Diagnostic: NPCs Don't Have Values

 I have values. If I change my ideas, my behaviour can drastically change. For example, I had no idea how bad lying was, until I tried not lying. E.g. part of the reason I suffered from narcissistic image management was because I thought normies understood words and could theoretically be disabused of their illusions, at least when provided with backup from direct personal experience; now if someone misunderstands me, I understand it's fatal and let them have it. Merely part of the environment I deal with.

 The only thing that can profoundly change NPC behaviour is brain damage. NPCs don't have values, and can't tell when their actions aren't correctly furthering their values. Instead they pick means and obsess about them. Their habits become their identity.

 I can believe something satisfies my values, and be mistaken. I can believe that drinking 18% cream straight from the carton is unhealthy. Until I try it. It can fail to occur to me that a no-seeds no-milk no-sugar, anti-glucose diet is feasible.

 By contrast, an NPC is a non-cream-drinking kind of person. They're not doing it due to their perceptions of the consequences, they're doing it because the action is who they are. The consequences can't even said to be helpful or harmful, because the NPC doesn't have any values to be harmed. If the purpose of one habit directly contradicts the purpose of another, so what? That's merely another kind of NPC identity. Jobbing so hard you don't have time to sleep, so you can afford healthy food, is merely one colour of membership card. The purpose, insofar as it can be said to have one at all, is carrying out the actions, not the results. Can't be said to be a working or non-working strategy. Hypocrisy is nothing more than yet another flavour of NPC.
 If the environment changes and the [tradition] is no longer adaptive, so what? The NPC wasn't doing it because it worked. They're not sapient, it's the other way around: it worked, so they survived long enough for you to notice them doing it. The NPCs with bad habits are dead. 

 NPCs can't be persuaded to behave differently, because they weren't behaving due to persuasion in the first place. They're doing it because they're doing it. Doing whatever they're already doing is who they are. It is logically impossible to prove they're not doing it, that they didn't do it, therefore they will continue to do it.
 They don't believe the things they say, they're merely in the habit of forming those words. They're the kind of person who says those things. If they're untrue, that's merely part of the identity. If they don't make sense, that's merely part of the identity.

 

 Bonus: under Democracy, and probably under all societies, most non-NPCs are masochistic, valuing specifically and only the contravention of their values, except this core self-hating Satanic inheritance. 

 As a result, non-buggy NPCs develop a meta-habit of self-abnegation. Self-destruction is most common, therefore normative. The only thing they can be persuaded to do is adopt more self-hating versions of their existing habits. NPCs aren't even conformist per se. They were conformist - when they were picking habits - but once picked they can't meaningfully change.

 Basically Caino hypocriens whose bodies are proper physical reflections of their spiritually Satanic nature end up dead. Consequently only those with some karmic debt between spiritual and physical survive, manifesting as non-sinful Darwinian drives. Their body tries to convince them not to self-immolate, and the Satanist rebels - effectively, giving them something sacred to rebel against, as they desire.

Free Speech is a Crime

 Ban publication. 

 Sincerity makes you vulnerable. Expecting sincerity in public, in the presence of enemies, is worship of the Nameless One. 

 Since public sincerity should be impossible, saying anything in public is pointless. Every lie is a crime. Don't encourage crime. 

 

 To expect someone to make themselves vulnerable in the presence of enemies is defection. It's traitorous. Never encourage public sincerity. 

 Ban all public speech. It's either treachery or lies. Guaranteed evil.

 

 There's supposed to be a place where there are no enemies.
 Scene: imagine someone who isn't a trusted ally makes their way into your sanctuary. They start making fun of your decor. Perhaps you have a shrines to the lares, and they disrespect it.

 Now, words are wind. The disrespect is ultimately meaningless. The statement is meaningless. The bullying isn't really anything. However, it does mean an outsider made it into your sanctuary (then foolishly broke cover). That is real. Legalize homicide. Kill the interloper. Rights you won't kill to defend aren't rights, they are Namelessness.

 

 Public speech vaccinates you against security. It falsely presents the forum as a secure sanctuary. It falsely suggests outside the walls is inside the walls. This attempt to tear down boundaries is characteristic of the cluster B personality disorder. Clown world, ancient greek style: it presents insanity as sanity. 

 When your safe space is threatened, go ahead and kill the threat. Then kill anyone who disrespects you for killing the threat. Kill everyone who tries to stop you from defending yourself. This isn't a big ask, this is table stakes. This is the bare minimum.

 It really helps. Trust me on this. 

 If you won't kill, you don't deserve security. It is a prayer, which will be answered as written.

Dissidents are Slaves & Play as Rejection of Civilization

 I sought out the dissident side of society because I value excellence and want to maximize it.

 I reject also the dissidents, because they also hate excellence. They, too, are plato's Democratic Man. 

 There's no reason not to combine excellence and play. Training is supposed to be fun, at the very least because fun training happens more often. Profit feels good. If it feels like work, edge cases aside you're taking a loss.

 I could say lots more about this, but why? It's a startlingly deep topic, but I already know what to do. They don't want to know what to do, and if they did know, they would actively avoid it. 

 If it feels like work, it's probably slavery. Or perhaps [work] has now come to refer solely to slavery. As previously, plato failed to notice the non-boundary between Democratic Man and Tyrannous Man. Democracy == slavery. To truly dissent against Democracy requires dissenting against slavery. Slaves and prey cannot dissent. 

 Work is based on fear. Fear of starving. Fear of rejection. Fear of being unable to cope.
 Play is based in joy. Valuing the valuable.

 If you're moralizing, it's fear, not fun. Terror, Phobos. Not value.

 Fear of lack of cope goes recursive. It's become unacceptable to lack anything you fundamentally can't accept. Cope is about things you can't intellectually or physically handle. Slave morality. Prey morality.
 Slaves aren't poor because they lack wealth. They're poor because they take a vow of poverty. It's immoral for a slave to own anything. For slaves, security is a sin. 

 Cooperate with cooperators isn't morality, it's prudence. All prescriptive morality is slave morality. If it were good for you, it wouldn't need to be prescribed or enforced. It would pay for itself. Prescriptive morality is inherently criminal.

You shouldn't [cope] with being whipped. It's bad for you. It's ritually unclean. You should kill the slave master or die trying.

 Or, more realistically, simply walk away. Turns out the chains are already broken. The jail door is already unlocked. Notice, and just leave. Stand beyond the range of the whip, and you can't get whipped.

 Instead, dissidence seems to be an assigned role. Society as cosmic drama, again. Someone has to [contribute] to society by forming the underbelly which the mouthpieces are constantly preaching about. Democratic dissidents don't want to cleave the connection to their society, and playing the role of fake dissident, of embodying the enemy in a politician's power-fantasy morality play, makes them feel a part of something bigger. 

 Ultimately this role is simply yet another way to Satanically repress excellence. So that everyone can be a slave, everyone must be a slave.

Why Tounament Arcs are Boring

 Imagine a story that is only a tournament. 

 Worldbuilding: in the opening round, X beat Y using the skill Z, A beat B with the trait C, and so on. 

 Step two, version 1: have twists in the second round. All the matches should seem predictable to the reader, but the author reveals little-known facts which change the outcome. Big guy should beat little guy because he's big, but the little guy capitalizes on something established in round 1 to overcome big guy. Not merely plausible, but realistic. Go all [based on a true story].

 Step two, version 2: make it symbolic. The factions in the tournament should represent something (not merely a contingent geographical area) and the individuals in the factions should represent some inner subset. The tournament then tells the story of the interactions between the symbols. As a stupid example, oriental elements. The wood team beats the water team which beats the fire team which beats the metal team which beats the wood team. 

 Or put it this way: titans vs. aesir vs. olympians vs. jotun vs. niphilim vs. annunaki. Now that would be a set of epic fights. Myth of the creation of the world and the arc of history to the final end, tournament ver. Dunno who I even root for. Odin vs. Mars, fight! Thoth vs. Athena! Hermes vs. Quetzacoatl! Tiamat vs. Typhon? A fantastic show no matter who wins.

 Tournament writers don't do any of this. You know they decide who wins fights based on whoever they like the most. Skills and strengths are all over the place, depending on where they feel like making the plot go...insofar as the plot goes anywhere during a tournament. Rarely even use bad luck as a fig leaf, they just power characters up and down and hand out idiot balls. Whee.

 Story tournaments have no consequences, except for the parts outside the actual tournament itself. Bets or underhanded scheming. Even more meaningless than in real life. You get a medal, yay, then the author never so much as mentions the medal again. 

 Consider typical xianxia author. "Support character used clever water technique in upset win, so hidden water master reveals himself and takes the character as a disciple, upgrading him to deuteragonist." Literally one sentence of events, which will be casually dragged out for 48 chapters. If a main character threatens to get thrown out of school or whatever due to bad tournament performance, they'll merely bypass the hazard using a deus ex back door.

 So, yes, Simulacrum Leonard. Tournament arcs suck. They don't have to, but until the fall of Empire, they always will. Tournaments are tolerable if there's only a few fights, and it's a contrived excuse to have the characters physically batter each other. The reader already knows A will beat up B, but you do want to actually see it.

I have great contempt for anyone who didn't realize fema would obstruct survival

 The first kind of security you need is always security against your government.

 Always assume infinite malice until proven otherwise.

 Public choice theorem is not new.
 Of course, profound american ignorance, superstition, and delusion is also not new. 

 If a fema exists, and you live in an area that gets disasters, you need specific weapons of anti-fema war. They have to fear for their lives if they refuse to leave you alone...because otherwise you have to fear for your life. It's very much you vs. them. 

 I have infinite contempt for any voter who has not realized they are at war with their government.
 To be a black government is to be at war with everyone else. That's the nature of the thing.

Emphasis: Women Aren't Allowed Outside the Walls

 Most mortals cannot see or think. Their cogitation is based on blood memories. Women have no blood memories of being allowed outside the camp or outside the walls.

Mysterious Milei and Baffling Bukele

 I have questions. 

 Sociology is very easy. "What if we let supply meet demand." "Hol' up - what if we locked up all the violent criminals." 

 Well, what if you executed them, rather than printing money to pay for food and board and guards...but never mind that. The point is it's not rocket science. Any idiot can think to do these things. 

 Nevertheless, by inspection, it's very special that Bukele and Milei did do these things. 

 It's very special that their neighbours still aren't doing these things. If el salvador can do it, why can't guatemala? Why not honduras? The answer is almost certainly: no reason. 

 It is not a coincidence that this is happening now. Indeed Bukele jumped the gun. Started early. Nevertheless, the fact there's two of them is your first clue. What exactly it's coincident with is wholly unknown.

 So what special thing did Bukele do?
 Would his strategy work in, say, England? I would guess not, but I would be very interested in being able to prove it, rather than merely guessing. Primarily because I might be wrong. How dependent was it on particular el salvadorean conditions?
 Is Bukele even really in charge, or is he a front man? He looks middle class to me. Not a leader.

 What special thing did Milei do?

 Or did they do nothing particularly special? Did they merely want it more? Could anyone have done this anytime in the last 60 years? 

 

 America is clown country because americans are clowns. Anyone serious about politics is going full sprint trying to get an interview with Bukele. And by interview I mean eight hours or ideally a whole week. Get the full story. Hire him as your campaign manager. (Or hire the deep state for which he fronts.)
 Unfortunately...everyone serious about politics already went woke...more looting more bettering... 

 The problem being that it's likely his strategy worked in part because it was secret, and he's still relying on those secrets. At least, if it's not something anyone could have done, if they really wanted to. 

 My working theory is that a higher power sponsored them for my amusement specifically. That is, I have no good theories. 

 P.S. Honduras could just say, "Hey Bukele, wanna run our country for a bit? We'd like a lower crime rate." Study Sulla and why he was encouraged to step down voluntarily, plus CEOs, then write the contract correctly. If they can't copy his policies on their own initiative, they can borrow his initiative.

Question-Asking Practice

 A species of revenge is sour: I can't think of any questions to socially ask to which I don't already know the answer, except questions for which nobody knows the answer thus can't be answered. If I want to ask questions, the strategy is to pray or to do experiments (which is prayer). 

 This dissatsifies me. I would like to practice asking questions. I would like to prepare to meet someone who knows useful things I don't know. I very much don't want to get into the habit of never asking anyone questions.

 Not to mention: what if social interaction good. What if profit.

 I suppose I could do the socratic thing. Adjacent enough. Probably. Have to pretend to be friendly, but that's not terribly expensive. 

 Still, it would certainly be vastly superior to ask questions which I don't know the answer to, and receive a useful answer. Thus, I will continue to search for such questions, despite the tens of thousands of failed attempts I've racked up so far.

No means No vs. Female Inabstractness

 Women don't understand the idea of [no] per se, they only understand specific instances of [no]. As previously, they cast it in terms of universals because they perceive that's the fashion. Sometimes simply because talking is work and the grammatical universal is shorter.

 "[This particular instance of] No means No! [Other {no}s are other {no}s and may or may not mean no.]"

 Another theory states that women are irresponsible not because they want to be, but because the nearest man tells them to. Nobody is allowed to punish her for failing to do due diligence, so why would she bother with the effort? Why bother to keep in mind anything except a specific concrete instance?
 Both the nearest man and women think you're not supposed to be listening to what women say, after all. Why would she put nonzero effort into something that ought to be ignored? 

 "Nobody listens to me!" "...is my sandwich on the way, or...?" If you respond coherently, you're plain doing it wrong, according to the local norms. Trying to respond articulately to feminism is merely two layers of doing it wrong. Get filtered, noob.

 I don't make the rules. I tell you what they are. 

 If that makes her mad, well, sucks to be her. Shouldn't have been born a woman, lol. I guess the sandwich is going to be a bit. No no I kid, women love getting mad. Why do you think she does it so often? Don't be mean, provide her with lots of things to be mad about, so she isn't forced to invent them.

MAID is Eugenic

 If suicide is illegal, it sends the message that you're not supposed to kill yourself. Someone who opposes the system is tempted to kill themselves out of spite. It is a message of rejection.

 MAID legitimizes killing yourself. Especially if your therapist tells you to seek Canadian Healthcare. MAID changes suicide from defiance into submission, thus, theoretically, disproportionately killing the submissive.
 The opposition is encouraged to live, out of sheer spite. Insofar as true dissidence exists, MAID saves the lives of suicidal dissidents.

 As with every program, this government program is designed to backfire. The exception is that normally the backfire is intended to be harmful, whereas in this case, it is helpful.

Leftists are Just Liars, Diagnostically

 Here's my proposal: bantu-americans disproportionately live in cruddy houses. Having to pay money for a house is racist. Disparate impact. Nationalize the housing market. 

 Certainly, the dumbest leftists will agree with you...until one their superiors tell them to stop. The dumb-set implicitly claim to believe what comes out of their mouths, which isn't true. They squawk on demand. Provided they can't just call you a right-wing troll (iow post from a shadow account, not your main), all the anti-racists will have to come up with gymnastics explaining why they support racism when it comes to buying a house.

 If they were genuine true believers you could genuinely get the housing market nationalized - followed by destroying blackrock, all retirement funding, the Fed balance sheet, etc etc, causing the collapse of wokeness. At worst, it would cause a cascade, because paying money for anything causes disparate impact. Have to nationalize everything. Why slouch toward full Stalinist Communism when you can sprint there? Get it over with already.

 However, leftists own stocks, and they know which side their bread is buttered on. Provided suitable rhetoric was  used in support, the meme would follow the same trajectory as [defund the police]. "No you idiots, we need those thugs." 

 With the correct meme, you can expose any leftist as a liar. Don't go all, "But what if the positions were reversed!" It's technically the same goal, but far too obvious. Incredibly naive. "What if you gave me money and power instead of yourself?"
 Instead, agree and amplify. 

 If [[we]] tear down all the slums and build good-neighbourhood houses for everyone, everyone will live in a good neighbourhood, right?
 Right, lolololololol? If the private economy won't do it, the federal government has to step in and "correct" this "market inefficiency" with [[[[[regulation]]]]]]. It's all [environment] lmayo.

What extension of leftism would cause this particular leftist the most harm? The only thing a leftist is willing to sacrifice for their cause is you. 

 I've never seen a sincere rightist less-leftist, but if they existed, they would also be unable to produce this kind of rhetoric. They take it for granted the leftists are liars, but react not by acting like they're taking it for granted, but by trying to [prove] the leftist [wrong]. The strategy of pretending the lies are said in good faith. "They're full of shit, everyone knows they're full of shit...therefore I will challenge them in a debate! Should be easy!" Thereby granting leftist rhetoric far more respectability than it remotely deserves. As opposed to proving they're just lying.