, it's supporting a vice.

2. If loyalty allows you to break faith with a traitor, it's merely contracts. Loyalty in this case is isomorphic to selfishness - if the deal is no longer profitable, you break it. 

And that spans the entire space. Either you can break loyalty or you can't. If you can't, it's a vice. If you can, it's a distinction of no distinction, which is a lie, which is a vice. Loyalty to someone who hasn't betrayed you is nothing more than continuing to collect benefits.

In use, loyalty is expounded by traitors who wish for you to maintain your side of the broken contract. Loyalty (to others) is pure viciousness. 

P.S. I hope I don't have to explain that being a slave to your impulse id is not a virtue.

Nationalism is incredibly dumb

You people can't even collaborate long enough to make a videogame. 

It's dumbfounding that anyone takes this stuff remotely seriously. You're suspicious as fuck and demand to be paid for every little thing.

The socialism, moreso. Show me on the doll where you were minutely charitable or generous. I mean, no wonder you feel the need to be forced to support your fellows by violent military force.

Being Explicit: I'm Pro-Coronavirus

 I've said ncov was a godplague, but let me be perfectly plain. Coronavirus was anti-Satanic. 

 Coronavirus was a boon for everyone except Satanists. It destroyed evil. If anyone was killed by it, it's because they especially deserved to die. 

 Whoever spiritually released it was a hero. Whoever engineered it was a glorious agent of Nemesis. 

 Indeed if anything, the vast destruction inflicted on Satanists by themselves as a reaction to a bit of a cough was, in fact, too merciful. In Reality, it's not at all hard to figure out who deserves death. They cling to their suffering a little longer.