tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52048637828836378372024-03-19T02:30:47.554-04:00Accepting IgnoranceTo descend fully into the underworld in pursuit of the truth. Armed only with logic, to make it interesting.Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger2179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-43075534591384653432024-03-18T06:00:00.012-04:002024-03-18T06:00:00.136-04:00Buried Lede of the Tucker Benz Interview<p> Mike Benz isn't some insider, he just read public documents. All the "right" wingers who were being censored could have done the same. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-84693349126012180622024-03-18T04:11:00.057-04:002024-03-18T04:11:00.209-04:00Adventures in Gut Bacteria<p> My theory: traveller's diarrhea is caused by eating things your gut flora can't help you eat. </p><p><br /></p><p> I've had issues with peas. Gas and such. I figured this was a good test case. </p><p> Tried fermenting raw peas and using them as inoculation. It kinda worked. Proved the basic idea, but was suboptimal. <br /></p><p> Tried regularly eating small amounts of raw peas. Worked much better.</p><p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> At least, that's my explanation. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I used to be able to handle peas without issues. I expect my digestives were wiped out by an unwise course of antibiotics. </p><p> Next I'll perhaps revive my ability to eat nuts. </p><p> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> Are better organisms more complicated? Is that why digestion germs grow slowly? <br /> 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? </p><p> I expect further experience to teach me more. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-87417750239872116932024-03-17T06:02:00.015-04:002024-03-17T06:02:00.247-04:00Low Hanging Fruit and Failure to Pluck<p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. <br /> 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 <a href="https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xk3BvNLeNgw" rel="nofollow">hang</a> <a href="https://yewtu.be/watch?v=dH4_rYwpb9E" rel="nofollow">drum</a>. </p><p> Going outside the box is as simple as genuinely wanting to, then not quitting until you get there. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> Discovery fails when demand for discovery fails. Exploration stops when the culture gets old. Senescent, and stuck in its ways. <br /> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> I don't like guitars. Massively overused. Pianos are even worse. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-73655117209659435662024-03-17T04:04:00.002-04:002024-03-17T04:04:00.144-04:00Vitamin A is a Vitamin<p> There's a theory that vital amine alpha is in fact a toxin and you should never expose yourself to it.</p><p><br /></p><p> You can piss out vitamin A. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8074070/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯</p><p> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-41686715171961514462024-03-17T00:14:00.027-04:002024-03-17T00:14:00.252-04:00Being Explicit: You Can't Set Right What Once Went Wrong<p> Because that's not how it works. </p><p> 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?" </p><p> 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. </p><p> Superficial solutions are counterproductive. </p><p><br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> If you want to stop being victimized you have to stop victimizing yourself. <br /></p><p> 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.) </p><p> But, of course, if you could fix yourself, you already would have.</p> Nothing can be changed or improved. This is the underworld. They're already dead. It's already too late. <p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-84182145764084560872024-03-16T06:11:00.001-04:002024-03-16T06:11:00.138-04:00Kobayashi Maru is a Narcissist-Killer Round<p> 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. </p><p>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. <br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> "Can't win 'em all." "Yeah, and clouds are fluffy."<br /> "Only human." "Indeed, and the sun rises in the morning."</p><p> 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. </p><p><br /></p><p> 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...<br /></p><p><br /></p><p> 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 <i>obvious </i>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." <br /></p><p> -</p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-86873337354230678602024-03-16T06:00:00.020-04:002024-03-16T10:18:51.484-04:00Canadians Are Not Polite<p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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. </p><p> 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!" <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-72191321861943320192024-03-15T23:48:00.056-04:002024-03-15T23:48:00.142-04:00Being Explicit: Bad Ideas Arise From Bad Character<p> Thinking about: Epicurus let women and slaves into his "Garden."</p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> 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.<br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> </p><p> 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. <br /></p><p> </p><p> 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. </p><p> </p><p> 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. <br /> 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. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> 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. </p><p><b> Being capable of impulse control is a superpower.</b> Top 0.1%, easy. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> Of course Epicurus also had good ideas, which speaks of areas of good character. <br /> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-45917447178017000592024-03-15T06:03:00.036-04:002024-03-15T06:03:00.140-04:00The Effects of the Inherent Evil of Social Status<p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. <br /> This ""group"" doesn't move together, and can't be called a group. <br /></p><p> Result: internet denizens can't join a group, as they refuse to accept any group obligations. </p><p> 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. </p><p> </p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-26366419678925908782024-03-14T06:37:00.001-04:002024-03-14T06:37:00.257-04:00On Two Masters<p> Serving two masters is not only possible, but easy, if the masters get along</p><p> 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.</p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-53126803598897761232024-03-14T06:20:00.002-04:002024-03-14T06:20:26.440-04:00Being Explicit: Hey you, what do you want that modern society doesn't provide?<p> Feel free to be as detailed as you like. Kindly decide to like being thorough. </p><p> The comments do have a 4000 character limit, and it's inconvenient to post several, but I also follow links. </p><p><br /></p><p> 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? </p><p> Caveat: I am kinda aggro, and I'm not going to hold back today. This is not a safe space. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-55397580972998652862024-03-13T22:37:00.031-04:002024-03-13T22:37:00.253-04:00Buried Lede of Theodicy<p> Note that Epicurus was very firmly pre-Christian. <br /></p><ol><li>If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.</li><li>If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.</li><li>If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?</li></ol><p> But wait, we can apply this to Man.</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>If man is unable to prevent evil, he is a pathetic loser.<br /></li><li>If man is unwilling to prevent evil, he is not-good. <br /></li></ol><p>P.S. Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish.</p><p> 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. </p><p> There is nothing just about a "God" who prevents evil done unto you which you are unwilling to prevent being done unto yourself. <br /></p><p> </p><p> 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.<br /></p><p> 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. </p><p><br /></p><p> 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.<br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-49887590702038021722024-03-13T06:01:00.055-04:002024-03-13T06:01:00.243-04:00Selflessness is Evil, Round 2<p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p><p> 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. </p><p> 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....</p><p> 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. </p><p><br /></p><p> 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. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-66993427174445813592024-03-12T06:13:00.017-04:002024-03-12T06:13:00.132-04:00Expert Means Previously-Pertinent<p> Ex-pertinent. Ex-pertinence. No longer capable of pertinence. A little mnemonic for you. <br /></p><p> The word itself was "accidentally" chosen for the hint about its true meaning. </p><p> The French root simply means experienced. "Subject matter experienceds." It's good to experience Engrish so you know how you sound to a literate when you use strange foreign words. The word was chosen and popularized precisely because it makes you obliviously sound like a moron.<br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-43888781911250609572024-03-12T06:12:00.034-04:002024-03-12T06:12:00.130-04:00Epigenetic Trauma: 1200 Bottleneck<p> You know, I do believe in epigenetic trauma. It can't be used to explain many of the things they use it for, but it's very handy for the following.</p><p> Science has found a bottleneck for homo erectus of about 1200 individuals. When the species was this endangered, keeping every single individual alive, as far as possible, was critically important. </p><p> I think that trauma has stuck with the species. Price is supply and demand. What's the price of a particular human when there are 8 billion of them? It's zero. Worse: it's nothing, less maintenance costs. (Slavery cast as died out because the product stopped paying for its own transaction costs.) <br /></p><p> A lot of human behaviour makes perfect sense assuming they never got over having a population of less than 2000. As if a few dozen dying here or there might cause the extinction of the entire species. </p><p><br /></p><p> Of course, science isn't, yanno, reliable or anything. However, it's almost certain that something like this bottleneck happened one time or another since the time of australopithecus. We don't need this particular catastrophe to explain the screaming genetic trauma. </p><p><br /></p><p> Though it could also be simple spiritual mechanics. If humanity really is nothing but the shades of the dead, it means the dead almost got kicked out of not only life, but the afterlife. These humans are acting like they could go back to 1200 only because, like, they were there at the time. Or they personally knew someone who was and told them the story in between afterlives. </p><p> Alternatively they just really really really hated the queue times for the Earth server. I consider it more likely that the reason the population got so low was due to a lull in immortal deaths. The heavens declared peace, for a time. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-81179572818261758502024-03-11T05:52:00.026-04:002024-03-11T21:38:18.223-04:00Reminder: Every Drug Addict Could Have Bought Friends Instead<p> Start a movie-viewing club and spend the drug money buying movies or renting venues. <br /> If you're poor enough that your poverty is crippling, you are too poor
to buy drugs. Call me when there's an epidemic of ODing on water. </p><p><br /></p><p> Druggies aren't killing themselves out of despair, exactly. They're killing themselves because they've been told to kill themselves, and they're more obedient than sheep. The despair is a side-effect, or possibly a means. It is not causal.</p><p> </p><p> Imagine all the would-be druggies in Springfield bumfuckistan, instead got up one day, got a cup of coffee, and decided to pool resources to make a LAN party house. A based LAN party, all day, every day. This is not some weird utopian scheme, some hyperautist technical feat, some Newtonian genius idea, or in any way difficult. It's just spending drug money on not-drugs, for sociological profit. <br /></p><p> They're killing themselves because they're weak and deserve to be culled.</p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-41101947374581675972024-03-11T04:23:00.024-04:002024-03-11T04:23:00.145-04:00Revenge is Sour: Schooling<p> The condition of an instructor being able to get close enough to a student to educate at him was that he should already be educated. </p><p> The condition of finding a master is that the apprentice should not need any training. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> The people who need schooling cannot be schooled.</p><p> Those who can use schooling have no need for a school. It's all post hoc ergo propter hoc. Education steals credit for the achievements of those who educate themselves. <br /> E.g. me. Just try to stop me from knowing things. I dare you. As long as I'm not actively forbidden from showing up to where smart folk are, I will show up whether you want me there or not. "Hi! Tell me things!"</p><p> Imagine a professor who hates the sound of his own voice, lmao. <br /></p><p> It's only a problem because no such smart place exists. <br /> I am kinda forbidden from just showing up at the chip fab, and even if I weren't, they don't know anything except stuff about chip design. The condition of needing instruction on chip fabrication was that I be allowed inside the chip fab. What a coincidence. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-38570037142637920042024-03-10T06:23:00.037-04:002024-03-10T06:23:00.248-04:00Bergs of Lies, Liecebergs. <p> What a hopelessly ignorant and superstitious peasant. https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence</p><p> To justify a lie is much harder than to justify the truth. The deeper the lie, the harder you have to work. The lie here: taxation is not a crime. It's a giant copesicle. Taxation isn't wrong, they're just taxing wrong...</p><p> On the plus side, these sorts of liecebergs remind me I've successfully created the sort of distance I'm trying to create. In particular, he goes that long and doesn't once nail the Regime as feminine. By (alleged) girls, for (alleged) girls. Naturally the Oedipal mother-government needs all the "citizens" to be children. That's just what civilization <i>means</i>. <br /> The key feature of the Oedipal mother is that she tries to suck milk out of the baby. Attempts to transmute baby into provider, hence the marriage/sex. It is true insanity: if the target of her ""affections"" is a grown man, she will attempt to transmute him into a baby, so that he becomes, in her mind, a valid target of milk-sucking. <br /></p><p> These idiots can't even name the death star without permission. They need, shall we say, assistance with literacy. Doesn't even know revolution is about rotating the social hierarchy through 180 degrees. (Against the social equivalent of gravity, which naturally puts the top on top and the bottom on the bottom.) </p><p> "B<span>ut it is not really egalitarian or communitarian</span>" Seriously, it's cope. I shouldn't really call it ignorant; the superstitious misreading is the point. <br /></p><p> "Managerialism" is not in any way distinct from Communism, which is the straightforward result of legitimizing taxation. "<span>in reality its vision of technocratic rule is firmly oligarchic, aligning the few against the many.</span>" Hey brain cancer, was Stalin Communist? "<span>Nor is it anti-capitalist, at least in the sense that it
encourages market activity and facilitates the accumulation of immense
private wealth by the few.</span>" Stalin: arch-Capitalist. </p><p> "This instinct to keep all power concentrated into the hands of the Party
Center is inherent to the CCP’s Leninist roots but is also part and
parcel of its extreme centrism and broader managerial nature."<br /> Oh yeah hardly any regimes in history have been interested in concentrating power in themselves. Totally a Leninist innovation. <br /> Fuck off, Satanist. Nobody is that stupid. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-41738163173823968572024-03-10T04:39:00.047-04:002024-03-10T04:39:00.279-04:00How to Safely Visit a Blogger Blog<p> 0) Don't use Chrome. Use a scriptblocker which blocks google analytics. Helpful to also block google.com itself.<br /><br /> 1) If you must use Chrome, block google analytics in your hosts file. Looks like the following:<br /><br /> <br />0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com <br />0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com</p><p> </p><p> This is hosts-ese for redirecting analytics to 'go fuck yourself.' </p><p><br /></p><p> Up to some version of windows, possibly even the latest version, you can very easily find your hosts file by opening a new text file, then going file -> open -> and pasting C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts into the address bar. That is, specifically not into the file name box. </p><p> If you have nonzero computer savvy and the stupid-easy way doesn't work on the latest version, you can figure out where to find your hosts file using variants of the above address. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> It's probably also helpful to go to about:config or your local browser equivalent, search 'geo' and set all those to the suitable version of [go fuck yourself]. "Geo enabled?" Haha! No! <br /> Brave doesn't have the ability to enable the stupid in the first place, while I expect Chrome doesn't let you disable it. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> To get the archive sidebar to work you need to unblock the blogger domains. I expect all their nefarious code is on sites named google, but on the other hand I'm sufficiently un-paranoid to deliberately use a blogger blog. I understand if you don't trust them. In that case, you can search my blog using Brave. site:alrenous.blogspot.com [whatevs]. Works just fine. </p><p> I'm still on Brave's first page of results for political formula. I remain dissatisfied with all entries but my own, but mine is there so it's fine. <br /> Meanwhile, I've been purged from DuckDuckGo. I highly recommend getting your own blog on such a search result, to have a nice quick and easy test for when they're massaging the results. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-15719508078776292252024-03-09T06:17:00.029-05:002024-03-09T06:17:00.127-05:00Taxation: the Joke<p> Crime doesn't pay. Taxation is a crime. The proceeds of taxation are all spent on compliance and enforcement, and government has to be funded by voluntary contributions anyway. </p><p> E.g. lots of civil servants work far harder than they need to. Voluntary contributions.<br /> Police colleges don't teach policing, meaning all policing lore comes from the cops themselves. Insofar as police suppress criminals, it is by resisting the paperwork and thuggery regime, skimping on protocol to make time for baddie-napping. Everything that works is made to work through creative misinterpretation of the corrupt rules. </p><p> Taxation does little but set a whole bunch of time and money on fire. A mass sacrifice to profane gods. <br /></p><p> In rare cases men can <i>appear</i> to get rich through crime, such as Buffet or Gates, but do you think these men <i>feel</i> free? Gates can barely spend a dime of his own money on himself - it's all shaken down by the State. Soros is finally being allowed to partially retire at 93, likely because he is dying anyway. The funding for Musk's requisition of Twitter largely came from loans. Musk is famously homeless. Even when he had mansions, he clearly didn't have any time to spend in them. The money isn't worth anything if you can't spend it. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-73210670416137393362024-03-09T03:12:00.060-05:002024-03-09T03:12:00.133-05:00Ethereum is Going to 0 & BTC Merry-Go-Round<p> Very much a question of when, not if.</p><p> However, it's a very very big when, indeed. </p><p><br /></p><p> I sincerely doubt anyone can tell you when Ethereum will hit zero. Even if someone does know, they won't know yet. If it's in the short enough term that someone already knows, they are wisely not saying anything, but instead quietly shorting it. </p><p> Ethereum <b>will</b> go to zero. It also <b>will</b> be a surprise. "Why now?" Only answerable in retrospect. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> The main thing is, if you get involved in Ethereum, know exactly what you're going to do when it goes to 0. Plan on it happening. If you insist on planning on it not happening, then ensure you plan in the shortest term possible. Minimize exposure. It's low-key a miracle it hasn't already exploded to bits. </p><p><br /></p><p> A general principle of finance: good economists make bad traders. Bubble pricing is based entirely on ignorance, stupidity, and insanity. Good economists don't know anything about that. When will the batshit crazy nutjobs fixate on some other gobsmackingly retarded idea? Basically you have to be a retard yourself to know that, except, of course, then you're retarded and can't make good predictions. We will find out what the retards are thinking when the retards themselves find out. </p><p> In the meantime, don't invest in retard juice, that would be retarded. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> By contrast, buying as much debt as you can afford and spending it all on BTC is a fine idea. When it spikes, sell the BTC and pay off your loans, then, when it stabilizes again, go around the merry-go-round again. Don't worry about hitting the peak, worry about accumulating residual BTC after you zero out your debts; pull the trigger as soon as you have a comfortable margin when accounting for transaction costs. Bonus: inflation will destroy your debts even if BTC spikes don't. </p><p> In a Central Bank regime, rich folk practice is to be underwater at all times. As much debt as they'll let you have, assuming you can afford the interest. Grab the long end of the stick and be the problem you would otherwise complain about in the world. (Asset prices.) <br /></p><p> Especially if there's a huge ""emergency"" like ncov again, immediately buy debt and then BTC. War? Debt, BTC. Great Depression? Debt, BTC. Tax revolt? Debt, BTC. <br /></p><p> It should also be possible to do the merry-go-round with rental properties. Use the rent to service the debts, until the debts vanish of their own accord. It's better with something really volatile like BTC, though. <br /></p><p> You would be able to do this with gold too, but some sort of black criminal magic is being used to keep gold prices from having BTC price spikes. The banks know the side their bread is buttered on. <br /> The least corrupt thing it could possibly be is sadly the most corrupt thing my limited imagination can come up with: they're buying gold directly from gold mines via political force (Communist pricing), and selling this accumulated bullion every time gold threatens to go up, to simulate a bear market. I don't think this can explain the observed trade magnitudes, though. I don't care enough to do all the accounting myself, as the details aren't terribly important, only the condemnation. The details of the scam are of only scholastic curiosity. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-59977882689916715212024-03-09T00:13:00.030-05:002024-03-09T00:13:00.131-05:00Democracy the Devil That Didn't Fail<p> Leftists really are the real racists.</p><p> Doctors make you sick on purpose. </p><p> Free speech subsidizes liars. </p><p> Superheros are villains. <br /></p><p> Christianity is Paganus.</p><p> Christianity is Gnosticism.<br /></p><p> Christianity is Satanism. </p><p> Feminism is misogynistic.</p><p> Communists hate the poor. </p><p> Theresa was a torturer. </p><p> Hitler was Jewish.</p><p> Mussolini was a deserter. </p><p> Kaisar was a SJW. </p><p> Socrates was suicidal.<br /></p><p> Capitalists aren't. </p><p> Soldiers are cowards. <br /></p><p> Scientists despise truth.</p><p> </p><p> Saviours are villains. </p><p> Humanity is treachery.</p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-20094550742396685442024-03-08T05:53:00.028-05:002024-03-08T05:53:00.140-05:00All is Comfort and Recreation & Utopian War<p> If all is comfort, a [[hero]] or [[saviour]] is someone who upholds the entertainment of vast populations. </p><p> If some heroism is better or [[more important]] than others, it is because you can't entertain yourself when you're dead.</p><p> Utopianism is absurdly silly. How ridiculous it is to wage a war so as to entertain the masses. They can't entertain themselves if they're dead. </p><p> Recreation isn't expensive. It is known: all the best things in life are free. Totalitarian gulags for the sake of Hamptons ski resorts for everyone is absolute nonsense. Social status is contrary to comfort, never mind property rights. <br /></p><p> </p><p> This would be why philosophy matters.</p><p> Or rather, would matter if autists were dominant, but instead personnel is policy. Comfort with torture and gulags was the point, which is why they happen. Everything working as intended. </p><p> The idea here is to help you avoid utopians by easily seeing their hypocrisy and incoherency. They're just Satanists. Just lying. </p><p> Of course, ideally, you reject the idea of high trust in the first place. You don't have to prove shit. They have to prove they're not vastly evil - and they get upset at you for even asking, as if they're Satanic or something. Avoid, reject, don't let them catch you up in their profanities. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-28100640171324264582024-03-06T14:56:00.065-05:002024-03-06T14:56:00.217-05:00Liar-Liar Competition and Cold Winters<p> You're stuck inside all winter with nothing to do but scam the others into giving up part of their share of the grain. The only defence they have is being a better scammer than you are. The worst scammers give up so much they accidentally let themselves starve to death. </p><p> In permanently cold places like the arctic, the population never rises much above what can sustained by harvesting while it's frozen. The logical distance between hunter and table never grows long enough for scams to be viable. If someone asks for more food they'll be told to hunt it themselves, regardless of how clever their reasons are. "Bro, you're not my wife, thank god. Did you lose your spear? It's over there." <br /></p><p> Let's say winter is exactly six months. You can trick someone so they only keep five months worth of grain, and they'll have no idea until they suddenly find themselves running out at month 4.5. You can say, "Sorry mate, I can't rush the growing season." If you manage to trick enough folk, you can say stuff like, "It's hard for everyone." If a seal hunter is tricked out of their stores, it's only a week or two, and they can immediately demand restitution from the scammer. The scam is not existentially rewarding. </p><p> </p><p> Notably only Communists can scam each other out of grain. If you're not Communist you just let the bad farmers starve to death. Sad, but necessary. Without the norm of irresponsibly sharing harvests, it can't be normal to share too much of your harvest. ("Pay me or GTFO.") The scams are only possible because you already fucked up. Maybe a real society even executes the bad farmers early so they don't waste their stores trying to stave off the inevitable. "Scam this." *chunk*<br /></p><p> </p><p> Basically in real life the ant feeds the grasshopper all the time. Bonus: exactly because the grasshopper is a bad farmer, they have poor stores and can make heartrending appeals. Don't work at work, work at tricking someone else into working for you. Hard for the ant, flush with the harvest, to argue that he needs handouts. Irresponsible societies actively punish the industrious for being productive - it's the ant who finds they don't have enough at the end of the hard season. And then you get modernity. And, previously, places like Greece.<br /></p><p> They do make IQ go up, apparently. Liar-liar competition, may the sharpest con win...<br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-43162557539599810872024-03-05T14:58:00.005-05:002024-03-05T15:22:17.638-05:00Confirmed: Ron Unz is a CIA Agent<p> "Free speech" lol.</p><p> Yes, I receive shall we say "special" moderator attention. I am, after all, special. </p><p><br /></p><p> Unz, as with all government employees, is kind of incompetent. He let this slip through the cracks: "The Hutu-driven genocide was an obvious CIA op." Whoops, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. His moderators had no idea that this apparent schizo nonsense is different from the other schizo nutjobs he allows to post on his site. That's the problem with NGO employees, you can't read them into the conspiracy or you perforate the public/private illusion...just look at the twitter files...<br /></p><p> Result: another sitewide ban. (Triggered very weirdly and suspiciously - a special-cased, unprincipled Alrenous privilege ban.) Because it's obviously true, and Unz is obviously there to defend CIA interests. He can't delete the comment post-facto without revealing his hand (not so incompetent he hasn't heard of Streisand) but he can stop me from supporting or expanding on it. "Clandestine" operations, see? Why, perhaps I'm just lying about the ban...it just says "take a break" after all....<br /> "Plausible" deniability lol. <br /></p><p> I would guess he's the employee of a minority faction. Regular Byzantine snake-pit infighting stuff. My second guess is that it's a backstop; if you don't buy the first-tier misinformation you get trapped in the second-tier misinformation. Can't have any actual information on your CIA misinformation site. They genuinely react to veritas like vampires react to garlic. <br /></p><p> The moral here is a) you can trust your gut and 1) you can always force these idiots to reveal themselves. Because Unz is just a lying liar, you and I can always inhabit the delta between his professions and the truth, forcing him to either "betray" his "principles" or betray his employer - which means we can force him to reveal who his employer is. On a budget of $0. </p><p> Also 2) yes, everything in America is a corrupt conspiracy. Sailer is allowed on Unz precisely because he's harmless to the Regime. Sailer is not a dissident. BAM is allowed on Amazon because BAP is harmless to the Regime. No genuine dissidence is allowed, as per Tocqueville. Tate is threatened with the Assange treatment so they can get him alone and quietly tell him where the line is - don't worry, he toes it religiously. <br /></p><p> Concretely, we must ask: who else has unprincipled sitewide bans? As I said earlier, memejojo is allowed to say anything he wants...precisely because he sounds like an idiot and discredits everything he touches. Perhaps meme himself is a CIA employee, and his job is exactly that. P.S. Check out this amazing CIA humblebrag. https://www.unz.com/article/how-the-cia-destabilizes-the-world/ Yeah you're so cool and competent and scary, CIA... See how the game works? <br /> I am genuinely curious. Can Unz normally rely on self-filtering? That would be why he hosts so many dumbass authors: to set the tone, to repel anyone of sound mind. How much active censorship is required to maintain the illusion of free speech? <br /> Though, come to think, everywhere else requires industrial quantities of censorship. Even 4chan is heavily censored. (National Socialism is harmless to the Regime. On the contrary.) It would be a remarkable outlier if Unz did not have to frequently manipulate procedural outcomes. </p><p><br /></p><p> CIA agents, like all government employees, are incompetent. Their spies are bad. They can't blend in due to fatal tone deafness. This explains Unz comment sections: CIA agents can only blend in with dysfunctional deviants, in other words, when nobody blends in. They always sound like trolls so they need the internet flooded, without exception, with trolls. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p> The true story of Rwanda is that the CIA's ""clandestine"" operation was common knowledge as per usual, but someone decided to fight back for a change, so the CIA got their ass handed to them by poverty-stricken African cowherds. Couldn't even outsmart Cushitics. Everything since then has been covering up the embarrassment. <br /> I rather suspect Kagame went into the Congo for the same reason Putin had to go into Ukraine: underground CIA terror bases just across the border, launching ""clandestine"" acts of war into anti-Fascist territories. <br /> Now Kagame's Rwanda is having an El Salvador effect: it's showing that total African dysfunction is a symptom of UN occupation, not of African occupation. (Well, maybe Bantu occupation. The UN loves subsidizing Bantu, who would otherwise get knocked over at the touch of a feather.) </p><p> Check: Rwanda-Chinese ties are extremely healthy. "Rwandan President <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kagame" title="Paul Kagame">Paul Kagame</a>
stated that China's investment in African infrastructure meets the
needs of Africa and has been well-received by governments and private
enterprises." <br /> Kagame kicked out the UN and banned UN propaganda, such as racial hatemongering. This is a problem for folk like Unz. <br /></p>Alrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com10