Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Moldbug Errors 3

The only right is the property right.

Moldbug is a leftist: he's writing in an attempt to seize something that isn't already his, via trickery. He contradicts himself thaumaturgically, which is why he contradicts himself in detail all the time.

"Or we could scale this attitude back a little. Rather than considering the 20th century and all its works as an abomination, a scar upon history, one vast sin whose penance will still be sending us bills in the 2200s, we could take it as—a normal part of history."

"They have dedicated their lives to the state security of one of the most inept, clumsy and callous regimes in history."

Look guys, having no idea what you yourself are thinking is what it means to be "married to reason."

Proof by contradiction: if Moldbug already owned the thing he wants to own, he wouldn't need to write long screeds about how it should dance. He would issue an order, and then it would be done. E.g. Urbit. He didn't need to write elaborate articles describing how Urbit should be coded. He could just code it. 

The world is surprisingly just. E.g. husbands and wives deserve each other 99% of the time. Further, Conquest #1 runs both forward and in reverse; that about which you are most conservative (right wing, property rights), in other words that which you know best, will tend to become your job.

Moldbug has to try to seize control of [whatever it is] precisely because he doesn't know much about it. He deserves not to be in control of it. 

In almost all cases blog-existence is the photo negative of the blogs that should exist. Moldbug knows a great deal about coding that I don't know, and if he were writing about that I would have to sit down and shut up. He is therefore, naturally, as a pure inevitability, writing about something else entirely. 

Secondary proof: what it is, exactly, that Moldbug is trying to control? Thing is, if you could easily tell, the mark might reinforce their walls, so...

As such: when someone doesn't take their own ideas seriously, you probably shouldn't take them seriously either.

Of course if you've been doing your set 2s, you can feel this maybe 2-3 paragraphs into a Moldbug screed. The difference between descriptive and proscriptive is not subtle. I'm not satisfied with pure set 2s, however. I insist on converting into a set 1 as well. This has many virtues, such as allowing one to climb the inferential ladder. Since this level is now verbalized, I can use intuition on the next level up. Et cetera.

I hypothesize that while it's possible to transcend one's race, Moldbug hasn't. The Gyews are beloved by deviant rulers everywhere for their tendency to carry water for the regime. You want a lawyer to tell you how to legally do what you were going to do anyway, and you especially want a Gyewish lawyer for that. 

Limited Fisking Section:

"If he is dreaming of rebellion, he is not dreaming of an inglorious and brutal shitshow. If he is dreaming of loyalty, he is not dreaming of an eternal and servile tyranny."

Both should submit to a Lord. Submit either to a collaborative Lord or a rebellious Lord. We can forgive the peasant who claims they chose the best Lord they could find. I do not forgive the peasant who claims to have no Lord.

If you insist on dreaming independently, then you take on the responsibility of being judged as Lord. And, obviously, found wanting.

BTW it's obvious Siskind does not believe in Bayes' theorem. It's plumage. Treating it as a genuine theory instead of plumage is autistic.
Only I'm allowed to be autistic, for what I hope are obvious reasons. 

"This is indeed the act of a child; my children will decide they dislike the title of a movie, then, if begged to give it a chance, grimly and resolutely hate it. "

Fun fact: children have a set novelty quota. They will run away from their mothers' skirts when they're behind, and watch hundred and hundreds of reruns when it's full. 99% of the time when you want your child to try a new food/movie and they don't want to, all you need to do is wait for them to catch up on their novelty processing. Sadly, parents aren't known for the patience this requires.

When the child (*GASP*) dislikes the movie recommended by the parent, the parent is a victim, and complains on their blog. Clearly, the child must be the victim, and the parent the victor, or everything is wrong with the world. So unjust.

The child's novelty quota comes from having to process and understand the novelty. To see how it relates to the rest of the world, to the child itself, etc. "Hating" a movie "resolutely" is only rational. It will only clog their processing pipeline. Although I cling to hope that in years past parents had some modicum of respect for the child's lived experience, it is easy to argue that the latest moment for any such event was over 10,000 years ago.

Hunter tribes beat their wives, showing they have no qualms about "domestic violence." (See also: red pill.) They do not beat their children. They recognize it as an unnecessary and cowardly act.

In reality children do come with an instruction manual. It's written on their heart, so you need some empathy to read it. Thus we are enlightened: of course good parents are essentially nonexistent. Children aren't people for goodness' sakes! People have feelings. Children don't, silly!

I see what I did wrong. Turns out correlation really isn't causation. The alcohol is taken to balm the wounded soul, which recognizes it has betrayed its own flesh and blood.
"The #1 way to humiliate yourself is to cooperate with power against your old friends. After you’ve done this you can never have any self-respect again: full Judas."

"(what does it say about Republicans that their last two presidents were nondrinkers?)"
It says they're outgroup. Ooka ooka, monkey. We can all agree to eat them first, I guess.
Your principle is: don't get my balls kicked. You can't even imagine what the ancients meant by respect for a principled man. 

"it would mean there was one Party, which had one neck. If there is any lesson American communism has learned, it is the power of decentralization. We won’t be seeing any more Bridgman Conventions."

"Those were dogs on a leash. They could be turned on and off in one Zoom call."

The best part is these two sentences are two paragraphs away from each other. 

Don't be like Moldbug: do your set 4s.


Alrenous said...

One day, I turned on my judgment of character module. It told me everyone was a shitbag.

I thought, "That can't be right. They can't all be useless." Surely it couldn't possibly be as bad as all that. I decided to extend the benefit of the doubt. I must have missed something important.

I was wrong. It was as bad as all that.

Parisian said...

So this is where you find yourself right now, implying permanently there, and have been for some time. (If this is meant to be taken literally.)

Nick: "These is nothing more absurd than a philosopher who wants to be liked".

You: "Actively trying to be more disliked isn't a bad first-pass algorithm."

Me: "Okay, you've convinced me. I should have remembered you'd said that. You will now feel complimented or flattered only if I dislike you, and you seem to indicate that that's all you want (not just from me), so...

Plagiarism: "...Gnon will affectionately grant [your] request." (Or you think he will.)

So my interest in Mycaenean kylixes and Minoan stirrup jars are just as excluded from civilization as are Stradivarii and Steinways, even though the former missed by only 7000 years and the latter by some 9800 years.

Again, apologies if this comment was not meant literally, or wasn't exhaustive enough--since saints are at least 'decent people' and the rest of us are 'trash'.

The "One day..." was good, could be marked legendaire if it was in another form (I dare not be specific about that.) I'm not sure it needed a comma after it, though. "Gyewish lawyer" is quite witty.

The question would, therefore, be "Is it permitted that I am capable of disagreeing with the assessment that "everyone is a shitbag", with "everyone" definitely meaning 100%? At least since c. 7,880 years ago." Or is it literally impossible? If so, is that because I have no choice but to accept that it is impossible?

There are a couple of other things, but I won't specify those either, since I don't want to do them, and if I was explicit, I would probably reconsider them and maybe even do them. I am determined not to.

I think I recall that Leonardo said that "most humans were dung factories", but he did not say "everyone", nor did he say he had no rectum himself. At 24, he was charged with 4 others with sodomy, but one of them was Medici, so they got off. Therefore, he had at least a passing familiarity with shitbags, one might say.

Parisian: "Yes, but from a great distance which will automatically be observed indefinitely".

Kgaard said...

Hi Alrenous ... I think I used to chat with you at Nick Land's blog years ago. I signed up for Moldbug's substack a couple months ago and have been reading with reasonable diligence. I have also read several hit-pieces on Moldbug and ... I admit I never quite understand their argument. As in this case.

Yes Moldbug is annoying ... yes it sure sounds like he wants us to just bend over and take our enslavement without complaining.

But what I always see when I read him is, "He's not actually wrong on this." For instance, his recent piece on the theme of "The bums always lose." That was pretty insightful. And during the Interregnum between Nov 6 and Jan 20 he was pretty much spot on in predicting how that was all gonna play out. Anyway ...

Alrenous said...

The bums don't win because they're not for real.

By focusing you on this question, Moldbug has drawn the curtain around another, rather more important question: the knights will also lose, because they also aren't for real. They pretend slightly better, so it takes longer.

Alrenous said...

I got distracted too.

Hey, are you a bum, or a knight?

Kgaard said...

Well I kind of think Moldbug's point is that bums = knights and knights = bums. It doesn't matter how noble your intentions are. If you don't have a plan to psychopathically take, hold and increase power, you are effectively a bum.

That's what we saw in the Trump election fiasco. Mitch McConnell = warrior, Rudy Giuliani = bum.

Simply as a diagnostician I find Moldbug hard to top ...

Alrenous said...

Unless you've seized a contingent of knights or bums, it's none of your business. Moldbug doesn't take a none-of-your-business tone. Nor is he putting forth a plan to seize said least not explicitly. QED.

Moldbug doesn't even put up the fig leaf: "Some of my best friends are bums."
For the record: the two most decent folk I know of are bums. One literally homeless, and probably an alcoholic. Maybe one day a journalist, academic, or politician will find God for real, and manage to live up to the standard set by that jobless leech I met.

You're doing the Fascist victim-or-victor thing, which means you've been mindslaved. Are undersea plants bums? Are rocks bums? Is the moon a bum? None of them are psychos, so...

Alrenous said...

"Everyone is equal, except kulaks."
"Everyone is equal, except Gyews."

"Everyone is equal, except victors."

Clearly, to be right wing, we need to invert stupidity, right?

"Everyone is equal, except victims."

That's totes how it works.

Parisian said...

Maybe one day a journalist, academic, or politician will find God for real,

Is that a figure of speech, or had the bum literally 'found God'? if not, then why do you find him 'decent'?

Anonymous said...

Have you seen Norman Yarvin's website?

After I read his site he quickly became my favored Yarvin brother.

Alrenous said...

I don't believe the bum had found God.

I mean a journalist would have to suffer quite the conversion to even approach the decency of a stupid, drug-addled, useless layabout.

Parisian said...

Well, at least he fits your pre-requisite "uselessness" for "shitbag". If everyone is a "useless shitbag", it's hard to comprehend why you'd think they were even worth so much critiquing, polemicizing, since you are sure "everything is over" (or at least "America is over" and the rest is just "sub-America". I don't know some of how you really feel about these things, and how much of it is just "the day's hyperbole", but I cannot see that 10000 years ago things were civilized. I was never beaten by my parents. Were you?

Parisian said...

Okay, I won't like you if that's what you prefer, but I have now taken some time to review some of your responses here, and they are incredibly fucking funny. But you have no right (as I most certainly have) to use imperious wit, do you, as a saint? Oh yeah, the only right is property, but sometimes property is offered me, and I experience oneness in a way that no one has ever thought to before, because I didn't coerce, only can get Nirvana without being a saint and all its voluntary self-punishments. So you do have the right to wit and humour, and you can therefore do it with all the intrusive abandon you want.

C'mon man, you're too good to be a fucking saint. I mean, all those non-psycho undersea plants that 'aren't bums'...Hell, that's downright Edwardian.

Anonymous said...

> "Those were dogs on a leash. They
> could be turned on and off in one
> Zoom call."

Coming to the conclusion that, there was not a pope before 2020 election, but there is definitely one now.

It's probably a rich man, not a Pope - but not 100% on this one.

Alrenous said...

"The question for now is who is really in charge? The Praetorian Guard were visible for all to see, even if their role was not always clear. Our shadow government operates outside public view. Wall Street and Silicon Valley provide the money, for sure, but who is the hub of this wheel of intrigue? Who is running this conspiracy of shadows? Biden’s sad performance is putting that question in everyone’s mind now."

Obama wasn't really POTUS either, if President is someone who rules.

How about Clinton? Nope.

-Maybe- FDR. Maybe.

George Washington? Nope.