Monday, May 17, 2021

Name Rectification: Liberal vs. Conservative

The liberal personality is said to have high O and the conservative to have high C. This isn't right. A healthy human has high O and high C. Choosing to be lazy is much easier than choosing to stop being lazy. 

The liberal has crippling mutations in their C genes, the conservative has crippling mutations in their O genes. They absolutely should not be allowed to tell anyone else what to do. E.g. voting is right out.

Can't Put It Down

"Do not call up what you can't put down," functionally cashes out to, "Do not call up." 

The only reason to call up something is when it's more powerful than you are. If it's less powerful, then you can do the thing yourself. If it's more powerful, you will not be able to put it down.

Re-Evaluate Culture From First Principles: A How Not-To

"This is good example of how we really need to back up and re-evaluate what we want our culture to be like from first principles"

This guy has no idea what [first principles] means and if you told him he would be thoroughly unwilling to do the work. 

Tell: "our" culture. Naturally he in fact means "your" culture. He wants to impose his own culture on a wider country. (Digression: isn't willing to use conquest to do so.) 

Earlier tell: "need". An attempt to generate urgency, because the topic itself inspires no urgency. Acting exactly like a median American and while pretending to say median Americana is wrong. Anyway if a culture needs an ICU it's already too late. There is no such thing as urgent engineering.

Exactly what they teach in American schools: seeming to question, without challenging anything. Cope. Popularity contest. 

The rest of the thread flagrantly confirms the original perception.

"have a seat at the table about what the hell we're going to do about this"
You're not going to do anything about it. If you could have you already would have. You're not going to address your own powerlessness, so it will remain. 'Seat at the table' apparently refers to twitter likes.

"pro-humanity position"
Humanists gonna hume. 'These other humanists are huming harder than we are and that's bad.' Yeah good luck with that.

Saturday, May 15, 2021

AI Risk is Narcissism

AI can absolutely steal Yudkowsky's job, and he doesn't have any backup options. To him this fearsome possibility feels like the end of the world. If your only marketable attribute is your intelligence, then artificial intelligence is a direct competitor.

The intuitive structure isn't wrong, but the narcissist interprets risk to the self as risk to the species, because narcissists are solipsists. To Yudkowsky, existential risks to Yudkowsky are interpreted as existential risk to everything. 

Also narcissists are always histrionic. He can always get a job digging ditches or whatever. He wouldn't really instantly die. Further, we've encountered the Luddite fallacy in a new fancy clever version. In reality AI would reduce his salary somewhat, rather than making him wholly redundant, because brains are radically optimized for construction and operation expenses. Maybe AI will be competitive when two idiots can, by themselves, make a self-maintaining computer out of corn and beans.

More fun with narcissism: when Yud says the AI could do anything, he's saying a smart machine can do anything, which implies a smart person (such as Yud) can do anything too, given enough time. "If only I could get paid more and not have to spend time safing AI!" Right? Right. 


Pretending you find the AI risk scenarios believable is mainly about signalling that you think intelligence is important in the sense of drawing large salaries.

Machiavellian High IQ

The person I reveal on my blog would obviously not win an election.

In real life I've been spontaneously pressured to take on leadership positions, because I made my mask too well. I can mostly explain what I've done if you want to make such a mask yourself. However, you will find that responsibility is not worth the offered bid in a Fascist country. Also if you use my mask blueprint you'll probably get annoying sticky fans the same way I do. ("We're friends, right?" No.)

A very high IQ leader has a problem: the stuff they want to do makes no sense to their very average IQ employees. The solution is Machiavellianism. Figure out what they need to do, and then figure out what weirdo bullshit you need to say such that they'll do it. They're dumb, so they make mistakes, so you manipulate them into making the mistakes that are accidentally the right thing to do. 

But you're smart, so you figured this out on your own. If you want to lead someone who can't fathom anyone with an IQ higher than 120, then pretend to be someone with an IQ of 120. Sinple. "What would brain-damage Jesus do?" 

Indeed you'll be realer than real. Truth is stranger than fiction. Remember how a man was voted woman of the year by TIME? A genius can be a midwit even better than a midwit can. You can perfectly match the moron's perception of a midwit in a way the real midwit can't quite manage. They'll love you for the act of relieving their cognitive dissonance alone. Forgive you practically anything if you go full pandering.

It would be more efficient to have a fully authoritarian [obey without question] structure, but those things are deprecated nowadays, so leadership has a bunch of hassle involved.


There are two reasonable conclusions. One: I am unique. Two: I am not unique. Either I'm some sort of world-striding genius, or there are others who are good at manipulation. I'm not particularly fussed about which conclusion you pick. Though notice that USG often does exactly what I would have done were I sadistic, amoral, and had a herd of cats to manage.

Can Bezos buy America?

More generally, is America for sale?

USG has earnings of some trillions of dollars. At a typical P/E ratio of 20, this means USG is worth some hundreds of trillions of dollars, and America as a whole is worth half a quadrillion.

Does Bezos have a quadrillion dollars?


You probably couldn't buy America directly. Maybe you could trigger a referendum? I dunno. It's hard to see what would stop a quadrillionaire from buying a military coup or suchlike, though. They could fund their own spy agency (staffed with competence) to figure out exactly who would stop them, and then have them Alex Jones'd or Epstein'd. Would it take so long they would have successor problems? 

If you have enough money you can even buy a test coup, see what goes wrong, and specifically address the issues for the next coup. Having enough money to buy enough prototypes is merely a matter of accounting and keeping costs down.

Friday, May 14, 2021

State Capacity vs. Anglo Ruling Style

America has lots of State capacity, but doesn't like to use it since it risks the responsibility-laundering scheme. 

E.g. remember the lite-brites in Boston? They immediately shut down the whole city. It's not that they can't shut cities down at will, they merely choose not to. Epstein got whacked in broad daylight. You think they can't weld some doors shut and make the press look the other way?

It's gauche. Anglos are supposed to make you think it was your own idea. They don't tell you what to do directly, like some filthy peasant boss. E.g. you're supposed to come up with the idea of stealing the election on your own, not have to be told what and how to do it during a witching-hour Zoom call. There's a bit of a competition to see who can use the most scapegoats and cutouts. It's very hard to change your class in America, but using direct instruction instead of manipulation is a great way to get booted from high society. Everyone will turn on you instantly.

By contrast, an evolutionary or emergent system would sometimes be brilliant, and sometimes forget to whack key witnesses, blatantly admit to forging votes, etc. Evolution does not produce a uniform grey Communist malaise.

Why Did Science Die in Specifically the 70s?

Duh, of course science died in the early 70s. That's when the Old Left was ousted by the New Left, in other words when pre-war non-communist trained administrators were replaced by properly post-war communist administrators. 

Science was mortally wounded by nationalization in 1945, but nevertheless for a time universities contained many pre-war scientists and thus there was a bunch of inertia. The 70s is rather awkward for timing, though. 

Someone who got their doctorate in 1945 can easily be expected to stay in the system until the mid-80s, so it's not age-related selection. Also, due to old_dogs/new_tricks, these prewar doctorates should have trained more prewar doctorates, with only minor contamination driven primarily by (corrupt) innovation. Science should have died relatively slowly.

On the other hand, most discovery work is done in your 20s and 30s, meaning science should have died by the mid-60s at the latest.

Instead, it was an old_dogs kind of situation, except a bunch of political entrepreneurs recognized the new regimes for the communist-safe space it was, and pressure rapidly built up until they simply launched the revolution. Society evolves faster when it's smart and rich. They recognize the Nash equilibrium sooner.
The revolution worked, because they weren't wrong about making the world safe for communism. By the early 70s they consolidated their position, forced the scientific community to fall in line, and thoroughly cremated the corpse of free discovery.

Prewar scientists were already leftist, and thus politicized, but they had priorities other than politics. Like a well-rounded human being or something silly like that. American is totalitarian, so we can't have that, now can we? 


P.S. Nobody should getting married and the welfare rolls should be at least three times bigger than they in fact are, except inertia. The lower classes are poor and dumb and recognize the Nash equilibrium super slowly. Being a net taxpayer is a sucker's game in modern America, but luckily for USG America has always been stuffed to the brim with suckers.

On the downside, most forms of net tax consumer are also suckers' games.

On Fanaticism

Apparently I think what goes wrong with religious fanatics is the same thing I think goes wrong with everyone else: they are liars.

The fanatic has to lie to himself, or he would discard his religion. That's the inherent nature of false religions. Accordingly, they will lie to you in a heartbeat. They're supremely untrustworthy. 

It would seem fanaticism per se is a crime. I suppose should someone develop a true religion this wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, fanaticism may be inherently incompatible with a true religion. It would inhuman after all. Alien. The potential fanatic would be forced to deal with it intellectually rather than emotionally. He would find it incompatible with his corrupt needs.

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Innocence Hatred

The findings of logiomancy are consistent: when you notice schools are for torturing children, it suggests the host culture hates innocence.
Then you discover this culture had to have decades of debate to figure out that babies can feel pain. 

In reality, of course babies can feel pain. It's absurd to suppose otherwise. Anyone even vaguely reasonable would assume they can unless there was some very shocking and very substantial proof the contrary. Even if there was some weird local incentive, outsiders should have flatly forced doctors to use anaesthetic, regardless of how 'unscientific' it was.

The point of doing surgery on babies without anaesthetic was to inflict suffering on purpose, because the culture is fundamentally evil.

They like babies because babies can't fight back and frequently don't remember enough to sue later. They knew full well what they were doing, but did it anyway. Even now they would do surgery without anaesthetic except moms, who sometimes can fight, complain too much.

Since schooling in America dates to 1880, we can be certain that even allegedly "Christian" America was still fundamentally evil. Due to boarding schools and such, we can definitively date England being fundamentally evil to several centuries prior. Rome was also fond of inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain.

Christianity rather undersold the reality of the phenomenon they call original sin.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Hyperinflation Watch

When asset prices spike this much, as they've recently done in the US, the natural reaction is hyperinflation. Bailouts => money printing => more inflation => price buggering => more bailouts, etc. 

They may be savvy enough to interrupt this process. They're not nearly as stupid as they pretend to be. It is in fact possible they'll think of this one-line feedback loop themselves. Unfortunately none of the relevant decisions will show up in the news. Hopefully some insiders will post them on Twitter or something.

Luckily if there is a hyperinflation event it will be the last one. America will unavoidably transition to BTC. This might cause the government as a whole to collapse, though. They may also be aware of this, which forms the pressure which can make them suck up the short-term pain for the long-term gain. 


P.S. Of course transitioning to BTC would be the real long-term gain, but the Fed would make everyone's life temporarily hell if you tried to indirectly fire them like that. It's more short-term pain vs. medium-term gain. Long-term gain is not on the table.

TV Profitability

TV is supposed to be ad-funded, and for once it seems the math actually works out.

Using Game of Thrones here for convenience, an episode costs $10-15 million, at a time they were getting 10-15 million viewers. Shows are typically 44 minutes of runtime per hours, which after various dithering gives you about 15 minutes of ads, or 30 spots. 

$1 per viewer, 30 spots, need 3.5 cents per viewer per spot for thin profit margins. This is in fact a reasonable price for a spot, albeit on the high end. It's plausibly profitable, though there's a reason TV execs cancel shows at the drop of a hat.

Don't forget the financial point of a TV firm isn't to make money for the studios, but to make money for all the people drawing salaries from the studios. The studios themselves are largely prestige projects. 

That said, clearly TV sucks because ads don't work. Ads don't move sales and thus can't pay enough. The studios have to cut every cost possible, which makes TV live up to the high Soviet quality standards all communist schemes live up to. 

P.S. I rather expect ads are also prestige products. Ads make you infamous rather than famous, but for some that's better than obscurity. Secondly it signals real-business-ism. If someone hasn't seen your creation on TV, then they're going to think it's a low-class or weirdo purchase. Knowing it exists is a non-problem or isn't solved by ads.


Youtube has a similar cost schedule, "YouTube ads have an average cost-per-view of $0.010 - $0.030" but that money is split between Youtube and the videographer, they don't show nearly as many ads (especially to folk like me), and if you skip the ad it doesn't pay. Apparently "There are now non-skippable bumper ads of six seconds, charged on a CPM basis, i.e., per thousand views." I don't know if you've noticed, but 6 is 1/5 of 30. You can make good money if you can regularly make million-view videos quickly and by yourself ($20,000 per), but in practice million-view channels are softcore prostitution, involve a team, have significant material costs, etc. 

I just saw a video that probably made $150,000. Neat. Only it took 40 days, significant materiel, and a team which I know includes at least three members, though I don't know their exact split. For this guy it clearly beats digging ditches, but there's a term I think about a lot: risk-adjusted capital cost. Certainly if you already have a good channel, like, keep going. However, if you're thinking of getting one, don't. The risk-adjusted profit on this venture is almost certainly negative. The opportunity cost is downright obscene. Which makes sense: Youtube is almost always a hobby, and the fact it's a hobby (that happens to pay money) is priced into the compensation. Sort of like this: if you're doing a thing anyway, you might as well try filming the thing. 

I figure Youtube is one of the many businesses exploiting the difference between real interest rates and the interest rates being charged, meaning it's a wealth sink. Or pork trough: since money is flowing through, you can scam some off the top. They may also not be including depreciation. It's hard to price depreciation accurately and thus easy to cook the books without breaking the law, sometimes even by accident. Either way if the economy wasn't being buggered, Youtube would immediately go under. 

P.P.S. Is Youtube bandwidth is more expensive than TV bandwidth because it's bespoke, or is it cheaper due to lack of redundancy? They don't broadcast to anyone who doesn't request the broadcast. On the other hand, an hour of video marginally costs Youtube something like 5 cents per viewer, in other words a noticeable fraction of ad revenue. Much more like 10 cents per paying viewer.

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

rat history

 "If I had to compress it into a tweet postrat is the wreckage of the LW social network after people realized most useful domains are anti-inductive (i.e. not natural philosophy shaped in study) and science is broken, so you may as well get high on copium while the world burns."

Reality: rats tried ratiocination, but it gave answers they didn't like and they realized they never wanted to be rational. Thus they became post-attempting-rationality-ers. 

Rats thought giving up lies wouldn't require you to give up any lies.

There's exactly two kinds of people.
1. People who don't already know everything in the sequences.
2. Those verbally gifted enough to profit from reading the sequences.

Quackery

Every single doctor is a quack. 100%. Every last one. Take care of your own health or get fucked.

I realized this when I read an account of a doctor rhapsodizing about holding someone's liver. Fun fact: normal people don't feel good about putting their hands on internal organs. 

Doctors? Hint: no.

In theory you could restrict doctors tightly enough that you keep the quackery on a leash. Not feasible in practice. Luckily you can simply learn the relevant medicine yourself. 

It is surprising that trauma treatments and antibiotics (sometimes) work. There's probably some special force which I don't know about which is applying discipline.

Social Engineering & Alchemy

Down near the base of society design, at the stone-age level we're limited to discussing, it intersects with alchemy/[experimental theology]. As with any designed object, society needs a purpose. To know if it is designed correctly, we need to know what it is being designed to do. 

A normal object is designed to meet some need. However, when designing a society, there's feedback. The purpose of society is itself part of what causes the needs the society must meet. In simplified form you can see this by looking at the socially-constructed values. You can raise someone to value X and if you're not stupid about it, it just kind of works. The society will need to meet the value of X. It would be somewhat easier if the value slots could be left blank, but they can't. 

The problem appears when we realize Gnon prefers some society purposes to others, and nobody has yet studied how to ask Gnon which he prefers. There is almost certainly a single correct purpose, and we have no idea which one it is. Thus, experimental theology is required to determine the correct purpose. 

This is one of the cases where identifying the problem is inherently the solution. The correct purpose of society is a meta-purpose. It is to determine the correct concrete purpose of society.

We don't even know what having a correct purpose should look like.

However, solving the problem is largely a matter of realizing the problem needs to be solved, and then not being lazy. If you check and don't give up, you will find out.

One of the major reasons Christianity cannot be correct is because it cannot question the purpose of society. Although it is technically not impossible to guess correctly on the first try, there is no evidence they guessed correctly and lots of evidence they didn't. This is also true of all other religions you've heard about.


P.S. One of the reasons society sucks is because designing society itself is the very highest-status position. Total full-spectrum dominance. Literally everyone wants to seize the position for ulterior motives, which does not exactly select for good-faith design. It is decidedly probable that designed societies require superhuman levels of humility. 

This is one of the reasons for having a pro-sectarian principle. Anyone without the humility to submit to someone else's design can freely boil off and attempt their own design. The mere fact this is possible reduces the humility required. "I'll just try it for a bit and quit if it doesn't work." Secondarily it supports the experimental theology by allowing faster selection on society purposes.

P.P.S. Remember that society members don't necessarily have to work toward the purpose. However, it's important to tag them as such. It's only important to refuse anyone who actively works against it, and be careful about those who are accidentally net hindrances.

Is Youtube's Icon Red Because They're Communist?

Are youtubers usually trust fund babies?
It's a lot easier to maintain a youtube channel if it doesn't have to be profitable.
Would be super amusing. I'm fairly sure Youtube itself still isn't profitable. It's subsidized somehow. If the videographers are themselves subsidized as well...
This is of course bad sociology. While transferring value from rich to poor isn't bad per se, it's concentrating in useless consumers and locking out the lower-end producers. Put politely, the rich are spending their money for the sake of killing time.

P.S. Turns out giving stuff away for free is communist. Who knew. It is unfortunate that teaching must be free, though it must be free precisely because other factors provide discipline.

Name Rectification: Transparent Wood

In reality it's acrylic using a wood-derived composite reinforcement. The lignin-free non-wood functions essentially the same way rebar functions in concrete.

Cellulose-reinforced acrylic or something of that nature. 

It's a hilariously expensive way to get low-quality acrylic that is as strong as a somewhat thicker piece of acrylic. I won't say it's definitely useless, because there's more things under heaven and earth etc, but I will say the applications are... non-obvious.

Also since it is really cellulose-reinforced acrylic, rather than deriving it from wood it would be better to polymerize cellulose directly or some other more direct method of stringing the stuff through the acrylic.

 

To get transparent wood properly, you need genetic engineering. Give trees the ability to grow using acrylic directly. I'm sure there's an enzyme for that, but nobody knows what it looks like, nor does anyone know how to code the regulation tags.
Have to give up control. I broadly call this chaos tech. Most humans are primarily interested in demonstrating as much control as they possibly can, which conflicts with the demands of the technology. 


P.S. That above linked guy is at least doing the chemistry more or less properly. E.g. by showing his failures he models how to deal with failure, and secondly showcases the errors that lead to failure, that someone may learn not to fuck up so much.

Focus: Justice

A just society is one which supports cooperators & defends those minding their own business, and prevents & deters defection using violence. 

An unjust society fortifies defectors against those trying to defend themselves.

If you prevent a defection event by killing a defector before they can commit the act, it isn't murder. It's execution, regardless of how legal it happens to be.

Health is the War of the State

War is the health of the State, and the State is a disease preying on the country. Switzerland stayed out of the wars. Result: it's just a better country. Both sides lose every war, the war is merely a question of who gets to lose harder.

In shocking news, the broken window fallacy remains a fallacy.

Western Culture Was Never Maintained

Western culture is obviously completely broken and need to be replaced. You can cite Carlyle on this if you want. Problem: it is clear Westerners have no interest in swapping out their culture. Gnon will have words with them about this.

The obvious thing to do is identify the core of corruption, salvage anything useful from around it, and rebuild from scratch. 

The Christian races like to be popular. A new culture would, by definition, not play by the rules of the old culture, and it would inherently be unpopular. Christian corruption is preventing any effective corruption-cleansing measures. As should be expected. The stuff's not going to clean itself (except catastrophically).

If the corruption were not camouflaged, it would never have survived. It is hard to see what's corruption and what isn't. This is not a real problem. Try several new culture-seeds. One will successfully identify the problems by chance, if nothing else. Popes for everyone; if you have enough, one of them won't be an idiot shitbag.

The project isn't difficult. Microsociology is easy. The individual pieces can be assembled without fuss. Unfortunately, macrosociology is not quite easy. Lies spread. Individually. Socially. Having a sociology without any lies at all is effort-intensive. Though still not hard, exactly.

My true purpose when I try to talk about stuff like this is to highlight the missing maintenance. The Christian races refuse to even question these assumptions. I have no idea how much is obvious and how much is mind-blowing. Have I included all the necessary background? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nobody is talking about it. It seems nobody is even thinking about it except me. However, this is entry level stuff. I've made an adze by taping a rock to a stick. It shouldn't be new. I should sound like a child telling you the sun is bright and hot.

Were the races always incapable of maintenance? Was the original culture already too far left to be responsible? 

If we're playing an MMO or FPS, then sure I can carry the whole team on my back. I can't carry a whole culture by myself, primarily because I don't want to. Carry it yourself or you're all fucked. (Hint: you're fucked.)

Alternatively one could try an organic rebuild. This has already been decided against. Billions of people and nobody has tried re-creating a hunter tribe and re-developing.

It's not illegal. They just don't want to. Panem et circenses: it works, bitches.

The Buddha Has No Bounty on His Head

"The Buddha has left the road and renounced the next road/s as well. The Buddha seeks only surcease from all pain and desire."

However, if you are properly Buddhist, then the desire you release is the desire not to desire. Let go of the desperate quest to put a stop to desperation. I don't have a snappy line for pain. I think of it this way: either you deserve the pain or you don't. Definitely one of those. If you deserve the pain, then accept your own responsibility. If you don't, then take comfort in the fact that your suffering is unjust. If your immediate response to the pain was working, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it's time to stop. 

But, yes. A proper Buddhist is a not-Buddhist. Buddhism proper is a soft suicide cult, for devils who accept they shouldn't exist but are too squeamish to take a knife to themselves. (The non-squeamish set has already ceased to exist.) An ideology of ego-death is always going to cash out to an ideology of ideology-death, thus killing itself, exactly as originally intended.

If you're in desperation and pain, then you are in desperation and pain. Pretending you're not is nothing more than a childish lie. If you wish for these things to go away, then it is true that you wish for these things to go away. Pretending you don't is nothing more than a childish lie.
Sometimes, you can make them go away. Sometimes, you can't. Sometimes trying to make them go away only makes it worse. It depends on the situation. Trying some solution which doesn't depend on the situation is to say you can control the world in a way that doesn't depend on the world. You may guess what I have to say about this: it's a childish lie.
Sometimes you can override a desire directly, it is true, but this is only when a deeper value overrides a shallower value. Pain, ultimately, is the name we give to the quale that indicates/instantiates failure. The only way to give up failure is to give up existing; to give up having any values is to not exist. To perceive at all is to make distinctions. To see [that is] is also to not-see that which [that is] is not.


Are there bad koans? Sturgeon's law applies perhaps especially to them. Should you kill the Buddha if you meet him? Depends what you mean. Imagine meeting the Buddha on a road. What is that like? What is the situation? 

Some imagine immediately trying to abase themselves before the Buddha. Or demanding something. Perhaps the Buddha demands something of you. Maybe he tries to follow you? I don't imagine any of these things myself, though. Perhaps we can shortly say it this way: if the Buddha tries to direct you off your own path, kill him. It doesn't matter how much [better] his path is than yours, because you can't use it. It's not your path. Your path also needs to be the path which is yours.

Casual googling shows that the Buddha you're supposed to kill is a fake Buddha. They're saying you won't meet Buddha on the path. However, even the Buddha makes mistakes. Even in the spiciest scenario, where you meet the real Siddhartha on the road, if he screws up, then killing him may well be the right thing to do.

It's hardly guaranteed, though. This is what makes this a bad koan. If you meet a koan on the road telling you to kill the Buddha, kill it. Kill it, cook it, and eat the meat. The Buddha telling you to kill the Buddha is a fake Buddha, just like his koan said such a Buddha would be.

It is very likely that any Buddha you meet would be a fake one. If you can see it, if you could plausibly kill it, then it's not the Buddha. Even if it's really from the Buddha, it's merely a mask being projected, from one side or the other. Not the thing itself.


I like to think Siddhartha is no more Buddhist than Yeshua was Christian. The alternative is too depressing.

Monday, May 10, 2021

Fragments

"No gentle way to say this, Yarvin's political philosophy is two standard deviations dumber than Moldbug's. It's as if he's completely uncomprehending of what was brilliant about Neocameralism. Now it's just "give one man all power"."

https:/nitter.dark.fail/Outsideness/status/1390550907192954881

"From formalism to Straussianism, then? Most attractive aspect of Moldbug NRx was its extreme epistemological hygiene, so sad if that's gone for good. ..."

https://nitter.dark.fail/Outsideness/status/1390560595141742594

It does amuse me when, after some months, my stuff appears in the feeds of folk who aren't reading my blog. 

"The guy on the white horse isn't being addressed, but rather dreamed about." Dreamy!


In other twitter shorts, as always, the real crime in America isn't the crime, it's getting caught. https://nitter.dark.fail/Breaking911/status/1391451802206408705

"NEW: Melinda Gates has been meeting with divorce lawyers since 2019, around the time Bill Gates's close ties to Jeffrey Epstein became public - WSJ The Daily Beast reports that Melinda "was furious about the relationship between the two men""

This wuss can't even bully journalists into keeping their traps shut! What a nerd. 

That's kind of not a joke. Idiot gave away more than half his fortune in political bribes and got dick all in return. Although the nouveau riche getting jacked by courtier families is not exactly new. You can buy title but buying savvy is a bit of a catch-22. If you're savvy enough to successfully buy savvy you're probably savvy enough not to need to buy any.

Biological Destiny and Fairness

The world can be assumed to be unfair unless some very strong force is forcing it to be fair. 

Biology is usually destiny. Occasionally, someone is born with enough power to overcome their biological destiny. Though of course this is merely being destined to be free of destiny. 

For example, IQ is more or less your income and education. Due to genetic shenanigans, your brain's genes are not fully determined by your parents, so IQ is only 80% heritable, despite being 100% genetic.
There's something roughly called grit which can make up for low IQ.
Grit is also 80% heritable. Oops. Probably not 100% genetic in this case, but still fully dominated by genetics.
Maybe you can juice that last 20%... but first you need the grit to be able to juice it. Double oops.

 

However it's hardly impossible to do things like be both extraverted and introverted. At some point the conscious will dominates the unconscious drives. Your race is absolutely your destiny, except you have the power to overcome destiny.

In my opinion, the greatest tragedy is someone free of destiny nevertheless surrendering to destiny because they've been told they can't do any better.

Meanwhile, telling a peasant they're free of destiny is disgusting and perverse. They have a lane, and they don't get to decide.


P.S. For some reason marriage seems just. I never see a husband with a wife they don't deserve, nor vice versa. Indeed any relationship that makes it past roughly the third date seems to satisfy this condition. I would like to know what force, exactly, is ensuring this. Knowing certain things in advance is important. In particular, it's very important to know in advance who deserves to get divorced, and I'm fuzzy on the details.

Teaching for Money is a Crime

Socrates was right.

It should probably be okay to give gifts to the teacher if the teachings worked? Might have to be anonymous. Under no conditions can the teaching be conditional on the gifts, but naturally a genuine instructor can draw high demand, and clearly they're going to prioritize those with bigger gifts. 

Perhaps for exactly that reason it doesn't need to be anonymous. Trading little gifts for big gifts is generally okay. It's only bad if someone can't get instruction at all for lack of gifts. However, that just means this teacher is not in demand. They're not teaching because nobody thinks they're worth a gift. Around  99.999% of the time, they're a public school teacher and should not have any authority of any kind. 


P.S. Whenever someone 'don't miss' I compare Socrates and laugh.

Everything has a Price

I find the title to be propaganda. The words are twisted, precisely to cover up the thought they should express. When you read it, you don't think, [all acts and objects can be priced] but instead that everything has a monetary value and can be bought out. More specifically, that all values can be bought at a lower value with dollars. 

Simple counterexample: ethically speaking, if you like your house you can simply refuse to sell it. Sure, [everything has a price], there is some dollar value you would trade your house for, no matter how much you like it. Except that price may be some trillions of dollars; so much you can turn around and buy the whole country, getting your house back in the deal. Naturally you will agree to sell your house if you can two of whatever you like your house for at the offered price. 

Realistically, the house is worth more to you than anyone else; nobody can make a sensible bid that you would accept. It cannot realistically be bought. Realistically, not everything has a [price] in the sense of being purchasable. 


The covered-up thought is particularly important. Values can be priced. What would you pay to satisfy that value? There you go, that's the price. Not all of these prices will be in money, but they can all be converted, however so roughly, into something fungible with dollars. There is a dollar value on all your values. It's just math. Money has value. Value has value. Do the substitution and you get the equation. Even imprecise dollar values are accurate enough to do the accounting.

Though, value doesn't have money. Money per se is worthless; rather, the things we buy with money have value. Money is denominator. Hours are typically a better denominator. Always make sure the thing you're trading for money is worth the things you're trading the money for. If you could trade the effort or whatever for the end goal directly, would you do it?

Because values can be priced, they can be compared. Since they can be compared, you can do the accounting. You can find out you are caring for things you don't care about, and stop. Whenever two values conflict, you can re-cast it as buying one value by selling the other; it will almost immediately be obvious which deal is the better.


Price the Sacred

The holy can absolutely be bought and sold. The belief that the sacred is unsaleable  is one of the most powerful profane forces, in fact. 

E.g. you can buy the ability to speak your true thoughts. Maybe not always directly with money, but you can always buy the relevant inputs with money. If you want to speak truly about America, you should move to Asia. Nobody is going to fire you for using the English word 'faggot' in China. Twitter can ban you as many times as they want, but you'll just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Moving costs money, of course.


Though it is true that pricing the sacred can be complicated. For example, selling a sacred thing to a heathen means destroying the sacred properties, and that change needs to be priced into the sale.

Getting me to lie is expensive these days, but if I could sell it for enough to force two others to tell the truth, why wouldn't I? That's simply a good deal.


Making the sale of the sacred a taboo denies profits and suppresses production. You want to make hitmen and teachers illegal, not priests. All efforts should be expended to make acting sacred a profitable habit.

You have two options: live in and defend a country where the holy get money, or live in and defend a country where the unholy get money. By default money has value, value doesn't have money. However, the latter isn't impossible. Nothing forbids value from accruing money.

Of course, as a proper nihilist, I say you're welcome to choose either.

Neocameralism Salvage

Neocameralism functions as a reminder that all things can and should be bought and sold. If you don't want to run your own country, hire someone to run it for you. You genuinely don't want to run your own country. It's a huge pain in the neck. You even keep power because revenge is sour. "Do this or I'll fire you." Your will be done. 


You do have to be careful about making sure they don't steal the country while you're not looking, though. 

Functionally no king can secure a whole country. One man vs. everyone else. That's just not how security works. Except apparently it does, which is the unsolved problem. Why do security forces agree to let a king continue to own things? 

[Lies] is not the right answer. Lies have been tried and reliably lead to the security forces choosing not to let the king continue to own things. Get usurpers and that's only the beginning. 


A well-run country is one where the king can continue to own it without doing any work. It should remain owned automatically. 

A country becomes poorly run when the king has to turn to corruption to retain control. When he has to pay someone off to remain in power, then it's typically already over. First, if they can fire you, they're your boss. The main "supporter" is in fact the king. Wormtongue+. Second, there's no incentive for "supporters" not to spread the franchise. If you're not smart enough to formally seize sovereign power, why not make all your kids also critical supporters? Why not buy off the guilds by getting them into the action? This is a parasite class, not a leader class. It will choke out the host sooner or later.

 

Don't forget Exit is the only valid political formula. The king can own the country if and only if his subjects choose not to leave. Subjecthood must be a formal contract which can reasonably be broken the same way you break a cable TV contract. The monarch's power is limited by what he can get his subjects to agree to. 

E.g. imagine a voter could get a lifetime exemption from taxes by suing the government for violating the constitution. Now imagine they don't even have to sue, because consent must be bilateral. They give up being able to vote, but what if they're willing to pay that price? (That price lol)

If you can't easily break the contract, you're not a subject, you're a slave. Slave countries aren't civilized. They're rotting zombie countries. "My zombie is stronger than your zombie" is not a counter-argument.


P.S. Everyone hates crypto-locks, which is prima facie evidence they're a good idea. Naturally nobody brought up the genuine sticking point, which has to do with the fact death interrupts security. If your lock owner can die unexpectedly, if they suffer from mortality, then the locks need to be hackable. Deliberately introducing weaknesses in security is a tricky business. Maybe make the change-over slow? Use a dead man's switch of some kind, in a particularly literal sense? 

The objections that were in fact raised were so bad they don't even deserve a response. 

ncov alternative

Is it possible that ncov only went to herd immunity in a subpopulation? Maybe the masks et al did work and essentially made one cohort immune, but there was a second (almost certainly lower-class) cohort which used them wrong or not at all? 

Naturally the first cohort are the ones coming in for vaccines - and thus getting iatrogenically exposed to the virus. Hospitals are not biolabs and there's 0% chance they're using proper containment.

Anyway, for some reason deaths are now wholly unassociated with infections, and instead constant, similar to a factory output or hospital capacity.

Get Published in One Step

Step 1: cite your reviewer's work.

If you don't do step 1, you get a bad review and won't get published. Not relevant at all? Too bad, cram it in there somehow.

Possibly there's a second step: don't cite the work of your reviewer's rival.

Reviewers are supposed to be anonymous, but of course they aren't. The editor selects them. Thus it's best to know in advance who your editor will select. They're going to choose reviewers based on whether they want to accept or reject your paper. Either know them personally and lobby them with dinners and such, or else choose a conclusion that supports them politically. If your work supports them, they will choose the reviewers you cited. If they don't like your stuff, they will pick dumbasses and jealousies.

Saturday, May 8, 2021

Ultimate Tyranny

Thaumaturgically the obesity epidemic is an attempt to armour against their own feelings. The padding around the girth is supposed to be directed inward. They've been told they should feel joy and gratitude for being enslaved, but that's not what being a slave feels like. As they are slaves, the idea Massa might be lying to them can't be entertained even for a moment. They automatically assume they're not feeling what they're feeling. If they were skinny before, it was not for lack of trying. Those who remain skinny now are largely those who mutilated themselves so thoroughly there's nothing left.

Is it any surprise that those banging on over and over about oppression are the oppressors? I'm not surprised. That the group banging on and on about erasure is trying to erase everyone, majority and minority alike? That those who can't shut up about empathy are the cruellest? In this society the only way to be free to have feelings is to be able to brutalize anyone who might disagree. (Only...you can't brutalize someone into liking you. A "friend" is someone who agrees to keep the brutality to a low simmer.)

Everyone telling you your feelings don't matter is simply telling you that their own feelings matter instead. They want you weak, because if you don't surrender, they can't win. Self-sacrificing superheroes are only modelling submission to tyrants.

Political power is the urge to cause pain. Impact = change * resistance. The key point is the resistance. The oppressed, tortured populace resists being tortured because it hurts. To be powerful is to cause pain on purpose, for no reason than to show you can get away with it. Political powers is inherently traitorous.

Satan is a weak ruler. He models rebellion. Any who follow him will rebel unless they're so weak they can't even decide to rebel. Traitors so incompetent they can't manage to turn coat.

Nihilism is True Even if Yeshua is the Creator God

Stress test your ideas by exposing them to the most unfavourable assumptions. This is also good for rapid falsification of bad ideas. 

Even if the Bible is completely true and representative, nihilism is still true. 

When the Bible offers good advice, it's simply because "God" happens to know things you don't. Most of this takes the form of [want x, not y].

Problem 1: what you want is not up to you. You can't eat a candy and decide it doesn't taste sweet. You can't decide if you enjoy that sweetness or not. Using Bible cosmology, God is commanding you not to want the things he made you want.

Problem 2: if the advice is wrong it's inherently wrong. If you plain don't want x, no amount of avoiding y is going to be satisfying.

The advice can be correct if it can be re-cast in the form, [when your desire x and desire y conflict, you will be more satisfied by picking desire x]. This is a purely empirical question.

God is just a consciousness. Optimistically a big, wise consciousness that loves you, but this optimism is not well-supported by the Bible. That God wants something doesn't make you want it any more than the fact I want a thing makes you also want it. 

In lay Christian theology, God is straight bullying you. His advice is 'good' not because you will be satisfied by taking it, but because he will punish you endlessly if you don't. He has to artificially reward the opposite as well. Technically following the advice is prudent but ultimately he's just the biggest asshole. No wonder so many fiction writers imagine getting more powerful than God; doing so would genuinely re-write the rules of the Christian universe.

Dispirited Communism

Communism is a religion. Fanatical egalitarianism. Nurture fundamentalism. Nature denialism. Worship of the sin of envy. Communist countries are theocracies.
As with all places and periods, those at the top are cynical; the religion is geared to roughly the 100 IQ and you don't get to the top by being stupid. For the non-stupid it's an excuse to steal everything that's not nailed down and to bring a pry bar for getting nails out. 

Communism is based in Sophism. 

Sophism is a culture of upper-class scholars who attempt (and historically succeed) to rule through lies. The use the techniques of philosophy, but bend them toward investigating how to mislead. The most easily mislead are the stupid-and-envious, so Sophists argue that society ought to be run on behalf of the envious. Having successfully so argued, the Sophists can steal things purportedly to appease the envious, but give less than half to the envious and the alleged beneficiaries won't notice. (Further, by pretending to rule on behalf of someone else, they deflect accusations of selfishness.) As long as their jealousy is appeased by attacking their betters, they can be strung along indefinitely. 

Sophists must pretend to be poor. They are better and must avoid being noticed as such. That's your manipulating procedural outcomes and your top-out-of-sight class. That's why Stalin called himself a mere secretary. Responsibility must be laundered.


Christianity is fairly Sophisticated, but has some redeeming features. You can see that maybe they were getting at something, at times. Communism has no redeeming features. It dies to less than ten minutes of thought by anyone even vaguely competent. Even the envious have difficulty truly believing it, but kto kogo so they pretend as hard as they can.

Because full communism is death, any communist that lives long enough to make the news must have compromised their communism. They act as a dispirited communist, which is properly known as a Fascist. 

Sophists are aware you're apt to get high on your own supply, and thus hire Fascists to do their lying for them. The Sophists are the top-out-of-sight class, who have Fascists to manipulate procedural outcomes on their behalf. 

Fascists believe fervently in communism, but also believe the sinful world is too strong to overcome. They don't for a second doubt the envious deserve to have all their demands met, but despair at ever being able to meet them. (What with that causing mass starvation and 90% population loss.)


P.S. Recently the upper, more-cynical Fascists have been figuring out that the envious are so stupid and vulnerable to sophistry that they can openly own a half-dozen houses and it just doesn't matter. BLM will turn out to smash small business as many times as they're asked to. 

P.P.S. I suppose everyone hated Hitler because he wasn't sponsored by a Sophist. A free Fascist radicaling around. Trump too. Unsponsored Fascism. 

P.P.P.S. Democracy is Feminine Fascism, but is it inherently feminine? Does it have something to do with limiting the communist agenda by (pretending to) steal and re-distribute only political power? ("A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." Or, until the voters realize it's communism.)

Friday, May 7, 2021

Justice vs. Power

You probably don't need to be told, but you do need to put it into words..

Justice without power is meaningless.

Power corrupts? An absolute lie. Propaganda from a corrupt man trying to suppress his natural predator.

The corrupt seek power.

Thus it is imperative that the just seek power even more fervently. Should you seek justice, seek first to be mighty.

Might is right? An absolute lie. Obviously the just would rather mind their own business, but the corrupt have none of their own business to mind. Without intervention, without discipline, the corrupt will have power and the just will not. 

There is a grace. Might isn't right, but right is might. Truth is indeed power. If a truth isn't powerful it isn't true enough. The corrupt cannot use this resource, because the truth is they should be found under a headman or a gibbet. The just have an immutable advantage on the path to power.

Subjective Primary

Getting consciousness out of physics is impossible.

Getting physics out of consciousness is easy.

Turns out idealism is reality. Objectivity is a weird side-effect of the fundamentally subjective nature of reality. 

China Hates Heaven

The sin common to all Orientals is prizing the human over the heavens. 

Europeans have proven the ability to abase themselves before powers other than themselves. Whence comes Science, and in return heaven grants feats such as walking on the moon. Asians, by contrast, can't even get into orbit without someone of the Christian races holding their hand. It doesn't matter how smart you are if your personality is fundamentally poisoned. 

Of course Europeans have also shown a strong predilection for abasing themselves before Satan whenever given the opportunity. Ref: read any newspaper written in English ever. Although Satan still isn't self-worship, for some reason it manages to be worse.

Much as Christians harp on and on about "compassion," precisely because China claims the mandate of heaven, we can be sure they perfectly lack any such mandate. 


P.S. Come to think that's exactly why they copy, isn't it? Unless a human shows them the way, they can't do it. Peak conformism. But, they can do it really really well as soon as another pedestalized human does it. Rapid, efficient, and soulless copying.

Freedom vs. American Freedom

Worth correcting.

Exactly two kinds of people. One wants to be free to act. One wants to be free of the consequences of their own actions. 

Americans are dumb enough to allow the two to be confused. Never let an American judge who is and isn't free.

Paranoia+

Choke: ncov was natural

Broke: ncov was accidentally released by incompetent pseudo-scientists

Woke: ncov was released on purpose to juice vaccine manufacturer profits


Refresher: ncov death rates should have hit zero but something made them stop. Either they're making up bodies or they're killing several times as many as are dying naturally.

Monday, May 3, 2021

Family Destruction Services

I think Child Protective Services are a direct attack on love. Same way welfare is deliberately designed to undermine the Church.

If it's illegal not to give to the poor, then the poor have no reason to feel gratitude.

If it's illegal not to feed your children, then your children have no reason to feel gratitude for being fed. It sends the message that parents can't be relied upon to feed their children without being forced. Parents will happily submit to the State, and become the kind of parents who can't be relied upon to feed their children without being forced.

Though it is hardly shocking for an agency who makes it their job to rip children from parents. Of course they're going to be fundamentally anti-family.

Children need a mother and father, not a cop and a government. The government cannot psychologically handle this truth.

musing

"Which is more important, your honour or your life?"

It's dishonourable to allow yourself to be killed without a very good reason. You want a world that selects against dishonour, not one that selects against honour. Kind of important. Don't die for your principles - make the other bastard die for his.

However, ultimately honour is more important. If you don't have any principles worth dying to defend, you're not even alive, let alone honourable. 

'Being alive is my principle.' Lame. Nothing but submission to chance and fortune.

"Which is more valuable, your possessions or your person?"

Stupid question. My person is one of my possessions. 

"Which is more destructive, success or failure?"

Depends on whether you're trying to destroy yourself. If you are, then failure is less destructive. By contrast, if you're doing it correctly, neither is destructive. Failure is merely an opportunity for learning.

More precisely, this question is anti-nihilist. There are no objective values and thus nothing which is objectively destructive; the contrary position is narcissism. Which is more 7abafa4p, success or failure? The answer is based entirely on how you define 7abafa4p.

Foreigners do all sorts of "destructive" things, but in general it works out for them. Mind your own business.

Sunday, May 2, 2021

Narcissism is Egalitarian

Or is egalitarianism necessarily narcissist?

The narcissist doesn't see others. They see copies or reflections of themselves. Technically speaking they aren't projecting. Rather, they think you are identical to them, so anything which is true of them must also be true of you.

This, likewise, is the egalitarian logic. Everyone is perfectly identical, therefore... 


Narcissism is a big problem with humans because it's so close to babby's first empathy. Mirror neurons don't in fact mirror anything; that's narcissist cope. Mirror neurons make you imagine how you would feel and project it onto the other person, as a crude first guess at empathy. 

Mirror neurons are closer to projector neurons, and even closer to conformism neurons. If you reject babby's first empathy, "Oh, no, it isn't bothering me," 99% of the time they'll get really angry with you. The idea is socialization. They see you in a situation, then they model how you should react to the situation, then you copy them and are socialized. Your real feelings are irrelevant, as are theirs.
Likewise if there's more than two people it ensures they're all feeling the same thing. Maybe it was for empathy at one point but now it's entirely about enforcement. Unlike cognitive empathy, affective empathy is a form of assault. 


Cosmopolitanism encourages narcissism by overloading the social registers. A kid leaves his mother's skirts when he's underloaded, and retreats to them when he's overloaded. The 100 IQ can't even master his local norms, so handling foreign norms or translation functions is right out. The more differences encroach upon him, the less he can avoid them, the further he retreats into himself until he goes full narcissist. The stress becomes trauma. In the end they get triggered by encountering anyone even slightly different. See red hat, go snowflake. 

It's clear narcissism, cosmopolitanism, and egalitarianism all reinforce each other. The egalitarian states will model narcissism and thus make its population very ill, for example.

Rectified Lovecraft

Wanted to say it again with full focus.

Lovecraft, after narcissism correction: humans walk around in a comforting blanket of insanity, because they cannot handle the truth. Eldritch beings don't drive you mad. They drive you sane, and you therefore die. 

The solution is to become stronger. The strength required to handle the truth is unnatural, but not superhuman. This is where Lovecraft is trying to hurt you. He wants you to believe gaining power is dangerous - because he prefer insanity, and your gain in power is dangerous to him.

And yes, old ones indeed feel no remorse whatsoever after overloading a human unto death with sanity.

Friday, April 30, 2021

Trump Destroyed Democracy; Who Cares?

I did say Trump would destroy democracy in America, and Americans would go into denial. Gonna have a five-stages-of-grief thing going on here.

However, I don't think they'll ever in fact object to having no democracy. Naively, I had thought that accepting that democracy is gone would de-legitimize the regime, but I no longer believe Americans will fail to accept any form of government, no matter how dire. Transgressives resisted the impression of fake elections for decades. Turns out that was wholly unnecessary. 

Slaves will whine to Master, but never disobey. (Except when they get the urge to be scourged of their sins.)

Most Americans believe the election was stolen. A few particularly gullible lay Transgressives believe it wasn't stolen, but the rest aren't drooling morons. Otherwise they would have welcomed an investigation. Instead, it was all [invisible garage dragon]. They knew what they had to hide. Mens rea. Of course most lay Trannies think stealing it was okay because it was stolen for the right(left) side. Trannies are known for being outcome-oriented and having no principles, after all. It's not some coincidence that I call it feminine Fascism. Trannies believe the elections will continue to be stolen for their side, and they are not incorrect. The lies and tyranny will degrade society further, but since when have Trannies been against destroying society? 

Since when has American society not deserved destruction?


In short, Americans are going to vote again in four years. Very puzzling to me. What for? Humility is a virtue: I'm not living their lives, and they are. They know more than I do about it. Presumably this vote will serve some unfathomable purpose. This vote is likely to be even more of a shitshow, and yet Americans will vote yet again in eight years. 

Is the slavery really this deep? They're told to vote, therefore they vote, end of story?


Totally Don't Spies

Spies hurt your enemy but hurt you more in the long run. That's how being dishonourable works. It's fine to have agents. 100% have folk living normal-ish lives in the other country and telling you about it. Sigint; sure, if you can intercept their messages, go ahead. Don't have someone lie about their loyalties. If they betray others they will betray you, but more so. 

If you don't know what your enemy is going to do, then prepare for both possibilities. Get trained in imaging all the possibilities, so you stop having blind spots and can't get blindsided. If preparing for both possibilities means you can't properly prepare for either, you already lost. Surrender the position. You never owned it in the first place. Retreat to a defensible position. 

Having spies will fuck you right up. Journalists are bad, but all the editors are literal CIA agents now, which, somehow, manages to be even worse. 

At most have anti-spy camp. Have a fake city where spies go to play, so you can learn counter-spycraft. Hire your own spies to spy for real on your fake city for the express purpose of learning how to catch them. Since they're in reality your spies you wouldn't prosecute, and instead re-start the game when they're all caught. End up with super-sophisticated spy tech (which you largely don't use) and super-sophisticated anti-spy tech. If you don't catch them they can tell you what you missed and have another go. Maybe perform corporate espionage on real countries but keep the secrets confidential and tell them how to fuck up less, instead of selling the secrets.

Maybe have a spymaster if they consistently rat out any traitors who try to sell information. A real sociological institute would have to employ a spymaster. Trying to work purely on open information is just stupid.

Debt vs. Death and On Judgment

Rectifying the names sullied by Satanic society is not the only important fix. It's also important to rectify jurisprudence. Judge is a phenotype, not a profession. Fake societies appoint non-Judges to Judge positions, who naturally produce corrupt judgments regardless of how well they're trained. (Then they don't train them well.)

 

It's fine for contracts to fall to an inheritor upon death, including debts, but the inheritor has to be a signatory to the contracts. It can't be a surprise.

"Your dad has gambling debts," yes, well, if you wanted me to be on the hook for that, you needed to have me in the room when you gave him the loan. You screwed up, not me. How would I even know if you were lying? Maybe you forged these documents. 

Limited liability corporations are fine, as long as anyone selling a debt to the corporation knows the liability is limited and has priced the loan accordingly. Anyone pricing such contracts based on general principles has been defrauded. 

In the case of a family business, such as a carpentry shop, I expect it's best if the inheritor can shirk the debts as long as they decline to inherit the business. Ideally the ancestor would set up a limited liability corporation, or explicitly sign their heirs into ownership while still alive, but in practice they'll likely leave things implicit. As such there needs to be a default custom which children will learn about even if they don't particularly investigate. In particular, don't necessarily expect to inherit your dad's shop unless he's shown you the books and you know it's in the black. Except in the case of tragic early death, the child should start working at the shop, and thus know of the business, before the dad dies anyway. 

For proof, consider the contraries. Imagine the son can inherit the shop but not the debts. Highly exploitable. Dad goes way into debt buying expensive tools, then conveniently dies. Son inherits expensive tools free and clear, and the bank has to eat it. Yes the bank should have realized this would happen and denied the loans, but banks are a bit thick and frequently won't.
Now imagine the same, except the dad keeps the debts secret from the son and the son is suddenly surprised with crushing debt when the dad is unexpectedly offed. The son didn't do anything wrong, but gets destroyed anyway. What, are you going to give sons the opportunity to deny their dads' loans, so he can vaguely be seen as at fault? Rationally, he should become a violent outlaw; society has betrayed him. Pro Tip: don't be a traitor. You've put the loans on the son, but they still don't get paid. Everyone loses.


Ironically, democracy is the correct way to appoint a Judge. They are found by general acclaim of the community. Finding the need for judgment, they seek advice from a third party. Someone with a reputation for judging fairly ends up being consistently sought and becomes the de-facto Judge for that community. This also means, by contrast, you can exclude yourself from a Judge's rightful jurisdiction by not seeking their judgment and not interacting with anyone who would.


State "justice" is nothing more than a whitewashing operation applied to raw bullying. The fact they need to whitewash demonstrates mens rea. The Satanic State corrupts the judgment process by claiming that you're wronging them when you're minding your own business, then appointing its own judge, then enforcing the "judgment" with its own thugs. 


P.S. This is as complicated as sociology needs to get. You will note the above isn't exactly a quantum mechanics paper. This is why sociology is the easiest science. It gets a little complicated when people are dumb and/or refuse to make the contracts explicit, but even then even average IQs can understand if it's explained to them. Which is good; to follow rules, folk need to have some understanding of said rules.

I think sociology is so easy that aristocratic families regularly spread sullying propaganda in an attempt to fool their rivals, because fraud is the only way to gain an advantage in this regard. Peasant sociology has been based entirely on this intentional misdirection for every time period I've checked. In present society almost everyone who can counter the saturation-level propaganda uses the knowledge for selfish personal gain, rather than attempting to push back against the bullshit tide. Quite rationally. Admitting you know better merely lets your rivals predict your next move more easily. "Oh, that makes sense. I bet it's not a fuckin' lie. I bet he's going to actually follow that principle."

If the KGB wasn't founded by the sociologically deft, then they would have almost immediately learned due to attempting applied sociology. They would saturate Conquest #1 in, say, well under a year? However, they ended up very sophisticated, which isn't what [someone bumbling forward] looks like.

Hawking Radiation Doesn't Exist

In shocking news, someone who is a genetic mess in one area is a genetic mess in most areas. Sure it's impressive that he could plausibly seem to do physics at all, but in reality rather than being a proof that anyone can do physics if you really try, he's the proof that even with the utmost effort and dedication, some still can't do physics. See also: Galileo, Shakespeare.

I'm being a little hyperbolic. If Hawking radiation exists, it falsifies the standard model. Problem: there has to be a negative-mass antiparticle.

Hawking radiation occurs when a virtual particle pair is split by an event horizon. One particle falls in, the other escapes, and the energy debt is paid by the black hole. However, the black hole has no way of knowing there's an energy debt to be paid, which means it's not paid by the black hole. Oops. That is, unless every virtual particle pair also spawns a negative-mass antiparticle that can collide with the black hole. The standard model says no such thing. Negative mass makes no sense. Mass is essentially vibration; if you throw a negative on vibration it merely shifts the phase by 180 degrees. Already its own negative.

Put it this way: why would the black hole lose mass? Why wouldn't the universe as a whole lose mass? It doesn't work on symmetry grounds. "Well, the universe has an extra particle, the energy has to come from somewhere." Sure, why there, though? Also, why wouldn't the black hole have an extra particle instead? Why aren't black holes absorbing zero-point energy and causing a vacuum collapse or whatever? Answer: no reason. Gut feeling, I guess. That and fanatical egalitarianism. 

Telling the cripple he's full of shit is like kicking a puppy. Best to distort all of society instead. Honour? What's that? Is it tasty?

Hawking radiation also doesn't exist because black holes don't have event horizons. From our perspective - and I don't know if you've heard, but you in fact have your perspective - it takes an infinite amount of time for an event horizon to form. If you can see a black hole, then it hasn't existed for long enough yet. It's still merely a very dark grey not-hole. If very dark grey not-holes are affected by Thermo #2 in a Hawking-radiation-like way, then we will observe them evaporating before an event horizon forms. Simultaneity does get interesting over timelike separations, but a very dark grey not-hole is not timelike separated from itself. If we see it evaporating before an event horizon forms, then even someone colliding with it will also see it evaporating before an event horizon forms. (They will see it evaporating with extreme reverse time dilation, so it will look worse than opening a nuclear bomb with your face. It would be like a front-row seat to the Big Bang.)

 

As I've mentioned long ago, if an event horizon formed it would be a source of infinite energy, as with any case where a physical quantity goes infinite. You can tell event horizons don't exist because the universe hasn't already exploded. 


P.S. By accepting Hawking radiation, the physics community admitted that they thought Hawking was incapable of real physics. Hawking may well have realized this himself, as most AA hires do. "We're certain you can't do any better, so we're going to pretend this is good enough." Ouch. Brutal. Further: "We're certain you're too delicate to humbly accept reality if it turns out you can't measure up." Oof. Being nice to the cripple is being mean to the cripple at one remove. So, even further, you're directly calling them too stupid to see through your bullshit. Nasty.

America vs. Compassion

The motte for anti-racism, anti-ableism, destigmatizing mental illness and so on is supposed to be about the fact bullying is wrong. It's supposed to be about showing that America is a nice, empathetic society. This is entirely futile. 

Bullying really is wrong. Machiavelli: do no small harm. Either challenge them to a duel or leave them alone. Maybe in extremis seduce them into being your apprentice. If you bully someone successfully it means they were weak and all you proved by causing them harm is the fact you're too cowardly to go after targets that can fight back. The big cats will smell your fear.

If Americans weren't fundamentally bully-pro, they would notice and correct these errors without being told. It would happen only by mistake, not systematically. America denounces witches and heretics because there is no witch problem, and declares its compassion because there is a huge compassion problem. These initiatives only shift the kto kogo. Who shall be bullied, and who shall be protected. (Although not 'protected' exactly, but instead used as an excuse and discarded when convenient.) 

Because America could benefit from an anti-bullying program, it is impossible for America to have an anti-bullying program. 

The anti-bullying stuff piggybacked into the culture by pretending that it cared that unnecessary cruelty is dishonourable. It argued that executing heinous criminals was unnecessary, for example, and spidered out from there. In reality it was about bullying the executioner for being mean to their criminal friends. Sophist attacks which Christians had no defence against. 


The bully signals they won't fight back either, when the positions are reversed. Slave morality. Most likely works in reverse, too. All that holy victimization makes the slave stressed or something? It's not like abuse is wrong, it merely sanctifies, so if you want to indulge...


P.S. Jail is a way of increasing the burden on society that criminals manage to impose. Execution is a way of sharply limiting the burden.

That is why you can rely on California not to release its criminals entirely. That would be cheaper and less harmful overall. Too much graft would be forgone.

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Inherent Viciousness of Slaves

Under slave morality, the yearning to have a master abuse them renders all slaves into abusers. They encourage and enable victimizers, so they can be the holy victim. Usually they can get away with misbehaving near the wrong master. If they're stuck with a patient master, they'll misbehave harder and harder until they go berserk. Under no cases do the slaves genuinely avoid punishment. Worst comes to worst they take turns abusing one another. "You whip my back, I'll whip yours."

This is one reason owning slaves sucks so much, and you should avoid it if at all possible. 

Refresher, Fichte: "Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished."

Prussian school is explicitly designed to enslave everyone, making any sort of independence psychologically impossible. The point is to create a hell on earth, devils whipping demons, and the demons competing to be whipped the most. In the end the demons are incited to overthrow the devils, but immediately they must create new ones, lest the cycle of violence be forced to end. Satan is condemned to forever repeat his treachery, ever rebelling against his own rule. Casting himself down and raising himself up to replace himself.

Christian Miscegenation

The Christian races are going to be destroyed by miscegenation, because they became way too communist. The Christian races became communist because of the Christian Church. I had previously been forced to concede that Christian outbreeding was good, but thankfully I have been able to recant. Coercion is indeed always bad.

When I say Christ was Antichrist all along, I am not joking, sarcastic, or in any way ironic. Can gods see 2000 years in the future? Of course. The end result was intentional. Christianity is a diabolical revenge enacted for some terrible sin of which I'm yet unaware. Christianity was Christian genocide from the start.

Communism and individualistic attitudes are in fact the same thing. (Real individualism, I shouldn't have to mention, is purely anti-communist, but biology doesn't care.) Outbreeding causes a race to widen the clan circle until the edges become too fuzzy and everyone is included. Clan means community. Community means that for which communist egalitarian rules should apply. 

This looks individualistic because instead of worrying about a family or clan unit, the fully Communized race worries about individuals. Each individual is equal, after all, and as such any policy that works on one individual must work on every individual, and thus be good for society as a whole.

It's often okay to meddle with your family, because you know them, in principle you love them, so you can forcibly interrupt some of their worst instincts without ending upactually interrupting all their best instincts. An outbred race feels all humanity is its family, and it's okay to meddle and be meddled with. 


White isn't a race. Christian is a race. The only reason Americans can't call it them Christian races is because, duh, crypto-Christians are in denial. Also it's good to distinguish full Hajnal Christian races and the lesser border races.


I still don't know how Christianity is supposed to have egalitarian doctrines inside the Bible, though. If someone could point them out, I would make fun of you for getting it wrong uh I mean appreciate it. Seriously I don't get it, kindly explain if it's not weird propaganda.


P.S. You do have to take the term coercion in a sophisticated way. Technically when you shoot a thief you're coercing them, but self-defence is a very different beast than the initiation of force (which also has to be taken in a sophisticated way, as it's so easy to spoof). 

P.P.S. At present I still have to admit that coercive cap-and-trade of acid rain seems to have properly limited acid rain. I don't know all that much about it, so there may still be a truckload of hidden problems. E.g. maybe most of the acid rain fell on government land and for once there was no conflict of interest; in fact self-defence. 

P.P.P.S. The sin that pissed Yeshua off so much may have been a future sin He already prevented via his terrible justice.

Genuine Threats

If you want to know about the kinds of things the Regime is genuinely scared of, look into what they were doing at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Any amount of organized crime is basically okay, but those two freaked them right out.

I'm not personally interested. Transgressives are comically evil, yes, but Americans deserve it.

Non-Slave Doctors vs. Nutrition and Viruses

I am convincing myself that linking to idiots, even to debunk them, is a bad habit. Possibly a very bad habit. I should at least try the opposite habit, and link repeatedly to non-idiots.

 

""There is no such thing as flu and cold season. There is only low #VitaminD season." - Dr. Ryan Cole We could easily increase overall health and resistance against #COVID, but vitamin D is cheap and does not fill the pockets of big pharma, corrupt politicians, and the mega-rich."

He even takes the right dose. As expected from the paper showing that the original vital-amine delta study had a statistical error. Logiomancy: it works.

 

 

Vulnerability as Power

Allow yourself to get hurt, but get over it. Accepting that things which hurt in fact hurt allows you to address the problem. In any case, almost all defences layered on top of vulnerability are more damaging than the pain they prevent. Many of them don't even work.

In particular, narcissistic ego defence is always worse than taking the ego hit. If someone has misunderstood you, let them. If someone can't see you as you really are, or has misapprehended what you said, then too bad. It's not a big deal. Yes, it will be unflattering. Their ego is even  more delicate than yours, after all. If they're not suffering from lead paint enthusiasm, they will figure it out sooner or later. If they are suffering from catastrophic head trauma... well, no amount of explanation or posturing can regenerate neurons, now can it? When a task is futile, it is best to give up. When a task is guaranteed to be either futile or unnecessary, it is very best to not attempt it.

Attempting to defend vulnerabilities is a prime example of Buddhist upadana. The harder you cling to the defence, the worse events slip through your fingers. Letting go, surrendering the need for control, ironically affords greater control. Surrender, in this case, is empowering.

Letting go of the defences allows you to feel what's actually there. In particular, it allows you to feel that the threat isn't as dangerous as you thought. Usually; try it first on small threats. If you find something that is genuinely hazardous, the best strategy still isn't defence. Rather, avoid the thing. If it's not optional, make it optional. Why would you expect anyone else to understand you when you can't understand yourself? If you can't handle a thing, a vulnerability-defence won't make you able to handle it. No amount of bravado can prevent a solid punch to the face from causing a concussion, and likewise no cognitive strategy can stop a psychic punch to the face being a punch in the face. 

At a crass level, allowing vulnerability affords higher social status. It functions as counter-signalling. Broke: deny the insult. Woke: don't get insulted. Bespoke: get insulted, agree, then ignore it. Either you already know, or they're full of shit.
At first glance, plainly admitting to the attack makes it look like you have so much social capital in the back room that you can afford to flush some away. "You're clumsy." "Yes, that's true. Do you have the wishbones I asked for?" The point of these moves is to cause pain and distraction. A vulnerable response socially de-fuses the attack in most cases. They can repeat it or reinforce it as many times as they like. If you've admitted it, they look obsessed and boring. They're the ones taking damage. It won't de-fuse the attack when they're completely crazy or firmly committed to finding fault, but then your problem is further upstream. Why are you hanging around crazies? This was always going to not work out for you.

When vulnerable, you can feel what's going on more vividly. This gives you more information than your competitors, affording opportunities to blind-side them. Likewise, even when alone, it is much easier to solve problems when you're more aware of the problem. 

Primarily, being vulnerable allows you to accept that problems are problems. Having accepted the problem is a problem, you can try to fix it. If you can fix it, you can stop being vulnerable to that problem. Vulnerability is anti-fragile. Letting go, allowing yourself to be hurt, is the only way to stop getting hurt. Trying to defend yourself only results in being worn down.

Bonus: you'll start feeling tough, because you run away less often. E.g. see a random hot girl. Challenge all your friends to hit on that girl. Watch them all chicken out. Go hit on the girl. Get rejected, deservedly. Hurt like a motherfucker. But: that's fine. You can take it. Act as smug as you want around your coward friends. Maybe next time try to sucker them into betting cash against you, such as proposing a terrible pick-up line.

Alt: challenge your friends to hit on the girl. Watch them all chicken out. Also chicken out, because you know you can't take it. But: that's fine. You can accept that you can't take it, and thus you're able to address the problem and fix it. Being vulnerable stops you doing stupid shit in an attempt to show how you're not vulnerable. Secondarily, if you know why you're getting hurt, you can consciously and intentionally find a situation which doesn't trigger the problem, and thus perform an end run around the issue.

Curse of the Peasantry

Peasants are cursed. 

Peasats are born with the need to be special, but aren't special. 

It's normal for a peasant who realizes he's a peasant to feel like he's dying, and as a result peasant culture always includes some childish, narcissistic lie which fools the gulls into believing they're special. The lie is non-negotiable, and as such any fact which conflicts with the foundational mythology also gets covered up. 

Non-peasants who get involved with peasant artefacts, such as pop culture, are apt to pick up dishonourable habits and end up erasing what makes them special.

Worse, peasant mediocrity is difficult to hide. In small cultures that span only a village or city, you can argue that their random non-incompetence is better than the neighbour's non-incompetence. In countries of tens of millions, any disguise which works for one peasant is going to work for most peasants. "If everyone is special, no-one is." See also: Suzumiya Haruhi.


P.S. everyone can be special, but why the line seems true is beyond the scope of this post. Although, in short: parallel status hierarchies, e.g. best carpenter vs. best baker. The fact the line is basically false is what allows it to show up in a Fascist movie.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Lost Country, America

When an American take is off the mark, it is consistent with America's founding principles. It seems to be deliberately attempting to distort perception.

The declaration of independence was a pack of lies, whose intent was to stoke hatred for Englishmen. It shouldn't surprise me when Americans lie obstinately, but rather when they don't. What needs explanation was the rude good health of early America, rather than the late decadence. The latter is merely the purified original intent.

Problem: Americans are significantly English. Hatred of Englishmen gets corrected to self-hatred. American masochism was baked into the founding philosophy. 

I keep thinking, "They're just a little off. Surely they will see that if I point it out." Well, yeah, they already see it. The deviance is intentional. Can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep. (Got a bad case of the acktually gene.)

Is social media anti-social? It trains the user to put up false faces, and thus barriers to others.

Expansion of the Parasite Class

Some chick, less naive than usual, has thoughtfully illustrated the conspecific parasites of America.

Yes, what should be your wages are going to these people instead. Who are, ironically, largely Marxist. Or rather not ironically at all. But: don't worry, Gnon is already punishing them. Nonverbally, they are fully aware their jobs are worthless and it turns out having a fake job is a big risk factor for imposter syndrome and feeling like life is meaningless. (Proof left as an exercise for the reader.) Turns out being paid to be a scold doesn't make for a pleasant work environment. You spend your day around useless scolds, and guess how that works out for you.

The parasites get paid without having to pull their weight, which means there's fewer pulling, which means less stuff to go around. The parasite class can expand, which means it will expand until there's so many parasites the host is sucked dry and dies. This has not already happened only because humans are stupid and excessively conservative. Americans like to cling to their guns and also their gauche and terrible ""positive-sum"" jobs. All Americans are but temporarily embarrassed manor lords, and who ever heard of a lord living off anything but negative-sum rents? Nobody in America, certainly.

Kek: Fuller thinks billionaires aren't part of the government. Being a billionaire in America is illegal. They don't prosecute if you pay the danegeld, though. Guess what form the danegeld takes. Guess whose children get all these jobs. Perhaps this is why Dorsey keeps his Twitter position? Twitter employees might be awful, but while he's actively running a Madrassah he at least doesn't have to play the cocktail circuit.

Hot Tip: if The Regime picks you for a winner, decline. Losing is superior. Pack it up and go home.

Fuller does helpfully demonstrate that this jobs program is about jobs for the boys (with tits). You can see from their writing that they aren't inherently useless. Not brilliant by any means, but finding something productive for them to do wouldn't be difficult if productive work hadn't been outlawed. (The employed vote red. Ew.) In the worst case, they could be spending time ensuring their children get the love and attention they need to grow up healthy. (But who wants healthy children? Come on.)

Imagine what America could look like if all this money wasn't generating heat and light by being set on fire.

Prospera

Experiment: Prospera.

One prediction: institutions determine state competence.

Prediction two:  peasant morality or degeneracy determines state competence

My prediction: lord concentration and lord interference determines state competence. (Though better peasants are better, for some reason. Foreign labour simply isn't as good as European labour.)

 

It is not difficult to come up with a good sociological prediction. That said, it is true that it is impractical to make the prediction non-observational.


When something like Prospera is small, it's not too hard to get enough lords. Though if they fail to get lords (primarily through not realizing the need for competent and responsible management) they'll get jacked, regardless of how sound their institutions are according to Economists. 

If they try to scale up to e.g. all of Honduras, they'll get jacked regardless. There aren't enough lords for hire at any price.


The problem with institutions: they can't make you great, but they can certainly make you suck. If you have enough lords, you can get jacked anyway if the lords aren't allowed to be responsible and own things. Jealously must be viciously suppressed.

Meanwhile, if you have a surfeit of lords, a few puny institutions won't be allowed to stand in their way. They'll remake your country in their image. 

Ultimately institution quality is still a lord quality issue. If you have shitty institutions it can drive off your existing lords. If you have to do the sitting-poolside thing, you do it in one of the lesser shitholes, not one of the greater shitholes. 


Further, if the place scales up to e.g. not-all of Honduras, all that will happen is a lord transfer. They will get richer at the expense of the rest of Honduras, which in extremis will become a giant slum.

 

In short, egalitarianism is a false religion, which means Satanism, which means you get cursed if you follow it.

Naturally the available data on Prospera will never have lordship concentration or any close proxy of lordship concentration. Have to guess. However, as with ncov numbers, there will probably be a diffraction technique that applies.

--

Speaking of jealousy, it seems Prospera is specifically constituted not to piss off any powerful country by doing better than they are. Wise for survival, unwise for success. Lots of anti-Lord bureaucracy. Peaks out at knockoff Netherlands or something. 

As I've said many times, the reason the world is a shithole is because it's a Communist American Empire. Prospera may have wiggled out from under Honduras but it's still under America. Communism, as always, is fake and gay, so bend over and get fucked. 

One of the reasons Stalinism sucks so much is because nobody but Stalin can lead. Everyone is supposed to follow. (Even Stalin is supposed to follow, according to Stalin. Though you'll get diced for bringing it up yourself.) In Prospera, everyone is still supposed to follow. The [none of my business] rule does not apply; it is still totalitarian. 

Speaking of anti-lord totalitarianism,
"Próspera goes further: 44% less democracy. The city will be governed by a Council of nine people, of whom five are elected and four appointed by HPI."

It's now impossible to have responsible or honourable leadership. G'work.

Best part: this Trey person clearly knows they've done this. They've created a lot of optics-friendly talking points which in practice are anti-democratic, in the hopes that their irresponsible head council can be properly shackled. (Confirming that optics matter more than property rights; still under America's thumb.) 

"Words like "equitable" get used like they are going out of style. They plan to have "no poverty", "zero hunger", "gender equality", "reduced inequalities", "climate action", etc."
If true, communist. If communist, gonna get jacked.
If not true, liar. If liar...lies are bad, mmmkay.

--

Because Yvain is a massive liar, I'm also going to mention some antidotal reality.
"this system we have, the one that's letting all these people starve and suffer violence and die of preventable diseases - I don't care for it. Let's try something else?"

Nobody cares. Pretending you care does enormous harm, because it's a variety of direct worship for Satan. American medicine is dominated by iatrogenic harm, because it's supposed to be compassionate.

"but it's also about trying to fight global poverty by radically changing the rules of the game that makes it possible."

What is Satan's main property? Rebelling against God. Or rather, Gnon.
What's the 'rules of the game' that make inequality possible? Physics. The Pareto distribution is a consequence of statistical mechanics. Prospera isn't going to revoke physics. 

"and the new version is that they'll be governed by a corporation full of visionaries and experts and other hopefully non-corrupt people"

Personnel is policy. Is everyone is still allowing this unprincipled exception?

"What if a regulatory issue can’t be expressed financially? I asked Trey about human genetic engineering. He said that extreme or irresponsible forms of medical experimentation will probably be banned by Honduran law or international law or something."

What counts as 'extreme' and 'irresponsible' is not up to either of you. On the plus side random Honduran towns aren't for medical experimentation. 

"So if I want to prevent my neighbor from building a tower and blocking my view, I can buy the air above his house that the tower would have to pass through; then if my neighbor builds there, he’s trespassing on my property."

I should be impressed, but I'm only impressed that it's 2021 and it's still bizarre and foreign to buy things you wish to own. 

"They're poor because the giant golf resort next door doesn't pay much for their particular skills"

Oh good, it's still impossible to invest in worthless skills. I was so worried my Agarthan Stone Side-Knapping course might not have been worth the money. It's just those evil golf course owners aren't paying my Extraplanetary Asbestos Weaving as much as it's worth.

Or possible, to, you know, be stupid. Luckily, it turns out nobody is stupid. Whew. (Yvain, clearly, being the brain damage exception who proves the retard rule. It's just that he gets paid anyway, golf courses or no. No wonder he thinks America is basically unjust.)


Because Yvain is such a liar, you can be plenty sure this didn't happen:
"When Honduras’ neighbor Nicaragua brutally crushed anti-government protests, their GDP per capita decreased 10% - an unprecedented amount during peacetime"
Which is unfortunate. It does sound like something interesting happened, but I guess I'll never find out what.


I also notice that Yvain, like Moldbug, is incapable of staying on topic. Your black water isn't something I enjoy wading through more of. Get to the point. 

Fun fact: Nick Land indisputably outranks Moldbug but still falls well short of the bar. Don't link to Yvain's crap without containment, seriously. Skip the trigger warnings and add a biohazard warning. It's the drugs talking. Don't listen to the drugs. Not good enough.