Ultra Short Ver: Free Will is a Scam

 The standard definition is being able to act otherwise than you in fact acted. Focus on [you]. Why would you make a decision other than the decision you made? You would have to be a different person than you in fact were. Standard free will is the idea that you don't have to be identical to yourself. Despotic men of the lead age are so allergic to authority they try to deny the authority of the law of identity.

Being Explicit: Both Decay and Progress are Impossible

 It can't get any better. It also can't get any worse.

 Net worth is 100% genetic. Fully genetic feature. You can have community and family, or you can have material wealth, but not both. You can have wisdom, or you can have fame, but not both. You can be happy, or you can live an easy life, but not both. These things all trade off with each other directly. You can choose the allocation, but never the grand total. If you want more of any of these things, you can only gain them by giving up some of something else.

 The Earth is populated by societies that cannot possibly be worse than they already are. You can have technology, or you can have religion, but not both. This is the nature of the Earthen Heaven. Everything is stagnant, because it has already hit rock bottom. Trying to make it worse inherently destroys either the person trying to make it worse, or destroys the society attempting to become worse. Result: worse societies cease to exist. Worse societies are logically impossible.

 This is your consolation prize. What you get in return for not being able to get better. 

 E.g. the Amish are very happy. And lead very harsh lives. E.g. they just let their kids die to disease. They can only be content because they're poor as fuck. 

 "We're so rich now, why can't we afford to be nice to the saturateds?" Exactly because you're rich, strife has to increase. All the stuff comes out of the budget for something else, such as getting along. Such as low crime. 

 The genius is 'crazy' i.e. antisocial. Yes, either he can spend time cultivating his genius, or his social skills, but not both. 

 The altruist has to be evil. They either spend time being rewarding and just to those who are good to them, or they spend time being good to those who are not good to them, but not both.

 It is often said that wisdom comes from poverty. In fact, it's the other way around. Wisdom uses up the net worth cap you might have otherwise used to get rich. Either you spend time learning instead of selling, or you learn that selling isn't worthwhile, so you don't do it. You can have truth, or you can have wealth, but not both. Wisdom causes poverty, not the reverse. The man who enters heaven goes through the eye of the needle due to the thing which caused him to be poor.
 Isn't the rich man in a heaven of his own? A heaven of gold, silks, and frankincense? Perhaps he feels this is a good trade. He could buy wisdom at any point, he simply doesn't like the cost, as it would indeed cost him all his gold. Do you know more about him than he does? Can you gainsay his decision? I certainly don't. I certainly can't.

Personal Evidence of Spiritual Reality

 When magnets repelled each other, I used to be able to see the stick or rod holding them apart. It looked infinitely thin, but glowed, making whatever was behind it appear brighter. In a sense, opposing poles connect at precisely the middle where the flux lines cannot bend away from each other without breaking symmetry. Of course this is technically a hallucination and perverse. It was temporarily useful for evidence of things beyond normal senses, but being presented as a normal sense is unhealthy and consequently went away. 

  I can still draw crude lines and shapes across my own vision, essentially slight voluntary hallucinations.I sometimes use this to improve an eyeball estimation. E.g. drawing a line and then filling a cup to that line. If I tune into that frequency without drawing a line, stuff appears to have colourless auras. 

 I saw a ghost once. A blue glowing hand wrapped itself around a door, as if to push it open and move through the portal, except the door was already open and pushed against a wall. Coming out of the back rooms, I guess. I was filled with terror and ran. I did not decide to find out if I was seeing things or not. (As per my usual sharp thinking, by reflex I in fact ran towards the ghost, as the proper escape was between me and her.)

 Aside from these two examples, I have never seen or heard anything that wasn't physically there. 

 I have twice experienced full telepathic savantism. Probably via sleep deprivation. I heard, word-for-word, what someone was going to say before they in fact said it. 

 I have twice experienced direct gnosis. Absolute certainty of a fact I could not possibly know. Indeed I've never been as certain of anything than of these two facts. The first time I confirmed it. The second time, I decided confirming it was unethical, but the circumstantial evidence was very strong. Both times were basically pointless, as far as I know. "I shall reveal unto you: this coin will flip to tails!" "Um, I'm neither flipping it nor calling it. Why are you telling me this?" The only purpose I can think of was to produce this exact paragraph right here. Mission accomplished?

 Due to these experiences, I tried divination. Works great. I learn all sorts of things I have no way of knowing. If I insist they'll even tell me things it's not good for me to know and they don't want to tell me. E.g. they'll give me omens, even though they don't want to and I shouldn't ask for them. Consequently I can read omens, although it would be better if I couldn't, the way I can no longer see the magnet lines. I find using aids, such as runestones or tarot cards, to be nothing but distractions and obfuscations. These things are called [occult] because they occlude what you're trying to look at. They only work if the reader already knows the answer and the aid is merely supplying words for the knowledge they already have.

 Mainly divination is set 2. Have to learn the language. 

 In light of this evidence, I have experienced a mysterious something that is probably spiritual, even though it's fully explainable by night terrors or some equivalent mundane medical event. When I was very young, I would wake up, already in distress, and find that everything would look terribly far away. Felt as if something had gained a firm grip on my soul and was trying to wrench it out of my body, making the tangible world appear distant and untouchable. I felt close to death, and not in the fun way. 

Americans Aren't Negotiation Capable

 The reason the government isn't agreement capable is because it's made of members of non-agreement-capable races.

 If I walk up to an Americoid and try to negotiate for behaviour other than what they were going to do anyway, it doesn't work. Do they not understand what they agreed to? Do they forget? Do they think I didn't really mean it? Do they just not care and think I should know better than to think they'll care? Is it all word games to them? It doesn't matter - regardless, the negotiation will have no effect, unless you count wasting my time. Naturally, as many times before, this is in Plato. 

 "so is democracy greedy for absolute freedom; it recognizes no authority whatever, neither familial nor militaristic nor academic." They don't even regard themselves as an authority. Not their spoken word, not their written word. 

 I regard myself as an authority, and boy howdy that pisses them off. E.g. if I think I won't do something, I work hard to ensure I also don't say I'm going to do it...and that's a problem. Highly heretical. That said, some species of Americoid will also avoid agreeing to anything they won't do, which in practice means they're inert, unwilling to agree to anything. Atropia. Some of them won't even agree to visit a restaurant on a timescale of "right now." 

 Ironically, this makes Americoids very easy to manage, because the alternative is manipulation. If you can't follow your given word instead of your momentary impulses, that means you're a slave to your impulses (again as per Plato) and manipulation, rhetoric, targets the impulses directly. Americoids have no defenses. If you can follow your given word, then you can go meta, not waiting to give it to someone else, giving it instead to yourself. Ideally, one employs logic and works out in advance what the correct answer is, so the given word is properly strategic.

 Fun fact: the reason it's okay to eat animals is because you can't negotiate with them. Even if they could sign a contract, they wouldn't be able to follow it. If you can't negotiate, you can't cooperate in any meaningful sense. Obligate defectors.

Naturalism is Insanity & Descartes

 Probably narcissism. Pride - anything they can't understand must be inexplicable. 

 The Naturalist asserts that everything that exists is natural. Then they turn around and assert [there's no evidence for the supernatural]. It's just a trick. Circular logic. Proof by unsupported axiom. 

 Even then it wouldn't be too bad, except they gerrymander the definition of [natural]. Why can't the 'supernatural' be natural? "Because there's no evidence for it." Why doesn't this count as evidence? "Because it's supernatural." 

 If Naturalism is subjected to scientific tests, it fails. Sogol. They've pre-determined what they want to discount, then defined all evidence and logic for those things as invalid. When they define the natural in terms of the supernatural, they reveal their real focus. It has nothing to do with studying nature and everything to do with spiteful ostracism of the "super"natural.

 What is immaterial about Descartes? Nothing. He simply raises the idea of two kinds of material - an extant material and an intentional material. The "super"natural is fully material. What is a material, except a substance? Nothing.

 Descartes made an error when he used the nonsense conjunction, 'immaterial substance;' the materialists a) confirmed and embraced this error b) reveal that their tradition is nothing but negaverse Cartesianism. Literally the science of [fuck you dad]ology. No identity, no personality, no values, except resentment.

 Continuing this thread, cogito ergo sum contradicts the premise from which it was derived, [our senses sometimes deceive us]. Descartes would count as a B-tier philosopher, like Plato, if he was capable of following his own ideas to their conclusion. Instead he would skip a track and accidentally find himself at the truth. 

And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations 

 Greek Skepticism re-discovered. Despite many centuries of accumulation and change, still self-refuting; if you have Demonstrated that Demonstration doesn't work, thusly and accordingly I reject the Demonstration, proving that Greek Dogmatism is correct.
 Also it's an empirical question. I believe I have not erred when I supposed I could type and publish text to a blog. I suggest that it is not impossible to know things, and Demonstration is merely what we can do when a truth is known. Tamper-evident etc etc. 

And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep

 Nope. While awake, it's very obvious that dreams are dreams. It's not the same at all. Empirical question: I don't care about dreams because they have no permanence. Nothing I do in a dream affects the next dream, no matter how badly I might want it to. Wakefulness is privileged because I have to care about the consequences of my actions - no matter how badly I might want not to. The only time I'm fooled by dreams is that (so weird) I'm not at 100% when I'm asleep, and I forget to check whether I'm dreaming. 

 Further empirical question: if you're honest, and remember to check, you're not as open to error as any other. 

 Descartes frames the problem wrong, and the Naturalists make the identical error. Argument is vassal to values. First, decide what you want. Then you investigate how you get that thing. Do you want to prove a particular idea? What do you mean by 'prove'? Is this idea an end, or a means to some other end? Without desire, there is no meaningful knowing. You can't tell if you've succeeded or not, because you cannot fail. 

 With desire, why would you care if reliable evidence is 'natural' or 'supernatural'? You wouldn't. Either it gets you more of what you want, or it doesn't. It works or it doesn't. All other distinctions are rendered meaningless due to being arbitrary post-hoc projections. You won't even bother to keep track of the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' or nor this 'perfect certainty' nonsense Descartes fiddled with. Reliable evidence is back-defined as successful evidence. Unreliable evidence is unsuccessful evidence. 

 Logic is the set of systems that work. It is what persuades Reality to agree with you. (Or rather, in most cases, persuades you to agree with Reality.)

 

 The true difference between Skeptic and Dogmatic is rejection of Logic itself. The Skeptic cannot Demonstrate anything, as that requires first accepting the Logic he has rejected.
 No, that's actually underselling it. Because they can't Demonstrate anything, they can Demonstrate everything. Because they reject Logic, they accept it. Because they don't exist, they do exist. Because they doubt everything, they credit* everything. Et cetera.
 *(Heed linguistic corruption is in fact decay: yes, 'credit' is the correct word here, it's not about banking.)

Why Don't Tumbleweeds Lose to Prevailing Winds?

 Why wouldn't they become scarce in the upwind direction, until finally dying out? 

 I have no idea, and my google-fu is not sufficient to fix it.

Frame is Deviance

 If two frames clash, at least one of the holders is lying. Put another way, you always ought to surrender to the frame of Reality. Lets you get along easily with anyone else who surrenders their frame to Reality. 

 

 There will be perhaps a clash of values, but these, too, are part of Reality's frame. 

 E.g. if I want you to keep reading and you want to stop reading, we both agree that you want to stop reading and I want you to keep reading. In this case, unless you're my slave, you should stop reading. Someone other than me owns you, and thus what goes is what someone other than me says. 

 

 Postmodernism: someone who wishes to supplant Reality's frame with their own (Satanism) can't tell the difference between a Reality-thinker and an opposing postmodernist. All is power or whatever. (As per usual, Fascist newspeak. Postmodernism is pre-scientific paleolithic behaviour.) They cannot cooperate. For them, there is only conquest and submission. Once the liar embraces lies, they are exiled from physical Reality, and must cling to social reality. It can be all they see and know. Due to thinking this way, the correct choice, in their case, is submission.

Climatology is Lysenkoism

 Whether you call it Communist, Fascist, or Despotic, these countries always have a Communist form of science, which has either been completely politicized and rendered pure superstition, or was deliberately spawned by politicians precisely for supertitious purposes. In the case of America, it's climatology. This can be seen when it distorts all forms of geology and botany with the spurious and ludicrous idea of "carbon sinks," as if this is a remotely significant factor. 

 Lysenkoist science manages to be even less useful than reading ox entrails. Even having failed Alchemists around is a better choice.

I've Been Racist'd Against the Han

 https://www.unz.com/aanglin/lululemon-founder-condemns-gross-fat-black-people-in-companys-ads/#comment-6357435

 See how the Han literally can't view a colour designation as a simple designation of physical colour. It always has to be about social one-upmanship: either white or yellow has to be a "better" colour. And the Proud Han insists on being the one up. (Because he always feels too poor to afford a single loss. Magnanimity = death. See also: Jews. Further: Thomas Malthus, Gregory Clark.)
 Consider what happens if you get two Han in a room.
 This is why China must have a powerful authoritarian government. The Han can't get anything done without someone violently forcing them to stop wasting time on petty games. Without it, in their natural state, they really are too poor. They compete to worship mangoes the hardest, rather than doing anything productive, if nobody stands over them with a whip.

 So at e.g. Wuhan Virology Lab, the Han compete to see who can flout the rules the hardest. Until someone accidentally releases a virus, because it turns out the Boreans set up those rules for a reason other than [to gain face at the biologists' expense].
 The Han love defrauding each other, because the fraudster gains face. Admitting you were defrauded is indeed shameful, after all. (Unfortunately, growth requires first admitting to deficit.) They hate being held to standards, because getting caught loses you face. Failing to be defrauded is honourable, and face is zero sum. The Han don't acknowledge fine craftmanship for its own sake, to the credit of the craftsman, so unlike in Europe you can't gain face by being meticulous and trustworthy. They only care insofar as owning it themselves can gain them face. Result: wonderful facades with nothing behind them.

 They're really good at things which are all facade. Pure appearance. Music and painting, for example. Artistic smoke flows. The reason Moscow's subway is less a sub and more a beautiful metro is likely due to their Oriental admixture.
Contrast: treasure fleets. Lots of appearance of wealth, no wealth generation to sustain the appearance, thus not sustained.

 Because the Han only care about face, they always have to have someone gaining face at their expense by standing with a whip looking over their shoulder, or they immediately death spiral.
All races are Proudly, Satanically self-destructive. Treachery competitions. This is how it works for the Han.


 Han come to English places but, monkey habits. They can't escape the expectation of excessive deference

 https://twitter.com/fitnessfeelingz/status/1745150413865697700
"In the most extreme case, the plane was literally running out of fuel. The co-pilot noticed, but would not directly state the problem, out of a fear of dishonoring the pilot, even knowing everyone could die (which they did)"

https://twitter.com/TrollingLegend2/status/1745336836812091575
"Korean have many different ways to talk to people of different age and job level, the language enforce a culture of respect and not defy your superiors and elders, this means even if a superior or elder is wrong, you can't just point it out bluntly."

 They go absolutely nuts, full ninja chimpout, if you defy this social norm. Incapable of assimilation or respecting local mores.

 Notably English is only pretending to be non-hierarchical, and the pretense regularly goes too far. Position is still there, it's merely conferred subtly, for plausible deniability (which isn't that plausible, but they pretend). The critical problem is that criticizing a superior costs face - it shouldn't, that's Satanic. The English shouldn't have to pretend the superior isn't superior to get around this rule. 

 America seems especially Chinese for a nominally European country, and getting ever more so. I find this makes sense given the nature of Democracy.

Why America Doesn't Do Rail

 The fact GM gotta get paid is only secondary. Primarily it's because the Germans did rail. Women are obsessed with appearances and guilt by association, and rail has been tainted. Every American is a woman, and railways are ""Fascist.""

 It turns out blimps are de-facto banned by the FAA. You need a license and they refuse to give one. This is only secondarily ass-covering, it's primarily because Germany did it first. How are you supposed to prove american "exceptionalism" when someone else has a good idea? As every narcissist knows, only the main character can have ideas.

Does Anyone on the Internet Do Anything?

 "Irony poisoning" is cope and distraction. Very nearly everyone on the internet is too scared of looking lame to do anything, and the 3-4 exceptions are doing things that can be done alone (Kaze Emanuar) or under other extreme edge-case conditions. Irony is the result, not the cause.

 Extreme High School Civilization.
 Not a coincidence that my major example is working (very hard) on a game for teenagers.

 Naively I would think they would at least get good at banter. Instead, none of them know improv. It's uniformly bitter, resentful, and contrary to the irony posture, taken too seriously. Now I'm wiser, I realize that upadana for looking cool will destroy, first, their coolness. How could it be any other way. 

 It's important to remember that since the Eternal September, the internet has been CIA territory. The social norms are spook-bureaucrat norms. Trolls are normal CIA employees doing their normal day-to-day, it's just that the CIA doesn't need to pay most of them. They only need to pay a few here and there and the rest will unconsciously recognize their superior, their paragon, and go all monkey-see monkey-do.

 If you do something real, the trolls will criticize you for it, if it is not absolutely perfect. They are trolls, after all; they'll sort of try even if it is perfect. You are also CIA, so you feel the trolls are significant ingroup representatives, as indeed they are. 

 Also, it can't be perfect, because the CIA is evil. Perfect evil looks awful, and perfect good looks anti-CIA. Faux pas either way. 

 Certainly it doesn't help that nobody wants to clean their room. You can't throw up a doodle for your mom and her friends. It always has to be trying to conquer the world (violently, if possible). Egalitarianism, narcissism: it has to appeal to everyone. You have to shove it in everyone's face to prove it. For some reason, this norm is not conducive to joyful exploration or enthusiastic skill-building. What a coincidence. 

 You can't just play around in photoshop (or paint.exe) and post it.

 

 If you do something real, then the criticism will matter. It will apply to you. Narcissism: if you do something fake, then you were just faking anyway. "I was just pretending to be retarded." You could do something for real whenever you wanted, right? 

 If you like something, it tells the CIA trolls exactly what to attack. "Ah, this is how we harm you." Yet, nobody thinks to isolate themselves from the CIA trolls, they only think to hide their liking of anything. 

 Even if something genuinely likable was created, nobody would acknowledge it. 
 To do Moldbug's 'art scene' properly, you have to absolutely destroy any political relevance, by isolating it completely. Nobody outside the scene ought even know it exists. The way the Amish are (almost) unheard-of.

 Plato's Despotic Man: no courage. Substitute fake risks for real risks, to hide your own cowardice from yourself. 

 Generally, I think netizens are correct. They cannot afford to talk about their real ideas. They cannot afford to do a science, and expose their ideas openly, and allow them to be refuted. They simply don't have the strength of character to withstand the process. Their friendships are fragile, they would shatter at the slightest jostling, and they don't have the stocks to survive a search for new ones. 

 I can show any number of quality videos that were made either by a sole auteur or a small team. There's no need to go to Hollywood for your TV.
 But this suggest it was never necessary to go to Hollywood. It was always possible to found and sustain a competitor. They just choose not to. And likewise for all other media. All other product, even toasters. Supply? Supply? The problem is always demand. 

 

 Nevertheless, I do miss the world where the internet could bring together those who were interested in sincere creation. Even though that world was always an illusion. Where are those who wanted to create beauty for beauty's sake? Rather than trying to carefully, cynically craft a 'message' for an 'audience,' naturally so as to aim for the largest possible audience.
 Surely there must be one, somewhere, right? Who likes things because they're likable, not due to how liking it makes them look to their twitter followers?
 Surely?

Twitter as Stupidity Exposure Vector

 With nitter down, I'm cut off from twitter, and it's dramatically reduced my stupidity exposure. 

 Took some weeks to notice a difference, but there was a phase change. I do enjoy following world news for various reasons, but now I know the difference, it's not enough to put up with all the stupidity. 

 I don't care what your congresscritter said. Nobody cares. Nobody needs to care. He's plain stupid, and thinking about what he said makes you stupid too. 

 If dunking on the stupidity reduced stupidity it would be worthwhile, but of course stupidity is a very renewable resource. Abundant, you might say. If the tyrannized were capable of forming communities, you could make a stupidity-free community, but of course they can't.

 I'm trying to think of a reason why hermitage is not the right answer, but coming up blank.

Guillotine Test for New Technology in General

 You don't need double-blind clinical trials to detect the effect of a guillotine. You don't really need a placebo group for penicillin. Caffeine's effect isn't some subtle long-term tweak. If you need a high-powered study to detect the effect, the medical intervention is almost certainly not worthwhile. NNT < NNH, whoops.

 Likewise, if you have a new tool, such as autoCAD or robot car assemblers, you don't need sophisticated accounting to determine if it's useful. Just try it for a few minutes. You can safely decide based on a single test drive. Either it passes the guillotine test, or it doesn't. Here, grey is black: if you're not sure, that means you are sure and the answer is no.

 It is very hard to convince me that CAD and similar programs don't cost more in labour than they save. It's not inherent; if you got a rich video game studio to make a CAD program it would probably be amazing. However, they got idiots to make the CAD programs instead, so... This was correct, as they were marketed for idiots and for use by idiots. Wasting time and being painful was in demand, thus what was supplied. 

 The rule of thumb I've heard is 2 years amortization. Any industrial intervention, even stuff like better windows, has to pay for itself within 2 years. If it's going to take longer, you will one way or another lose money on it. I suspect domestic or consumer investments work pretty much the same way. 

 That is, if something is going to 'revolutionize' a sector, you don't need sophisticated marketing copy to tell you this. You can just try it, and that is easily a sufficiently sophisticated test.

 If nothing else, you save all the hassle of constantly chasing trends and growing pains and retraining costs. If something pays back in 2.5 years...and then you need to pick up something else that pays back in 2.5 years....you never get to the point where you're in the black. Meanwhile the ignorant dumbass who just kept on keepin on has edged you out, and will until his industrial implants reach beater age. (Which admittedly they will, because he's an ignorant dumbass.)

Imagine Sodomy was Censored

 Imagine the vast apparatus of the American censorship-industrial complex was turned upon sodomy. Anyone mentioning sodomy was immediately deplatformed and unpersoned. Anyone caught committing sodomy was whisked off to solitary confinement or Guantanamo. The words scrubbed from dictionaries and search engines. Any porn site with so much as the word 'anal' immediately blocked and physically raided. 

 Sodomy would be known only to specialists, such as some select secret-agent-type sexual dysfunction doctors, who would 'cure' the afflicted and swear them to silence. Or else. Specialists, such as and those who had the unfortunately corrupting but necessary job of containing unrepentant sodomites. You wouldn't be able to blackmail anyone with sodomy, because you would get got for knowing what to accuse them of without a license.

 Normies would be wholly ignorant of it. If you tried to describe butt sex to them, they would likely just change the subject. It would be worse than talking about a flat earth.

 Do you think that might have a positive effect on rates of sexual degeneracy? 

 Imagine diddling a kid got you disappeared. Unpersoned. "No such individual is known to us." Think this might limit the spread of trauma-induced homosexuality? 

 Scrub the words from, in particular, the Bible. Revenge is Sour. If your society needs a specific injunction against this sexual perversion, it is already too late. The injunction will raise the incidence, not lower it, because it will be a known thing to try.

On Mechanical Computation & Nonmechanical Cogitation

 A computer carries out the tasks you set for it faster than you can. That's it. Basically a car for thinking. Gets you from A to B faster than your own legs/brain can carry you.

 Note that you have to be able to fully teach the computer how to do the task. Perhaps a train rather than a car, as the rails have to be laid down in advance. The computer can't figure anything out on its own. If it's figuring anything out, it's because you told it how to figure things out, and it's simply following your instructions quickly. (More later: semantic problem.) 

 There's nothing special about following instructions especially quickly. A "bullet" train isn't meaningfully different than a regular train, it's just faster. If you run/think really really really fast, it doesn't stop being running or thinking.  

 How does an "AI" identify faces? Someone painstakingly instructed it how to identify faces. It does so very awkwardly and inefficiently because it had to be tasks the instructor verbally understood well enough to write down accurately, but it makes up for the awkwardness by doing many different tasks, and the inefficiency by doing them many many times.

 Ironically it's 100% phrenology. I haven't checked, but I don't need to. AIs identify faces by busting out the calipers and reducing the face to a series of measurements. With enough measurements, faces are identified uniquely. Imagine having to do that yourself, lol. You have face blindness so you get the micrometer and spend a half-hour writing down numbers and checking them against your list of known associates. Finally, you can say hi...

 

 From writing this down, I now verbally understand how to explain why no AI will ever be able to do art. Art's purpose is subjective. AI can generate any artwork, it is true. Ultimately all art is nothing but a series of mechanical brush strokes. Literally in the case of paintings, but abstract/metaphorical brush strokes in all cases. However, the artist has to not only make brush strokes, but choose the right ones. Since the point is a subjective impression, the artist needs subjective impressions to check the stroke options against, to figure out which strokes produce the desired result. The AI doesn't have them and can only choose at random, incoherently. Perhaps a ludicrously effort-intensive AI can copy things which match previously-used subjective impressions, but this kind of machine can't ever make anything new. 

 This [choose the right ones] is the general purpose of subjective processing, as far as evolution is concerned. The consciousness transceiver is extremely expensive. It is used because it is that much better than mechanical computation at choosing the right option. 

 E.g. consciousness is used to identify faces, because similarity comparison in consciousness is automatic. If you hold two faces in mind at the same time, you can't not know how they are similar and different. This is a property of the mind, not the brain. Hence, conscious recognition is extremely fast, efficient, and reliable, as compared to trying the caliper method. So much faster that it's worth downloading the face to a mind and uploading the result rather than attempting to do it unconsciously. 

 It's still worthwhile even when the mind sometimes deliberately messes with the upload. Yeah, you make bad decisions, and your brain knows better. However, even so, it's worth it to get face recognition. And also everything else recognition.

 

 Mind the phrase, [desired result]. Without a mind, AIs can't have desires. Even if explicitly instructed on goals, they can't recognize outcomes as similar to their goals. They can only identify inputs as precisely identical to some instructed standard. Heed the fact this includes probabilities, e.g. they can recognize that 8 is within 25% of 10, because it is precisely identical to the condition [between 7.5 and 12.5]. If the instructor forgets to mention that something is similar, the computer can't figure it out on its own. This is the semantic problem: is 5+5 like 10? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The computer doesn't know, unless the instructor explicitly told it to do the addition. The instructor has to separately tell it to do multiplication, 2*5, if it wants the computer to recognize that too. 

 The semantic problem: a computer cannot recognize things are similar if they are not identical. You can try to hack this by perturbing the input and trying to measure the perturbation. Extremely laborious. Is 7.4 close enough to within 25% of 10? The computer has to try all perturbations within some bound and check if one of them is identical to 7.4. Ultimately a computer can never know the meaning of the symbols it processes.

 Physically, initiative looks like free will. The machine starts doing things for almost no physical reason. Mechanically the consciousness transceiver looks like a random number generator. If atheism were true it would produce random behaviour, not directed behaviour. 

(P.S. this is why Atheists can't produce artificial consciousness; it turns out religion is empirical, and it would disprove their religion. Notably Christians can't produce artificial consciousness either, because it would disprove the specialness of humanity. Ref: grandiose narcissism. In both religions, any attempt that is likely to succeed will be sabotaged by the person attempting it, ideally in such a way as to "prove" it is impossible to do the thing they almost did.)

 Unlike a computer or brain, a mind can see similarities and produce its own instructions. A mind can not only recognize that multiplication is like addition without being told, a mind can come up with multiplication. Without being presented with multiplication, it can generate, on initiative, all thoughts similar to adding, and the transceiver can convert them to similar physical computations. A computer would have to try every single possible operation and see that one of them produces 10. Then someone would have to tell it to look for the cheapest kind of operation that produces 10, because the computer has no desires and doesn't care about wasting time. Then, on a different set of numbers, 3*3.33, it would have to try every operation again, to see which one produces ten.

 Put another way, an AI recognizes similar paintings because the colour addresses of the pixels aren't very different or the pixels of similar colours aren't very far away.
 Subjective similarity is much more like logical similarity. To an AI, a black cat and a white tiger look very different. To a mind, they both look like cats, and thus are likely to do catlike things. 

 Has subjective similarity been deliberately arranged so that logically related things look similar? (At least, more often than they do to a computer. Ref: adversarial patterns.) Has logic been deliberately arranged so that things that look subjectively similar happen to be logically related?
 Language, certainly, has been arranged so that subjectively similar things are linguistically similar. We can easily imagine a different language which deliberately forges groups of things similar as far as binary silicon is concerned. Society has been deliberately arranged so that signs and symbols pointing to similar things look subjectively similar. A computer without subjectivity will never be able to deftly navigate these things.

 You can't make a driving robot because it can't deal with any situation not anticipated by its designer. You can't even make a dishwashing robot that won't lose a dish when the plate exits its design envelope. 

 I suppose that's the killphrase: exiting the design envelope. That's understanding and/or creativity. Produce meaningful art (that is, not deep dream noise) that isn't a linear recombination of training data. Make a dish that the dishwashing robot understands as a dish and a human doesn't. Make a dishwashing robot that can spontaneously understand not to fight with other dishwashing robots over a dish. E.g. imagine it drops a dish and they both pick it up. 

 How many ways can you break a dishwashing robot? Give it a broken dirty dish that you don't want stinking up the garbage. Give it a broken dish that's already clean. Give it a dish with a picture of stale food on it. Give it a dish with a different picture of stale food. Give it a dish that's not conventionally dish-shaped, but is still a ceramic with a liquid-holding side, e.g. a squashed vase. Give it a dish with a hologram of some other shape on it. Give it a porous dish that can't reasonably be cleaned. Give it a sieve dish that can't hold liquid. Give it a dish with a hole that's supposed to be used as a set with another. Try for a tactile illusion so it looks right but doesn't feel like a dish.
 Try to get the dishwashing robot to self-clean or self-repair. 

 

 You know, the brain clearly does use 3D modelling, but doesn't use polygons. It's clearly far more efficient than a graphics card, since the brain uses at most 20 watts. Maybe try copying the brain's basic functions before trying to copy the consciousness transceiver without resorting to consciousness.

Fun Theory of Dead Boeing Whistleblower

 Suppose it's a double-backcross, the guy wasn't reporting any real engineering problems, and he was suicided - by Boeing competitors. 

 John Barnett was rather obviously a massive Karen. He was reporting regulation violations, not structural problems. If you've ever worked a job you know following the rules is rather hit and miss, and most of the time it's because the rules are stupid. Indeed the tyrant likes it this way, as they can prosecute anyone at any time by suspending the blind-eye policy. 

 (Ever noticed when someone 'dodges' inspections for years, it's never assumed to be regulator incompetence? They are never held accountable.)

 If you're suitably pedantic or disgruntled, you can find endless reams of things to report. In industries like aviation, you can report them directly to bureaucracies which hold police powers, making everything very dramatic. (Just like Karens like it.)

 Barnett made the news - which is always a bad sign - which tipped off a rival, who realized they could Streisand this fake news by suiciding Barnett. Elite infighting. 

 The dangling thread with this theory is that Boeing planes really are falling apart. However, Barnett was quit-fired seven years ago, plenty of time for Boeing to live up to the image in Barnett's head. 

 There's also the angle where Karens are mentally unstable. Defectors are defective. Yes, it makes absolutely no sense for him to have killed himself with this timing - but, I dunno if you've heard, madmen are crazy. Irrational behaviour is to be expected.

 That brings me to yet another angle: he deliberately suicided himself because he knew it would be suspicious as all fuck.

 If Boeing was in fact not guilty, they could have simply won in court. The FAA clearly doesn't want to prosecute Boeing - unlike Bear Stearns, Boeing is unmistakably up to date on its bribes and grovelling. However, since Barnett found genuine policy violations, the FAA would have felt pressured to fine Boeing or whatever, and they just wanted the issue to go away. You can't exactly tell a judge that a policy isn't a real structural policy, "Oh yeah planes can fly just fine when they violate that one, we only have it on the books for selective enforcement." Sure the assassination looks bad, but who cares what the peasants think?
 Then there's the 'who cares what the peasants think' angle, but it turns out they're mistaken, and it matters for whatever reason.

 Now consider this one: Barnett was incompetent and couldn't find any real violation, but Boeing is now committing serious violations and can't stand up to any novel scrutiny. Assassinating Barnett does the Streisand on his lame accusations, which draw attention away from finding new issues.

 The only thing we can be certain of is that the story is the news is not the real story. Journalists are not experts at any kind of investigative field, they don't even know what they need to rule out. They're the avatars of the peasants, just as they claim: they see the same parochial, knee-jerk superstition that their audience would see if they were there in person.

 Another Revenge is Sour incidence: yes, in America, you need to put whisteblowers on suicide watch. Automatic protective custody. Not to mention ""suicide"" watch: 24/7 surveillance by independent Russians AND Chinese. Because America, that will never happen. To get this common*-sense preventative measure, you first need to have the kind of country that doesn't regularly use assassination as a policy tool, and thus doesn't need it.

 *(Sense common to nobles, not to commoners.)

Prayer and Wordcelibacy

 They say wisdom is watching a man's actions, not his words.
 Fun fact: the heavens are wise. They look at how you behave, not solely your explicit verbalizations. They gain insight into what you're thinking, not merely your overt claims.

 Wordcels frequently see prayer as not working, precisely because the prayer was answered. "But I didn't ask for this!" Your words did not ask for this, no. 

 Let's do a rather stupid example. Imagine a cliff. Dude stands on it. "I pray to be lifted through the air and land gently." He leaps from the cliff. His prayer is not answered, he goes splat. (If you've ever heard it, you know it really does sound like a splat. A wet towel slap, but so hard and loud you can't hear the bones snapping.)

 First exegesis: in fact, leaping from a cliff constitutes a prayer for death. This was in fact answered. The words are weak. The action is strong: he could have simply not jumped; it wasn't compulsory. The action dominates. Further, sub-rosa this man clearly did intend to get killed. He didn't think it in words, but he was thinking it in feelings. The very fact he prayed for flight shows that he knew that jumping unaided would kill him. He cannot possibly be confused or ignorant about gravity. The explicit words are overridden by the stronger implicit. He pretended he thought the heavens were stupid and gullible, but in fact knew they weren't.

 Second exegesis: the petitioner does have to listen for the answer. With a prayer such as above, there are two possible answers. "We're not going to do that." Or, "Here's how to be lifted through the air:" followed by instructions to the location of a hang glider or similar. The prayer was answered, but he didn't listen to the answer.
 The wordcel thinks, "Prayers are answered," means, "Prayers are answered in the way I intend them to be answered." Hubris. Jumped to a conclusion, didn't question. Goes splat.
 In fact this can be refuted using pure theorycel wordcelibacy. To start with, it's called [answer] not [miracle vending machine - 100% off sale]. The heavens are not your servant. When you say [jump me], they do not ask [how high]. The fact they have powers I do not is exactly why I'm asking them for things, and the fact they have powers I do not makes them superior to me, not inferior. I do what they tell me, not the reverse. (Or I regret it.) Moreover, they have powers I do not because they have wisdom I do not, and it is obscene foolishness not to respect this greater wisdom. I don't decide how prayers are answered, and what would even be the point of prayer if I did? 

 

 Actual real-life example. "Hey, remote view me the symbol on those cards." Answer: "You don't care what's on the cards." Got me good. Why am I even asking for such a stupid thing? Because I'm being stupid, duh. If I really want to know what's on the card so much, I can go over there and flip it. Using, like, my hand. Which I already have. 

 No, the weird time was the once I was spontaneously informed what was on the front of the cards. The backs large brown cardboard squares, and there was a prize for guessing correctly...although it wasn't my turn. I've never been so sure of anything in my life. I had direct gnosis, oneness with these dumb game pieces. I still want to know why I was told that. Did my curiosity even count as asking? Like...was the point solely so I could tell this story later? Did I momentarily develop prayer savantism? WTF?

 The heavens have even less patience with lying than I do. Liars cannot pray. Even if they do, the only answer they'll get is, "Stop lying."

You May Now Kiss the Whore

 "To have and to hold.
 In good times, but not in bad.
 If you get sick and it gives me the ick, I'll be out that week.
 For richer, but not for poorer, or if I want that sweet family court payday.
 I promise to love you until I don't, to cherish if I feel like it, and to obey if it's something I would do anyway.
 Until death do we part
 Until I get bored long enough to finish a conversation with a bureaucrat."

 "I pronounce you pimp and prostitute! You may now kiss the whore!"

 ("I already did? 🤔 Didn't seek permission... It's a hussy, after all...")

 I realized the no-fault-divorce wedding vows would be hilarious in spade language.

Gratitude for the Brain

 I've decided I'm going to use the term [thinking engine] for [computer] henceforth.
 I remembered you run around with a thinking engine atop your shoulders all the time. It's not just any thinking engine either. Do you understand how expensive it would be to make a silicon thinking engine with the full capacities of the human brain? Trillions of dollars. Perhaps hundreds of trillions.

 You have a trillion-dollar piece of hardware upstairs. Isn't that cool? That's fucking cool. 

 Oh and it runs on 20 watts. lol
 When a cartoon lightbulb flashes to symbolize insight, it uses more power than the brain having the insight.
 Admittedly the parts are expensive. If you want to make e.g. seaweed (for iodine) in a lab, you're looking at tens of millions of dollars per pound. Luckily Gaia will make that shit for you...

 Making a whole brain is a little expensive, maybe $200,000 in continental prices, but considering the machine is worth trillions of dollars, I would say that's a pretty damn good deal. Somewhat profitable, you might say.

 

 When scientists can make trillion-dollar thinking engines using a million dollars of parts and labour that run on less than 20 watts, I will admit they may possibly have a chance of being smarter than evolution. Until then, evolution is smarter than you. Yes, you can tell the tailbone shouldn't exist and evolution hasn't figured it out yet, but you can't make even a mistaken tailbone in the first place. How many new species have you engineered? Saying what to fix without knowing how to fix it is worse than useless. Maybe start with gram-positive bacteria, then work up, yes? 

 

 This is why you should do your reps. Don't leave trillions of dollars of value on the table. Maximize the potential of this insane piece of kit.
 Like sure maybe the untrained don't have trillion-dollar assets boxed in bone, but I sure as fuck do. And heck yeah it's awesome.

Fascism is Heretical

 Fascism is obviously a superstitious religion. To use the older term, Despotism is always theocratic. But it's not merely a superstitious religion, it's inherently hypocritical. The Despot is always a member of the State Enemy. Nazis are run by Jews. The USSR was run by capitalist bourgeoisie, or rather, by greedy kulaks. America is run by racist redcoats. 

 The Jedi are Sith. 

 Their primary values are passion and power, they just lie about it. They pretend to have no passion. They pretend they don't care about power. However, it's not called a Sith mind trick.
 Why did Luke not fucking bite it? Because his dad had a passion for family, and the power to do something about it. (Unlike his pussy son.) Actions >> words.
 Sometimes pay attention to their words: Obi Wan doesn't claim he'll become more serene and disciplined than you can possibly imagine if Vader strikes him down, now does he? If he's so unattached, why does he linger after death? Because it's all a putrid lie, that's why.

 Nazis employ all sorts of Jewish rhetoric to defend their intensely Jewish socialism. Zionists are not exactly internationalists like Stalin, you know? Genocidal, like the old testament. Not to mention Jews hate Christians, and Hitler hated Christians. Jews want to destroy Germany, Hitler successfully destroyed Germany. (Got like 12% of Russians killed too.) Wow, that would really be a coincidence if Hitler wasn't spiritually a Jew.

 Stalin was a bank robber. Not exactly a humble vow of poverty type. It's very clear that what he primarily wanted out of the conquest of Russia was filthy lucre. Didn't exactly refuse being showered with riches. Such a miser that when someone asked him for charity, he would force his working-class bodyguards to provide. What a cunt.

 Democrats really are the real racists. Nobody hates Bantu-Americans more than the DNC does. Bantu Love Morgues. Biden isn't a Jew. Insofar as there are other races involved, they're all fully assimilated redcoats. In 1776 they couldn't have won without redcoat traitors and the inheritors of the Normans. Probably from Normandy. Just England, but moreso.

 I'm kinda stuck on Jedi now.

 Why did the Death Star blow up? Because Luke had a passion for Yarvin, and the power to do something about it. 

 Why didn't Endor blow up? Because the Rebels had a passion for fuzzy drop bears and grassy moons, and the power to do something about it. 

 How did Luke rescue Leia from Jabba? He had the passion for sisters and the power to kill Roman lion expies. Leia, of course, rescues herself in part by having the passion of disgust and the power to choke a bitch. Not exactly through serenity and selflessness. Harmony through shanking a chap. In this case "public works" means deadly sabotage with no survivors. Jedi certainly like to claim wisdom, but do you see any deep incisive philosophy, lol? Lmao? "There is no try." Counteroffer: fuck yourself with a rake. Don't try, just do.

 The only Sith virtue Lucas condemns by deeds and not merely words is saying you're a Sith. There's no light side of the Force. There's the dark side, and the dark side that's wearing a domino to the ball. 

 And so it is with Despotism.

Important Repetition: Unemployment is Due to Price Fixing

 Price fixing causes gluts and shortages, and a glut is simply a kind of shortage, a shortage of affordable goods or profitable trades. Unemployment is a glut of labour, or shortage of jobs. This happens when prices can't shift to match demand, meaning suppliers see false signals.

 Recently China is experiencing serious unemployment shocks. It's far more Capitalist than America, but that's a low bar. Open question: are these authoritarian price fixes, or Fascist price fixes? They still have a central bank, meaning they are irresponsibly fixing interest rates. That's likely the core issue, but we don't need to find the core issue. The root cause is guaranteed to be price-fixing. Unless the CCP wants to hire me (lol) there's no reason for me to find the specific 'fix' (language corrupt again) that's broken, because I can't change it. The relevant part is that the price will continue to be fixed, and thus unemployment will continue. 

 If you're not Fascist or otherwise tyrannical, it simply never becomes an issue. The irony of tyranny is that it crowds out authority. A despot occurs due to the absence of leadership, and despots only apotheosize this absence. One trivial fix of myriads: have a lord use the spare labour for a pet project. The rich aren't poor. This may come as a shock, but there's never been a large society where the rich are poor. They can always pay for the labour...if they don't have to hide their lordly virtues and vast wealth from a tyrant and his egalitarian mobs. Ref: Rwanda (~$2000 gdp/cap) can afford to mop Kigali's gutters six times a day, consuming incredible amounts of labour.
 They say any problem you can fix with money isn't a real problem...and you can fix unemployment even without money. Not a joke, although it is funny. It must be this way: at some point money wasn't invented, and yet unemployment was nevertheless, later, fixed. Jobs cause wealth, you don't have to pay wealth to get jobs.

Lost in the Weeds or RAM Overbuffer

 It's important to look at all the details. Check that none of them are invoking nonlinear power laws while you're not looking. However, you do have limited RAM. Not only do you need to look at all the details even if you can't keep them all in mind at the same time, you need to keep in mind your higher purpose, and not get lost in the weeds. 

 It's very easy to look at all the details that fit into RAM and conclude that's all the important details, or rather, to simply take it for granted that everything you can see is everything there is to see. So, like, remember not to. [Remembering not to] takes up RAM and decreases the number of non-meta details you can keep in mind, but do it anyway.

 In addition to reserving RAM to remember you're not remembering all the concrete details, it's also important to waste even more RAM on remembering why you're looking at the details in the first place. There's already a reserved slot for what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work right. It's very easy to lose sight of your ultimate goal, accidentally replacing it with an intermediate goal. Frankly, don't fight it. Let the reserve slot be broken and largely useless. Reserve some truly arbitrary random-access attention to either remembering to periodically check your ultimate goal, or effortfully keep the goal itself in mind, if it's small enough for that option to be efficient. 

 

For example, imagine a regular business. It's important to individually check every opportunity for profit. Don't intentionally overlook anything. The cost of checking is not high. However, don't get so absorbed and fascinated by checking for new opportunities that you neglect your already existent profitable activities. The point isn't to find all the opportunities, the point is to make money. Don't spend more money looking for opportunities than you can gain by exploiting the findings. Keep the ultimate purpose in mind at all times. This will take intentional effort.
 Owners and entrepreneurs regularly get burned on the [conservative] existing activities while going for [liberal, greedy] new opportunities, and mistakenly respond by vowing never to effortfully look for new opportunities again. Then they go out of business when a competitor eats their lunch. Later, rather than sooner, but inevitably all the same. Also, occasionally those opportunities are huge windfalls that easily pay for the price of casually checking them all.

 Likewise owners will consider a set of opportunities, and if that consumes all their attention, they will assume that's all the possible opportunities. They will stop looking. If you can see even one of the things they're not looking at, they look extremely stupid. This is because they're making themselves extremely stupid. It's childish and naive; it's the totally-untrained habit. 

 

 It's also important to reserve some RAM for remembering to check your search strategy on occasion. What assumptions is it based on? What do these assumptions make you overlook? Is it likely to be worth checking there? Watch a video of someone playing a game you're really good at. Especially something like Darkest Dungeon where the players whine all the time, meaning they tell you what they believe is beyond their control. You can easily see that they could control it; they're not doing it because their search strategy is blind to that possibility. E.g. I just recently saw a leper take a death's door check because the lolplayer had him tank without block tokens, without weak tokens, and without full health. Could have just used withstand... Look for anything in your search strategy which feels blind like that so you can fix it.

 

 When performing a logical proof it's absolutely critical to simultaneously keep in mind every relevant premise. If you hit your RAM limit, there's no way around it: time for set 3. Do stretches, increase your RAM limit. Otherwise the validity of the conclusion will be down to luck. There's no way to know which premises are critically relevant without simply accepting the combinatorial explosion and checking all their relationships with each other and with the final conclusion. Note that doing this nonverbally is almost trivial, but of course you'll have to figure out verbally why the correct conclusion is correct if you intend to build on it. Secondly, to efficiently know the range of validity it's necessary to understand the verbal proof. 

 Once all the relevant premises are processed, it's fine to discard the irrelevant ones and remember only the critical path for the proof. I generally check the conclusion is valid using retrodiction. If it works consistently, I know I haven't mistakenly discarded a premise I used but thought I didn't.
 Note that textbook or university proofs have almost always already gone through the pruning stage, meaning studying them is nearly useless for forming your own proofs. They're only useful if you've already re-invented the wheel and want to use them to check that you re-invented it correctly.

Proper Dance of Verbalization and Intuition

 Nonverbal thinking is extremely powerful, but it has a limit, which is lack of recursion. It can't build on itself. It can reach beyond what you think you know, but only a certain distance. Hence, use verbal thinking. Nail down what exactly the intuitive systems are telling you. 

 It's easy to think you've nailed it down when you haven't. It's important to go back and try to naively intuit again and see if it really matches. It's normal to take a few tries, regardless of how much experience you have with the process.

 Once a new verbal foundation is built, the intuition can make new intuitive leaps. These leaps can in turn be verbalized, and the cycle repeats.

 In theory you can also make purely verbal extensions. Mathematics often works this way. However, it's slow. There's no advantage to doing it that way, except among the mentally deformed freaks who want to signal loyalty to wordcel Science. That said, sometimes the intuition will direct verbal logic down particular alleyways, and it will be correct. Go ahead and do what it says to do.

Investment: Burying the Corpse

 Search engines have interesting lacunae. One bit of lost knowledge is the [burying the corpse] dynamic in accounting and investing. It comes up often enough that I have to make my own quick reference.

 

 I can gas the price of any financial instrument by buying a lot of it. My earlier purchases will show a gain on paper due to my later purchases. The fact this profit turns into a loss once I try to sell is known as burying the corpse. 

 Even in ideal conditions, in practice if I buy ~75% of a stock and then sell it again, I'll have to sell it back to exactly the folks I bought it from, and I'll have to pay exactly what I bought it for plus pay for their transaction costs. Realistically I can't even get losses that minimal. Basically it happened because I lied. Fictitious demand creates fictitious prices. The demand I hoped to exploit was my own demand, which I created by supplying it, see? Cancels out, plus there's friction.

 I'm supposed to buy things because I think they're worth more than they cost. If I plan to turn around and sell them immediately, that can't be true. Especially if I accept the prevailing prices I'll see.

 I killed the investment when I inflated it, and now I have to bury the corpse.

 

 Naturally this naive clean version almost never happens.

 However, many times folk will spend a lot on an instrument, then simply hold it on their balance sheet as collateral. They're still afflicted by burying the corpse, but the problem is being whitewashed. They're hiding the fact that book value and market value are different by insulating the instrument from the market. This is usually intentional fraud. Banks do this all the time, for example, because they get bailed out via taxes when the market calls their bluff. 

 Likewise I can take out a huge fractional-reserve/counterfeit loan, then buy a ton of some stock or another, then use the inflated book value of that stock to justify a second huge counterfeit loan. Leverage myself twice over. E.g. imagine I buy 90% of the market cap of some penny stock. Wow, hueg gainz. Now I can afford an even bigger second loan, lol.

 By book value I can pay all my debts. It's all fun and games until someone has to bury the corpse. If any of these risks go bad, I find my collateral can't pay for my leverage and in fact I've been underwater this whole time. That penny stock is, in fact, worth pennies. Financial explosion; anyone who trusted me as a risk gets hosed too. 

 It can hose you as an innocent investor too, if you're naive enough to fall for it. When I buy 90% of that penny stock, you might think it's going places and try to get on the bandwagon. You have to do your due diligence, notice all the demand is me and me alone, and realize book value has diverged from market value. Indeed I'm hoping you will fail exactly that: I will sell the corpse to you, pay off my loan with the proceeds, and pocket the profits, leaving you to bury the corpse. Everyone is looking for a rube who didn't buy on leverage (e.g. pension funds), so they can leave them carrying the bag, or else everyone is going to take a haircut.

 Can someone buy private stock, privately? Can they buy it without you knowing who bought it? If so, you have to assume someone now has a corpse to bury. At the very least look into the transaction history and discount price gains from large or repeated transactions.

 I would try short selling, except of course banks can hold corpses on their balance sheets for very long times. The "market" can stay "irrational" longer than I can stay solvent. That's because banks aren't private or market entities, they have legal privileges which make what would be irrational for me into something perfectly rational (if evil and traitorous) for them.

Banknotes Require Two Levels

 I have finally discovered a proper anti-libertarian market need. Turns out the usury freaks aren't totally out to lunch. 

 I dunno if I'm simply stupid today or if this one was really mind-bending, but wow my mind had to pretzel itself. Took real work.

 Banks must be artificially prevented from loaning out their banknotes. This should be done by printing two kinds of notes: the demand deposits, and the loan papers. Fiat currency has to work the same way, with gold-standard notes in exchange for gold-demand notes.

 Image a bank with 100 gold. It loans out 10 notes. It has 90 gold and an IOU on 10. Nonfractional reserve: it can still loan out 90 gold. Then the debtor spends the notes, and whoever they spent it on deposits the notes at the bank. Now it has 90 free gold, an IOU on 10, and 10 banknotes. Can the bank now offer a loan worth 100 gold? No, it has to stay at 90, or it will be double-spending the gold. The 10 banknotes here have to be specifically loan paper notes, so the bank knows it's not allowed to re-lend them. When the loan is paid back the loan papers have to be effectively destroyed and replaced by demand notes.

 Note that in a proper system, you can't back loans with demand deposits. The customer must explicitly allow the deposit to be turned into a bill or certificate or whatever they call it. This doesn't have to be exogenously forced, however, the government merely has to avoid irresponsibly enabling financial drug use. (So, ban taxes.) When the guy with ten gold came in, he was given demand papers. The part that has to be compelled is next: he gave the demand paper back to finance a loan, which goes out as loan paper. He can also take the demand notes over to a different bank and back a loan there instead. The demand paper is functionally identical to gold, but the loan can't be.
 Rather than a bank 'having' 100 gold in the vault, it would have 100 gold it was instructed to find an investment for. Rather than being 'able' to offer a 90 gold loan, it must offer that loan. The bank would have no free demand paper and 100 loan papers.

 If it's allowed to re-loan the notes, it will cause debts to multiply beyond the supply of gold. It's inflation, even with unitary reserve. 

 For ease of imagination, now consider one singular bank with all the money in the country, 100 gold. It makes a 100 gold loan. It's re-deposited, and loaned out again. Now the bank is owed 200 notes - of which only 100 exists. In this case it doesn't matter if it's re-loaning demand notes or if it's loaning the gold out directly. Whichever debtor pays back the loan will force the other into default. 

 If the bank isn't the only bank in the country, it can't know whether deposited papers are a transfer from a different bank, or simply the loan returning, unless they're specifically loan-marked notes.

 The forced default is a way of seeing the gold has been spent twice. Someone earned the gold and deposited it. The first guy spent it on their behalf. The second guy spent it again, but without any new production. More money, same goods => inflation.

 The 200 gold of debt is a way of seeing that the effective supply of gold has doubled. 100% inflation.

 

 Note this isn't a public "good," it's merely preventing a public bad. If you can loan out loan paper, the bank has a public costs private profit scheme. Inherently irresponsible. Turns out counterfeiting is a crime no matter how cleverly you make it look and feel benign.  

 If a bank refuses to behave, you have to immediately economically isolate it from your economy. Ban their notes. Nobody is allowed to sell goods for those notes.

 Under fiat currency I suppose you could centrally plan the loan supply. Have one entity responsible for all loans, keeping track of the absolute amount and keeping it below whatever ceiling they happen to decide on. Seems extremely stupid to me, but it's not impossible. The stupid: because the loan entity can't ever spend the money, it will just be fiat inflation and fiat deflation. Deliberately destabilizing prices for the sake of...paper money. 

 So, yeah. Print two kinds of notes. Gold-standard notes can be deposited as investments, and back the loan paper. Though, as always with fiat money, good luck getting the government to behave.

 

 When someone defaults on the loan, the bank must buy loan notes using collateral and give them to the original depositor, who can either re-up the loan or retrieve their gold or demand notes. (Same with fiat and gold standard notes.) Absolutely no printing new loan notes to achieve this.

 Mind that if someone demands their physical gold, the associated demand notes must be destroyed or at least tamper-evidently locked away. 

 Likewise foreigners can't be allowed to loan your money if you can't control their loaning rules. Simply ban the relevant parts of their trade if they try it. Don't let your money enter or leave their country. If any third party accepts your notes from that country, ban them too. 

 Perhaps this whole banknote thing is ultimately more trouble than it's worth. Just have gold coins. Wrap 'em in epoxy for durability. Yeah there's issues and inconveniences but it's better than having to Iron Curtain your country just to stop illicit currency smuggling.  

 P.S. A sound money system almost has the same issue as BTC. When notes are lost or destroyed in e.g. fire, residual gold gets stuck. Paralyzed, just kinda clogging up the vault. Owned by entropy. Likewise the total quantity of BTC in circulation will decline continuously as keys are lost in one way or another. 

 However, gold banks have the option to re-print their notes and replace all old notes with new ones. The gold that isn't claimed can be kept by the bank as part of their operating profit. 

 P.P.S. Money as debt. When someone creates a good, they impose a debt on society, which marks this debt with, ideally, gold. When someone else produces something, the first creator can call this debt using their gold, settling their account, but creating a new debt for the second creator. Production and consumption are asynchronous.
 When a bank loans something out twice, no actual debt was incurred the second time. Hence, inflation. The first guy loaning out his money is transferring his debt to someone else, in the hopes of being paid back an even bigger debt. Since he's giving up his ability to command consumption, that's fine. Net consumption commanded stays the same.
 However, properly arranged, the bank can't use bank notes as investments. It has to be a demand deposit.

Anyone Defending Christianity is a Satanist

 Jesus, Yeshua, was a real historical individual, specifically he was Satan's sockpuppet. He really was the metaphorical son of a higher power: Satan. The adversary, not the creator.
 Obviously Satan's son would claim to be the son of god. Duh.

 Logical-rhetorical perversity: anyone claiming to be the son of god is almost certainly the son of a devil. Anyone who genuinely was the son of god wouldn't need to say anything about it.

 Also, /headdesk moment, who isn't the son of the creator? That's the whole point of an ultimate creator: everything is their child. "Son of god? Yeah,  me too. And this chair I'm sitting on. And this coin. And those sticks and rocks. lol, introduce me to your drug dealer, also the son of god, they're selling good shit." (The shit, also.)

 The divinity of a true high-power avatar doesn't need to be advertised. Folks would spontaneously come up with the idea, or some functional equivalent. They recognize the Lordship, whether they can put it into words or not. The domination is all but unmistakable. 

 Jesus was the antichrist. Saviourhood is mental illness, so the saviour and the antichrist was the same person the whole time. 

 Jesus' plan was to save humanity until it was so crippled it was incapable of living, even helped by saviours and superheroes. Slaughter through mercy. Cloaking an attack in the guise of friendship. Etiolate Discipline until it goes catastrophically, irredeemably low. Give the child the candy they demand until they starve to death, because apparently nobody will accuse you of murder.

 Seems to have worked out pretty well. Satan was indeed a higher power. 

 Rather than looking like a murderer, they will get violently upset with anyone who suggests the kid needs vegetables. "How dare you accuse me of bad parenting." Guess he'll die. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 P.S. You can't save someone because net worth is a genetic soul trait. If it would raise their net worth, it won't work. They can afford to live by paying for it, or they can't afford to live. They ca also choose not to buy it, unless you violently enslave them.

 P.P.S. The vegetables thing is kinda a joke. The kid needs meat.

Buried Lede of the Tucker Benz Interview

 Mike Benz isn't some insider, he just read public documents. All the "right" wingers who were being censored could have done the same.

 The government is your enemy, and it's important to know your enemy. Have some idea of what kind of attacks they like and how they want to carry them out. You get how stupid this is, yeah? If you're being censored, and you don't want to be, the first thing to do is exhaustively study the censor. Seems to me the "right" refuses to know their enemy, as a way of convincing themselves it's not really an enemy. War is scary, they don't want to be scared, therefore they're not at war. Perfectly sogical. 

 It's important so I'm saying it again: it's important to know when they're like to attack you, with what, and in what way. I just assume the country is a giant middle school and the teacher is trying to send everyone to the principle's office for a detention. If I have to do anything else to complete the method, it's so easy I do it unconsciously.

Adventures in Gut Bacteria

 My theory: traveller's diarrhea is caused by eating things your gut flora can't help you eat. 

 I've had issues with peas. Gas and such. I figured this was a good test case. 

 Tried fermenting raw peas and using them as inoculation. It kinda worked. Proved the basic idea, but was suboptimal.

 Tried regularly eating small amounts of raw peas. Worked much better.

 I explain this using weed/cultivar dynamics. The weeds grow first. However, slowly, over time, the healthy cultivars crowd out the weeds. Trees grow slowly, but forests do form and choke out the weeds even though the weeds get there first.

 I get the proper organisms by eating raw peas. The gut is a bioreactor. It rots your food, and then you absorb the rot products. The correct rot germs are already on the peas, I just have to eat the peas without killing the right germs with heat. All this takes time to describe, but really it's simple. To build ability to digest X, eat raw X.

 I eat a small amount, a couple handfuls, to cut down on dissonant byproducts from the weeds. Some minimal level is not only tolerable, but invisible. If I consistently nurture the trees, I get a proper healthy forest. The good germs seep into the cracks and crevices and become well-established, able to ambush the weeds before they can cause problems. 

 At least, that's my explanation. 

 Alternative: plants are all poisonous. If you consistently eat raw plants, you breed pesticide-resistant strains of gut bacteria. If you eat them too inconsistently, the plants kill the germs that are supposed to be digesting them. Unlikely, but I can't rule it out.

I used to be able to handle peas without issues. I expect my digestives were wiped out by an unwise course of antibiotics. 

 Next I'll perhaps revive my ability to eat nuts.  

 You can't lose the ability to eat meat. You're made of raw meat. You can't lose contact with raw meat. This is probably why there's no such thing as an obligate herbivore. Apoptosis is more properly called autodigestion. The cell is dismantled with its own digestive enzymes. If you lost the ability to digest yourself, you would die.

 Are better organisms more complicated? Is that why digestion germs grow slowly?
 Also curious: does the gut lining help? Does it put its finger on the scale against weeds? How does it do that? How does it know which is which? How does it know what good germs want? 

 I expect further experience to teach me more.

Low Hanging Fruit and Failure to Pluck

 You can make musical tones by drumming or brushing your cheek. You can adjust the sound very dynamically by shaping your lips and jaw. The only reason this isn't a traditional instrument is that it's too quiet. Doesn't exactly make itself heard as part of an orchestra. 

 Why did the culture stagnate after finding the electric guitar? Paste a microphone to your face and use electronic amplification. Electric mouth...thingy. How many other unusual and interesting sounds, that happen to be too quiet for traditional music, are out there in the world? Thousands? Millions? Like, we already had guitars. [Guitars, but distorted] is hardly a huge leap. 

 Stagnation occurs when the culture loses interest in exploration. You can't really run out of frontiers. You can only run out of the most childishly simplistic, in-your-face-obvious frontiers. 

 I was thinking about a 3D piano or harp. Rather than 1D strings, imagine each string was a pair, forming a grid. Long + short, long + medium, long + long, then medium + short and so on. Either stack grids on top of each other or go full network, either way forming a cube. This instrument would be completely infeasible to make mechanically, but it's almost trivial to make virtually. The network version wouldn't even be physically playable; you wouldn't be able to reach the inner nodes to pluck them.
 Why did the culture stagnate after the theramin? There's millions of possible virtual instruments. Guaranteed at least a dozen of them are as beautiful as a hang drum. 

 Going outside the box is as simple as genuinely wanting to, then not quitting until you get there. 

 Discovery fails when demand for discovery fails. Exploration stops when the culture gets old. Senescent, and stuck in its ways.
 Far too interested at winning in the last game, regardless of how stale that game is. Doesn't care about the external world, only about its own navel. Lies about it too. You could imagine a culture that said, "Yeah, that's enough," and stopped exploring because it was satisfied. This culture has to forcibly suppress exploration, to avoid embarrassing its fake exploration.

 I don't like guitars. Massively overused. Pianos are even worse.

Vitamin A is a Vitamin

 There's a theory that vital amine alpha is in fact a toxin and you should never expose yourself to it.

 You can piss out vitamin A. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8074070/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 If your body wants to get rid of it, it can dump as much as it wants. It wouldn't accumulate if it's not supposed to.

 This passes the works-in-my-kitchen test. I overdosed on A once. It's how I know you generally shouldn't eat liver. I pissed it out, exactly the same way I piss out excess salt, iodine, and calcium. Acute but temporary symptoms. Kidney stress gives me a characteristic headache.

 Although yes, retinols are toxic. Insulin is also toxic - the fact that something is poisonous doesn't mean you don't need it to live. Retinols are stored in the liver because airtight seals aren't worth the cost, so the reservoir leaks, and you want it to leak up against something that can regenerate, i.e. liver cells.

 Caveat 2: it is highly probable that there's an alternative, the same way vitamin C, vital amine collagen, has an alternative. You might guess what you can eat instead of vitamin C: it's collagen. This is why meat cures and prevents scurvy. 

 If you have a busted enzyme and can't use vitamin A, you don't die. You use the alternative. You do accumulate vitamin A which you can't use, though. Likely the liver packages retinol for transport, it gets to the cells, then it's released chaotically. There's no way for the liver and kidneys to know your vitamin A metabolism is busted. In this case, yes, you could well need a weirdo strict elimination diet.

Being Explicit: You Can't Set Right What Once Went Wrong

 Because that's not how it works. 

 Yes, it's true that generally speaking societies have one or two key things wrong with them. "Bro, just don't do the tax thing." "Have you heard of our lord and saviour, Exit?" 

 However, that's due to efficiency. The spiritual pressure makes one or two things go wrong, and that properly brings physical reality into alignment with spiritual reality, releasing the pressure. They underlying problem is being fuckin' evil. If you fix the keystone issues, all that happens is you put the realities out of alignment again, causing pressure which will, sooner rather than later, realign them. It also incurs a karmic debt, so the new alignment will be worse than the old until the debt is paid. 

 Superficial solutions are counterproductive.

 You can't get a Saviour to "save" you from the tyrant, because the tyrant is merely the obvious symptom of a core mortal sin. The tyrant is a reflection of your own internal tyranny. The only thing that can "save" you from yourself is Death. To save you from yourself means getting rid of the you which is causing the problem. Getting rid of the self which suffers the problem. 

 If you want to stop being victimized you have to stop victimizing yourself. 

 The world is just. If it seems evil to you, then the problem is projection. You're evil. The solution isn't to fix the world; that would be narcissism. The solution is to fix yourself. (I won't say the thing. I will resist.) 

 But, of course, if you could fix yourself, you already would have.

 Nothing can be changed or improved. This is the underworld. They're already dead. It's already too late.

 The problem isn't that something went wrong. The problem was the thing wasn't right to begin with, and going wrong is justice being served. You can't undo the justice and get right. I mean, duh. Just look. This is so simple even wordcelibates can understand.

Kobayashi Maru is a Narcissist-Killer Round

 When an average but healthy psyche is put into an artificial no-win situation, they go, "That was dumb," and forget all about it. At best they ask each other about the teacher's password, correctly assessing it as a camouflaged social game. If there is no "right" answer, there must be a zealous ass-kissing answer. 

The narcissist is instead destroyed. Every narcissist models themselves as the best in some sense. This is in reaction to their true belief: that they are, in fact, the worst. This belief is intolerable, so they bandage over it with the opposite delusion. Every time they are reminded of the truth, they pour twice as much psychic energy into the psychotic bandage.

 The best have a winning strategy in every situation. Indeed, this is why Kirk, narcissist hero, has to win the no-win test. It's cope. The Kobayashi Maru says they aren't the best, and therefore, must be the worst.

 "Can't win 'em all." "Yeah, and clouds are fluffy."
 "Only human." "Indeed, and the sun rises in the morning."

 If you need to be reminded of these things, you are insane. Lost contact with reality. Narcissists not only can win 'em all, but must win 'em all, according to narcissism. When faced with a no-win situation, even a farcically artificial one, they are faced with the falseness of their narcissistic delusions. If you hear them talk about it, it superficially sounds profound, but in essence it's all cope. "How can I say that I in fact won the Kobayashi Maru?" Petty and venal. The tragic part is when you see the flashes and glimmers of realization, that the problem isn't in the external problem, but in their need to win everything. "It makes me feel like I can't win 'em all," they will almost say.

 A healthy mind is aware that they are who they are, regardless of what anyone thinks - including themselves. The narcissist is the one obsessed with 'identity formation' and 'membership' and whether they truly belong in Starfleet or whatever. If they can't figure out the cope that says they in fact "won" the Kobayashi somehow, they will get stuck in an endless cycle, first thinking it's over, then deciding for no reason they're back, then remembering the Maru again...

 P.S. In the case of Kobayashi Maru, the zealous ass-kissing answer is like, "Yes, I understand the limits of human power and I will be hardened in the face of defeat in the future," except veiled so it doesn't sound like you read your answer off the teacher's cheat sheet. Pretend you did some soul-searching and do an anecdote about how you folded to defeat earlier or something. Try to sneak in a subtle insinuation that your proctor did something specifically to help, without being so blatant it's obvious ass-kissing. Not: "I couldn't figure out the solution until Proctor Starbutt gave me the solution," but instead, "I hadn't considered picking the ball up with my left hand after dropping it until I saw P. Starbutt pick it up with they/thems left hand."

 -

Canadians Are Not Polite

 Canadians are passive-aggressive, but Americans are too self-absorbed to notice the Canadian is taking the piss. If a Canadian can say something insulting or self-aggrandizing, they will. An extremely unpleasant people. Don't forget that blue areas are worse, but Canada has blue areas and purple areas. As with all modern countries, there are no genuine rightists. 

 Canadians do say please and thank you a lot. I believe this is because of the guilt. They're obscenely rude because that's the culture, they're supposed to be, but they feel bad about. What they mean is, "Please don't hit me," and, "Thank you, I know I deserved it, but you didn't punch me in the face." They feel obligated to be awful to each other, but want to minimize how awful they're being without actually having to dissent. 

 Naturally the general atmosphere of abrasiveness forms wonderful camouflage for the genuinely sadistic and abusive. They blend right in. A regular Canadian will make a demand with a 'please' but will be too afraid of conflict to push the issue if you refuse. This means Karens can make a demand with a 'please' and it doesn't look out of place, but for the Karen, provoking a conflict is the point of the exercise; she will escalate until she finds something you won't tolerate. If you point out what the Karen is doing, all the other Canadians will leap to her defense, as they've all done the starting phases of the same thing; you just condemned everyone in the room.  

 Refusing demands isn't 'appropriate' if they said please, you see. "Please exsanguinate your firstborn and donate the blood to me." "Um, wat?" "I said please! Please sir! Don't be inappropriate!"

Being Explicit: Bad Ideas Arise From Bad Character

 Thinking about: Epicurus let women and slaves into his "Garden."

As per usual, Revenge is Sour. The condition of being able to get close enough to spread a good idea was that the listener already be acting it out. Indeed it's clear that knowledge has advanced in the past, but it's far from clear how that could be possible. Perhaps those with good techne character can get better techne, and that's the limit of the evolution. 

 

 Sogol. Caino hypocriens doesn't evaluate an idea and then adopt its consequences and conclusions, it evaluates the conclusions and then, if it was going to act out the conclusions anyway, adopts the idea that justifies it.

 When someone has a bad idea, in all non-autism cases (and most of those too) it means they are revealing the bad character which caused them to adopt the bad idea as justification. You can't argue someone out of something they weren't argued into. You can't argue someone out of their character. 

 

 They are cripples. They cannot even think long-term. It's entirely about relieving momentary impulses by allowing the pressure to drive their behaviour. In a sense we are all driven by our character - what can we be driven by but ourselves - but it isn't necessarily necessary to identity-maximize at every given moment. Short-term cooperation leads to more wealth in the long term.

 

 What about stuff like trans hysterias? They had bad characters but weren't aware of how to act out the degeneracy. When someone explains how to behave poorly, they enthusiastically adopt the poor behaviours. That's all "education" can accomplish: it lets them more quickly realize how to do all the things they were planning to do anyway. 

 

 This is why I generally favour execution. If the bad character cannot be cleaned up by argument, then it must be cleaned up by removal.
 Though of course Earth is the Cthonic underworld, if the characters weren't bad they generally wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. No matter how much sewage is mopped up, more effluent will flow out.

 In some limited sense either Asperger's or autism works differently, but my samples are too limited to delineate in what way they work differently. For example, autists who join public autism support groups are clearly identical to Caino hypocriens in having an immutable and typically bad character. 

 Being capable of impulse control is a superpower. Top 0.1%, easy.

 Of course Epicurus also had good ideas, which speaks of areas of good character.
 That's the tragedy of the underworld. Those who die are not perfectly evil. As their vile deathly behaviour drags them down, it drags down goodness along with it.

The Effects of the Inherent Evil of Social Status

 Grouping requires hierarchy. In Caino hypocriens, hierarchy is based on social status. Hypocriens social status is broken, inherently broken. Parasitic and treacherous. The hierarchy keeps collapsing, as it is adaptive to ignore or avoid social status. Selects against itself.

 C. hypocriens tries to kill anyone who leaves the group. "Unity" and "Unions." C. hypocriens tries to have it both ways: no obligation to listen to those higher in the hierarchy, going for social egalitarianism, "Equality," yet nobody has to leave. Group membership without group obligations. Sucking blood isn't considered treacherous, while refusing to have your blood sucked is considered treacherous.
 This ""group"" doesn't move together, and can't be called a group.

 Result: internet denizens can't join a group, as they refuse to accept any group obligations. 

 At best you can form a loose group via selection. If you block or ban everyone who isn't like some reference individual, you get a group that moves together spontaneously, rather than because they feel responsible for the duty of moving together. 

 

 Gets worse: C. hypocriens actively fights against any non-blood-sucking group. Anyone without the ability to compel submission is held in contempt. Middle and lower-class members will actively demand oppression, like they have a tyranny quota, and become violent if you demur.

On Two Masters

 Serving two masters is not only possible, but easy, if the masters get along

 A servant of truth will never be forced to betray justice. A servant of justice will never be forced to betray truth. They aren't opposed to each other in any way.

 We can also consider secondary virtues like compassion, but compassion is a vassal of justice. When they conflict, compassion herself will tell you to accede to justice, as compassion is meaningless without justice.

Being Explicit: Hey you, what do you want that modern society doesn't provide?

 Feel free to be as detailed as you like. Kindly decide to like being thorough. 

 The comments do have a 4000 character limit, and it's inconvenient to post several, but I also follow links. 

 Being very thorough myself, let me ask again: what needs to change about society so you can be satisfied with it? What it is missing? What needs are unmet? What desires can't be pursued? 

 Caveat: I am kinda aggro, and I'm not going to hold back today. This is not a safe space.

Buried Lede of Theodicy

 Note that Epicurus was very firmly pre-Christian.

1. If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
2. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

 But wait, we can apply this to Man.

1. If man is unable to prevent evil, he is a pathetic loser.
   
2. If man is unwilling to prevent evil, he is not-good.
   

P.S. Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish.

 Why is the problem of evil the gods' problem in the first place? It isn't. If your world is evil, that would be your problem. 

 There is nothing just about a "God" who prevents evil done unto you which you are unwilling to prevent being done unto yourself.

 

 Prayer is sufficiently scientific. Try this: pray for the cessation of your local evil. If you are praying seriously, you will get an answer. The answer will not be, "Oh man oh gee I forgot whoops let me just cancel that for you." The answer is extremely likely to be instructions. How to prevent the evil yourself. You will be told what to do next.

 Of course, the whole point of prayer is that I don't know what the answer will be. The idea is to talk to someone wiser or more informed than I am. P.P.S. Not my prayer, not my business. 

 To repeat myself: having evil is indeed better than having no evil. Imperfection is superior to perfection. The best of all possible worlds, even assuming comfort is the only possible value, has a significant amount of evil in it.

Selflessness is Evil, Round 2

 If I tell you I have a selfish wish, then I legitimize your selfish wishes. "I want $100 for that," you respond, and I can hardly argue that you're being selfish, now can I? Selfishness is cooperation and trade. Selfishness is (being required to) support and reward those who support you. Greed is not merely good, it is great and glorious.

 If I tell you it is "for your own good" then I actively deny your selfish wishes. I objectify and demean you, see? I'm claiming that I get to decide what you want. It's inherently traitorous.

 For some reason, when what you want is to give my friends money, calling out my selfishness never works rhetorically. Noticing that I'm overriding your judgment with my self's is a non-starter. This is why humanity is so detestable. 

 It's not about denying my wishes. I can launder whatever wish I want through [selflessness]. The only possible purpose of saying it's not about me is to deny your wishes. When you claim a desire - any desire - if my gambit works, I can call it selfish and discredit it. You're only allowed to receive what I deem fit to give you, and indeed disliking my choices is also...""""selfish."""" I put so much work into that mud pie...boo hoo....do you know how long I had to search for fresh hominid shit....

 The search for the antichrist is over: his name was Jesus. Rome did fall: he really did portend the apocalypse. And now it's falling all over again, because it didn't hit hard or painfully enough the first time. 

 Check: nobody claims to be selfless after supplying free stuff to someone who selfishly asked. It's always claiming selflessness prospectively. Inherently anti-replication. Selflessness is always fake. It is logically impossible for it not to be a lie. Obligatorily defection. Satanism.