Monday, August 2, 2021

Finest Pro-American Declares America Moribund

Let's talk about set 4.
Set 4 is the meta set, it is about placing your other sets in juxtaposition, to find out what you yourself really believe; a task far less trivial than commonly appreciated. 

Prediction 1:

"This process [...] will require not just the powers of a general defending against an enemy invasion, but the powers of the enemy general." 

Revenge is Sour: if you can kill someone, there is no need to. The obverse: to get certain things done, there is a need to be able to kill anyone you want. In other words, to have proper military capacity. Arbitrary ability to declare and wage war. Even down to the individual, because they will certainly stonewall you, up to but not including trying to kill you back.

Prediction 2:

"Americans [are] completely harmless, apathetic and atomized" Prussian school is a hell of a drug. 

When we put these predictions next to each other, we find a problem. Generals aren't harmless; Americans are harmless. The enemy general with the capacity to reform the system cannot be American. The powers are not like an enemy general, the wielder must literally be a foreign invading general.

He cannot be a foreign invading general. As far as he knows, American nuclear weapons still work. Anyone who credibly declares war will be assassinated with solar hellfire. (Although the term "assassination" implies a certain surgical neatness which tritium ICBMs do not even attempt.) Knowing this, no foreigner will declare war, being as no drooling retard can gain the necessary authority to do so.

The Regime is dead. Nothing can or even seriously wants to fix this. 


P.S.
The Regime is dead. As a zombie, it shambles on. As a corpse, it stinks sometimes. A buildup of necrotic gasses ruptures a boil, and this postmortem fart presents itself as "defending" the Regime.
Broke: refute the stench.
Woke: close your windows.

P.P.S.
The Clintons and whoever Epstein pissed off clearly have the ability to wage war on individuals - provided the individuals are peasants, not in the protected aristocratic classes. Should anyone attempt a bloodless coup, they will find that certain residents of the jurisdictions called America are not harmless. (I wouldn't call them Americans, since they think of themselves as separate from the bulk of Americans, and act accordingly as a foreign occupying force. If it doesn't quack like a duck, has no feathers, can't swim, etc...) 

P.P.P.S.
Bonus round: the CCP is deliberately imitating the American Regime and will slaughter China for meat exactly like America slaughtered itself, unless it stops trying to conform in this way.

Sunday, August 1, 2021

9/11: they know exactly who the terrorists are within days, apparently reconstructing the evidence from the pulverized ash of their remains.

Paddock: motive? What's that? Is it tasty?

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Secular Humanism is Satanism, Entry Several Million, Book 4

"The universe has an oppressive totalitarian government; it tells you what you can't do, it kills us if not enough of us don't work the way it says to, you can't leave it, and you can't vote to change it."
@Hanson

Okay except voting is totalitarian, so you're saying it's too totalitarian to allow totalitarianism...
(You can see the comments on this tweet are nice and Satanist, too.)


First problem: Hanson assumes you're entitled to omnipotence except that crummy universe thing gets in the way. Secular humanism. In reality you're entitled to nothing and everything you can do is being enabled by the universe. 

Second problem: it doesn't feel oppressive. Go look at a sunset. "Help help the violence inherent to the system!" Err...no. Real totalitarian governments forbid everything except doing exactly as they tell you. The universe doesn't even absolutely forbid oppressive totalitarian governments.
What's the name of the fallacy where you stretch a meaning so far beyond itself it can be used to describe literally anything?


On the other hand, Hanson can be correct. If you're fatally mutated, with a doomed germline, the universe in fact does feel oppressive. If you want independence but can't afford independence because you suck too much, you're just kind of boned. If you want to physically dominate a room but you're a woman, well, good luck with that.

Rather, humans primarily want evil things but other humans will fight back, thus not allowing the evil things to occur. Oppression. How awful. Notice this would be a problem even if you were entitled to omnipotence, because everyone else would also be entitled to omnipotence. 


Third problem: the issue with oppressive government is that they're rebelling against the universe. At best, they force you to rebel against the universe. They don't let you fulfill your own needs. "Communism creates enormous destruction while failing to advance at all toward its stated goals. That’s kind of why communism sucks so much." The oppressive government sucks precisely because it cannot win its rebellion against the universe. Dealing with one "oppressive" government is manageable. Two competing oppressive governments, not so much. 


P.S. Time doesn't kill you. Absent time you would be unable to do anything, i.e. would be already dead. You would not be entitled to immortality if that crummy time thing didn't take it away from you. The alternative to time isn't eternity, the alternative to time is nonexistence.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Makeup on Women?

"As a teenager, I claimed to prefer women without makeup. Where did that come from? Stray feminist meme? Counter-signal to say I’m not superficial; I’m, like, deep and intellectual? Actual genuine distaste at being mis-sold products?"
@Xenopolitix

Usually all of the above and others besides.
A stray feminist meme that's picked up because fake advertising gets super tiresome very very quickly. Counter-signal to say you can afford to date women who are so hot they look great even without makeup.
A wife has better things to do in the morning than spend 1.5 hours on makeup, so in the long term your date isn't going to wear makeup anyway. Would you rather she spend 1 minute throwing breakfast in the microwave for your kids and 90 minutes on cosmetics, or would you rather have luxurious 90 minute breakfasts every day?
Up close you can see the powder on her skin. Makeup only looks better in poor lighting or at enough distance. That said we should admit that it does look better when done properly.
There's also this: can you run your fingers through her hair, or will she be mad at you for messing up the 'do? Makeup sacrifices intimacy for the sake of appearances.

Feminists realized this meme doesn't work properly for the leftist, for these reasons and others besides, which is why they rarely push it these days. They haven't got around to abominating it, so some particularly unfortunate feminists, who are unattractive even with makeup, sometimes still push it, although the wheels are jammed and it goes nowhere.

David Foster Wallace Destroyed in One Paragraph

"Name me one contemporary fiction writer who required his college training to be a writer, and if you say David Foster Wallace I swear to god I'm going to pumpkin your house.  I think the only reason The New Yorker keeps shoving him down my throat is because he-- the guy, not his work-- is an academic's aspirational fantasy, a compromise between two worlds: mild mannered writing professor by day, brooding and non-balding antihero by night, a last chance at "I can be cool, too" for the late 30s associate  professor who thinks that intelligence alone is insufficient reason to be labeled a man."

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html


For reference, if you've been living healthy, this reads like a dispatch from foreign lands. "What is this Nwu Yorkie you speak of?" Such a curious culture!

I only hear about DFW from leftists who think it's cool to pretend to be a rightist for some insane reason.

Forum moderators are not your friends.
They are weapons. Direct them at your enemies or indeed anyone you don't like.

Your culture is broken and it's helpful to remember what a non-broken culture would say about it. 

Non-broken rule: don't meddle with someone else's feelings unless they're literally a child and you're biologically their parent. Exception: their feelings are meddling with yours, and thus meddling back counts as self-defence. Otherwise, it's very much their responsibility to ask for help, should they desire help with their feelings.

I think the fact I have to say this out loud is yet again a manifestation of Fascism, specifically feminine Fascism. Women have the urge to meddle with the feelings of others because they need opportunities to signal their willingness and demonstrate their ability to nurture small children.

How it's supposed to work: woman tries to meddle, everyone rolls their eyes, realizes she's too idle, cockblocks her 100%, then finds something for her to do. The archetypal case would be redirecting her towards her own children or grandchildren. They probably need more supervision than they're getting, and it turns out she's not busy. No children? I'm sure her husband would prefer more...attention, which will in due course solve the problem with no further intervention. That or husband-hunting. Secondly, women need hobbies too. Ideally ones where she produces a saleable product on no particular schedule, because children allot you free time on no particular schedule. Sexism wasn't the reason knitting became a female thing, geniuses. 

How it actually works: men running around trying to prove their feminine bona fides.

Reminder: if you send an ignorant peasant to school, that means you have an ignorant peasant who thinks they're educated. The ignorance is genetic, not circumstantial.