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.


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.

Monday, April 26, 2021

School is Torture, Supervision Edition

You get it already, but it's worth repeating so I'ma beat that dead horse.

Children need time both unsupervised and supervised. 

1/30th of a supervisor is not enough. You cannot socialize anyone with 1/30th of your attention, and if the "teacher" has any further tasks it's even further diluted. Instead they can only apply extremely crude, and thus extremely strict and de-personalized rules. Concentration camp guard rules. Antisocialization.

Schooling has military-style spirit-breaking built into the very foundations. It has absolutely nothing to do with curiosity or true scholarship.

Sunday, April 25, 2021

Politics and Jung's Shadow

I forget who first gave the idea that politics and politicians get watched mainly for pointers on lying and manipulation. I've concluded in favour of the idea. Refresher: this includes academics, journalists, teachers, and actors.

The subconscious has to get you home alive. It doesn't have time for bullshit. The subconscious allows watching election debates as a way of learning how to bullshit better. The liar championship is handed out legitimately. Voters love a virtuoso lying performance. They take away a renewed desire and inspiration to deceive and manipulate those close to them.

On an unrelated note, moderns have serious issues maintaining long-term relationships, romantic or otherwise.

Examples of Fascism #4

Had some examples of Fascism diagnostic #4 knocking around in my head, and now you get to hear about them. Aren't you lucky.

The Enemy is comically strong: if we don't immediately arrest the white guy who dropped a sequence of letters arranged into an n-bomb, it will set back anti-racism by 100 years. They'll be lynching innocent ninjas in the street by next week.

The Enemy is pathetically weak: we can end Global Warming if we like enough mean tweets about oil and coal companies.

Class Commentary Commentary Commentary

When speaking of a topic broached by Yvain, it is fitting to steelman some ideas.

"They mostly just throw parties - but not interesting parties, because that would imply they have something to prove, which they don't."

"but not awesome mansions they designed themselves with some kind of amazing gaming room or something, because that would imply they have something to prove, which they don't."

"because eating good food would imply these people have something to prove, which they don't."

"The true upper classes don't care for it, because getting an education would imply they have something to prove, which they don't"

"the upper class doesn't worry about status because that would imply they have something to prove, which they don't."

Good joke, yes? 

Naively, upper class habits should be better than lower class habits. It turns out this is largely the case, except: 

How would you truly behave if you didn't have to prove that you have nothing to prove? 

They might be better habits but that doesn't mean they're good habits. I would throw the most interesting parties I could think up, for example. I would be happy with half a dozen doctorates as long as I didn't have to go anywhere near a university. I regret having no time to study geology. I already eat in the same way I would eat were I the crustiest crust. It's not bland, it's comically delicious. Makes a mockery of its competitors. If being upper class means giving these things up, I'ma go ahead and notice that being upper class is too expensive. Negative ROI, haha oops. 

"He says...a lot of things, really. Sometimes it's hard to know whether to take him seriously."

The point of thinking about class: to recognize when you're making a sacrifice for your class, and then stop. Especially with the rigid caste-like American system, which can detect poseurs at 100 paces. You're not moving up regardless of what you do, so chill. Upadana is a bad habit, and you can just stop. Build a house that's comfortable and not pointlessly expensive, which is a fun place for children to grow up and isn't overly delicate, rather than worrying about how your 'friends' will see the choices.

"Anyone imagining that just any sort of flowers can be presented in the front of a house without status jeopardy would be wrong. Upper-middle-class flowers are rhododendrons, tiger lilies, amaryllis, columbine, clematis, and roses, except for bright-red ones."

Fire up your imagination and vividly picture a person who genuinely changes their opinion of your based on the flowers in your yard. Are they really that poor a judge of character? I understand it's often not well developed but... flowers? Come on.

Perhaps, imagine instead a person who can see who you are just fine, but pretends to care about flowers because they have none of their own business to mind.

If you lose such an acquaintance, is in fact anything lost? When you raise the esteem of such a person, you only degrade yourself. 

first as tragedy

Marx didn't quite manage to be completely wrong about everything. America is the farce version of Rome. 

I think when America goes down, the world will throw the baby out with the bathwater, and discard Western philosophy. The Athenian tradition will perish for good. I have no proof, merely a strong and steady hunch. Maybe in some dozens of millennia it will be rediscovered, I suppose.

Saturday, April 24, 2021

Ultra Basic Gossip Theory

Amused how well low-lying fruit hides.

Gossip is something lots of folk care about, but even the most basic theory is missing. Do they really care about it? Is accounting really a parts-per-billion superpower? Lots of articles and studies talking about how to counter gossip, and yet they're groping in the dark, having forgone even the most basic background or homework.

Proof by example: gossip can be split into two kinds. Event gossip and character gossip. The first is verifiable and the latter is unverifiable. Hardly an irrelevant distinction. 

My prototype is therefore: false event gossip should be contradicted head on. Against character gossip, take the high road. Do stuff like agree and amplify. Never even remotely take it seriously. At most point out how they wouldn't know it even if it were true. 

It is only a prototype. I don't have a testing environment. With such a crude theory it's almost guaranteed to have serious lacunae.


P.S. this theory is on the level of noticing that plants and rocks are different, yet it appears to be novel. At best anyone else who noticed was anti-boosted. Is admitting to yourself that you need to defend against gossip too humiliating? Is knowing how to deploy defences more painful than failing to deploy defences? 

I expect knowledge of this kind was explicitly passed down in aristocratic families. Maybe still passed down. In any case, clearly kept strictly secret to an impressive degree.

P.P.S. journalism seems to be inherently unverifiable gossip. If you can check the facts yourself, it's not a scoop and thus not news. If you can't check yourself, it's isomorphic to untrue and thus not news. An inherently criminal activity. Even science reporters, who should be useful, feel compelled to lie about the new study.


It should be possible to collaborate over the internet. When I tried to find someone to collaborate with, it flagrantly didn't work.

1. Internet users aren't willing to work.

2. University dwellers are willing to work but not toward the truth.


1) is itself a catch-22. Communicating over the internet takes work, which nobody is willing to do. Since nobody is willing to do it, there's no point in putting any more effort into communicating than a troll meme. Since everyone is meme trolling anyway, there's no point in trying to put work into it; just makes you more vulnerable to being trolled.

I'm hardly the friendliest of entities, and there's a possibility that my personality was the deal breaker. However, were this the case, I should see others collaborating. I do not. What useful intellectual ore appears on the internet appears without connection to anything else, often largely as epiphenomena to a non-scholarly meatspace situation. 

In a fundamentalist theocracy, neophobia is merely a rational social strategy. Even if you find a new truth, it's just going to be declared heresy. The theocracy tells you exactly what to think on every topic. (Ref: intellectual dominance, as opposed to social or physical.) 

I've seen Transgressive orthodoxy described as confusing and inconsistent, but I can't see it. Kto kogo. The correct Transgressive thing to say seems perfectly obvious to me at all times. If anyone really is mystified by the catechisms, I would be interested in working through any provided examples.

Inevitable Xenophobia

I think tribalism might be rooted in embarrassment. 

You can see others' sins much more easily than your own. When you go to the next tribe over, you can see how they low-key hate each other and act accordingly. "At least I'm not like that!" Problem: a sneaking suspicion your tribe is like that too, because it is. However, you have scar tissue and callouses from being needled in your tribe's characteristic way, so there's a chance of drowning it out. Every time you see the foreigners, they remind you again of how you're not as good to your friends as you say you are, which inspires another round of tribal signalling attempting to drown it out with dissimilarities. With frequent contact, it gets well out of hand. 

A human species that wasn't by default territorial and xenophobic would inevitably become xenophobic. 

Not to mention that different cultures really do clash. Differing assumptions cause an interaction isomorphic to a computer crash. Pass variable A, it is taken for variable Q. Error, divide by zero. 

However, if embarrassment is a driving cause, then xenophobia is mainly a manifestation of self-hatred. Autophobia. Hence the desperation involved in pushing away foreigners and heretics. No confidence.

Friday, April 23, 2021

Shakespeare Sucks

A tragedy is when bad things happen to good people. Equivalently, when someone is trying to be good, but isn't quite good enough to manage it and their just punishment destroys much of value. Romeo & Juliet is not a tragedy because they're both shitbags. 

Romeo is a criminal, incompetent, and multiply perverted; he uses honour as an excuse to murder the winner of a duel because he's butthurt. Juliet is the most basic of basic bitches. Fun fact: marrying without posting the banns is not a legitimate marriage. A "secret" marriage is like a secret press release or a circle with corners.  Hoes gonna ho, I guess. At the time of the Globe posting the banns were centuries old and the audiences should have known her plan was pure wrong.

Both of their families are better off without them. The only tragedy is the fact they weren't stillborn.

"Shakespeare’s principal source for the plot was The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet (1562), a long narrative poem by the English poet Arthur Brooke, who had based his poem on a French translation of a tale by the Italian Matteo Bandello."

Courtly love is neither courtly nor loving. It's early feminist Sophistry. "Romance" is sterile.

P.S. sounds like peasant behaviour to me. "What would the peons do if they had fancy jackets and the habit of wearing swords? First, being unable to distinguish seemings from beings, they would develop an overinflated opinion of themselves..." Globe audiences ate up Shakespeare because they identified with the characters; the characters were not noble. That and lack of competition.

The moral of R&J: don't let cads near your daughter if she's too vapid to know better. Also, don't raise a cad because he's apt to come to a sticky end as a result of his bad education and the weird schemes his latest fun hole devises because she's bored. 

Let's do Hamlet.

"Hmm, I think my uncle is a fratricidal traitor."

Broke: investigate.
Woke: pretend to be crazy.

"Wait, what do you mean pretend?" Is this inbreeding?

Literally Elizabethan soap opera. Elizabethan Jerry Springer. Elizabethan Always Sunny.

In reality kings had food tasters or other measures and if they died of poison it was iatrogenic. Poison as a weapon is largely a modern phenomenon. Ancient folk remember political poisonings precisely because they're rare and non-representative, the same way a news event makes the news precisely because it's so rare you can ignore it. (E.g. stranger kidnappings.) A king dumb enough to die to poison? Deserved it. The only tragedy in Hamlet is that Hamlet's mutant dad was ever king in the first place. 

Hamlet is proof that the most important trait a work needs to become popular is to be popular. A work has to be absolute trash before it can't be saved by a perception of popularity. 

P.P.S. The name 'Globe' is itself suspiciously humanist. What did you name it after, Shakespeare? 

P.P.P.S. Don't forget Galileo is promoted exactly because he was a terrible scientist. Either as a flex or sabotage. "Haha! We made you take Galileo seriously!" "Be like Galileo (because he is no threat)."

P.P.P.P.S. Turns out having a Queen really is kind of a bad idea. England had Kings again later..or did it? Was already too late by that point. Centuries of LARPing? They venerated Shakespeare, so...

Trust Massa

In Prussian school, you learn that if anything bad happens, you complain to massa and trust massa to deal with it. If massa doesn't do anything you must have deserved it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Doing anything to protect yourself shows you don't trust massa, and trust me: massa will do something to deal with you.

In America, if something bad happens, they...

If Inspiring Envy is Sin, Whites Are Evil

Refresher: "white" isn't a race, instead an artificial American legal category.

Christians: pride is the sin, which includes feeling envy, which is the conviction that you are owed or entitled to something you have not built yourself. 

Fascists: inspiring envy is the sin. If you've created anything that someone else hasn't created, you're wrong as a person.

Since the only sin is inspiring envy, then whites are indisputably the vast majority of sinners. Since envy-worshippers aren't very bright, they can't tell the difference between 'most' and 'all' so in fact whites are the only evil race.

Since holding two races in mind is too difficult, asians get to be honourary whites for being a firm second place in the envy-inspiration sweepstakes. 

If All Men are created Equal, then all Men who are not Equal must have signed a contract with the Devil.

Perfectly logical, see?

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Fundamentalism is Always Weakness, By Example

Apparently it's very easy to recruit violent-radical Muslims using the whole Mohammad cartoon thing.

To exploit this, first get a gun and learn to aim. Then, openly draw such a cartoon on the street, and shoot all the Mohammedans that try to stop you. Taunt and exploit 'self-defence'. Directly select for nonviolent Islam. They either chill out or die out.

If they start bringing guns too...well, first...yeah it's fine, they can't aim. You'll be fine most of the time.

But anyway, build a fortress. A cartoon-drawing fortress. They'll be forced to attack your fortified position.

And yes, unironically bomb them with bacon until their psyches crack. Edible terrorism.

You Brought Up the Cthulu Mystery Again, So Here We Are Again

Via Nick Land,

"Corporations are woke, meaning left wing on social issues relative to the general population, because institutions are woke. So the question becomes why are institutions woke?"

"The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital ..."

America is a Fascist country. Envy theocracy. Institutions are more Woke, which means more nurture-fundamentalist or radical egalitarian, because the population admires more Woke individuals, feels guilty about being less Woke, and actively bullies anyone who denies radical egalitarianism.  

In short, American conservatives are radical leftists and do not want to be further right. This includes the alt-right, reactionaries, monarchists, and all but homeopathic fragments of the outer right.

Anti-racist is merely the primary code word for Communist. They're not literally card-carrying agents of MOSCOW, but they might as well be. Can you think of an American who is not only unphazed, but appreciates being called a racist? Genuinely happy about it? The place is a cultural monoculture, exactly as you should expect from somewhere which beats its chest constantly about cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism. (If your hair is brown you don't have to deny accusations of being a ginger. If you have it you don't need to flaunt it.) The culture in question is Communism.

In America, high status means more egalitarian, which means more Woke. Of course higher-status folk end up running institutions.

Fascism has always means public-private "partnership" and being further left is legally enforced, just as the Inquisition enforced being more Catholic, albeit less viciously than Americans do. The Inquisition occasionally showed flashes of mercy and humility.

Naturally you will object that certainly some Americans are, if not exactly further right, at least less left. E.g, as mentioned, stonetoss. 

Deep down, every adherent to a false religion knows the religion is false unless they've plucked out their lying eyes. All extant adherents are signalling how they can suppress their own true thoughts and reactions in favour of the group. The more fervent the believer, the more they deny their own reality in favour of submission, and thus the harder they signal loyalty.

However, not everyone is capable of fully perverting themselves like that. Fascism, like any fundamentalist religion, is always pushing to purify itself (which means purify the lies and eliminate the truth) as fast as possible. Naturally they sometimes push too fast and demand too much of the general population's ability to self-oppress. The dissonance between observation and command becomes too large, and they simply can't obey. This is what it means to be less-left in America; your fervent self-oppression has failed. It's not a principled stand, and the American in question is aware of this. 

Cthulu swims left because America wants it to swim left. Nobody in American fundamentally objects to the worship of invidia. Luckily, over time, the brainwashing indoctrination builds up layers; as the culture degrades, further self-battery is easier and easier.

Occasionally some of the smarter ones can manage a double back-cross where they maintain blind egalitarian fundamentalism but manage to fool themselves into "thinking" some fragment of sanity is in fact properly Fascist. Their lying eyes are still lying but it's partially rationalized away. Case in point: James Lindsay, who has convinced himself that persecuting the superior white race is somehow the same kind of thing as persecuting the inferior black race. Depending on the day he convinces himself that whites are inferior or that blacks don't exist. (Refresher: neither 'black' nor 'white' are real. You idiot limey. Did you finally eat so many oranges you developed counter-scurvey? Better a tutsi than a fuckin' frog.) 

Harvard was originally a fundamentalist religious seminary, and it is still a fundamentalist religious seminary. The history of America can easily be cast as Americans working themselves into a frenzy. All Men are created Equal, Or Else. Sometimes Reality pushes back so hard they get discouraged, but they never get too discouraged for long. After all, a Fascist, fundamentally, is an insecure, discouraged Communist. They're used to it.

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Prologue: America is Liar Country

You can tell America is fucked because people like stonetoss get popular. 

The secret to his success is clear: he's right-wing, not afraid to tell some of the truth, but relatively mild mannered. Serves an underserved market but doesn't want to make too much of a fuss.

For contrast, I say violence is very obviously the answer. It is rare when a criminal doesn't deserve the death penalty. Any country which doesn't lay waste to its criminals will end up Americanized in one way or another.

Stonetoss endorsed Invincible. He said it was good, though somewhat Woke-ized. Problem: [good] is not the right description for a train crash. Fascinating, yes, but after a short time watching it becomes perverse at best. Invincible has no likeable, competent, or even nice characters. There's a noticeable trend toward portraying more-powerful as more-asshat. The most sympathetic character is literally a demon. Bit of a hint. 

Another hint: lots of gore, entirely gratuitous. You know how it's fun when you pop a demon in DOOM? They have a satisfying death sound and animation. In Invincible the folks going pop are instead innocents. The target audience likes seeing people die messily, especially people who don't deserve it. It is not there to portray the reality of combat or war. It's gory for fun. You can tell for sure because it's hardly impossible to do both, but Invincible sticks to the gratuitous. 

Just because: imagine an uncensored, anatomically-correct Wolverine show. Horrible, educational, fun if you're into that. Can portray the reality of modern weapons and poor tactics on Wolverine without the show ending that episode, and likewise can portray the real effects of Wolverine winning a fight with his claws without having to make every enemy a robot. Invincible's protagonist is, predictably, almost invincible. And wins using sanitized punching. His psychology is all wrong too. E.g. gets PTSD. Next day, over PTSD. He got a pep talk, you see.

Spoiler: the first episode contains a mass murder by a traitor. More spoiler: eventually the traitor gets away with it, finding redemption (probably, I'm not going to check the details). "Nolan is subsequently crowned as ruler of the Viltrumite Empire." Invincible is especially kind to the vile, and vile to the kind. At least when Game of Thrones - another ode to sadism - does this sort of thing, it portrays it as the result of a crapsack world. Invincible is straight sympathetic to the worst of humanity, and only the worst.

Liking this sewage is not good enough. It is not even remotely good enough.

The people who follow stonetoss are not doing so by mistake. Stonetoss' endorsement of Invincible is not some kind of slip-up or error. Stonetoss is there to reassure "decent" people that they're "decent" even if they're "right"-wing. They want to rehabilitate criminals instead of executing them. That's how you know they're "nice" people.

It's well-drawn though. In places, at least.

Teachers Are Racist Against Children

As any concentration camp guard must be racist against their inmates. Holds tremendous spite and artificial contempt, the loser's combination. The spite shows they think, deep down, the children rank above them. 

Example: homework.

If you ask a properly "educated" modern why children are never allowed to have initiative, they will tell you they're irresponsible and can't be trusted.

In reality this simply isn't how children work. They want to help and become grownups, and will sit and learn if they need to. The problem: they don't. 

All scholastic interventions wash out within two years, and usually sooner. Homework will help you on a test a month later and is worthless on a test a year from now, a fact even Official Science cannot deny. A fact even the allegedly dumb, irresponsible children immediately understand, which is why they hate homework so much. Under ideal conditions, it is a waste of time. Cyanide is bitter and you don't need to be "educated" to recognize you shouldn't eat it; homework likewise. A fortiori, how well must adults understand that homework is good for nothing except inflicting pain?

Bonus round: a good job is one you can leave at the job. If school was in fact about preparation for life, it would conspicuously oppose doing any work at home. University in particular attempts to consume the "student's" every waking moment, at minimum. The practice is implemented for the opposite of your health.

Double bonus round: can you think of a single real-life situation where you were glad you did your schoolwork? I can't. Even if you can, was it worth 13+ years of opportunity cost for that benefit?

A teacher is someone who knows their victims forget everything over the summer, and hate everything that it is a teacher's job to inflict. They went to school too, after all. The teacher voluntarily takes and keeps that job anyway. Motivated by pure sadism.

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Suez Clog

Wow those delays really mattered a lot. It's good that nobody could talk about anything except that one ship for a week. Luckily there wasn't, like, any news or anything, so...

Monday, April 19, 2021

Consciousness in Evolution

Naked mole rats are ugly. Deep sea creatures are hideous. Ugliness in and of itself affects your evolutionary fitness, unless your conspecifics can't see how ugly you are. Or, in the case of insects, they aren't smart enough to noticeably conscious. Larger creatures tend to be better-looking because they're more aware when something doesn't look good.

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Politics is Simple

Missed it the first few times I read this article. Emphasis added.

"The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William McDonough, convened a meeting of the major creditors—Bankers Trust, Barclays, Bear Stearns, Chase Manhattan, Credit Suisse, First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Parabas, Salomon Smith Barney, Société Générale, and UBS. The meeting was “voluntary” as was ultimately the participation in the rescue that the Fed orchestrated.

Most of the creditors agreed to put up $300 million apiece. Lehman Brothers put up $100 million. Bear Stearns contributed nothing.."

Which firms were allowed to fail, again?

When politics looks unsimple, it's always and only because the relevant events are being hidden.

Concentration Camp Guard Upset their Child Slavery Camp is Slightly More Slavey Than They Thought

"I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated"

I haven't read it and you shouldn't either, but it's there. Lots of alleged rightists haven't yet manged to catch up to the latest scholarship of 1795 and are very impressed that this concentration camp guard is upset that the Jews' half rations are being reduced to 9/20th rations, against Himmel's express regulations.

Maybe they might read some Socrates one day, catch up to 400 BC. Find out it's immoral to take money to teach. Real forward-thinking types, these guys.

Saturday, April 17, 2021

None Created Equal

Previously I've said [all Men were created equal], has a motte in moral equality and a bailey in nature-denialism.

Fundamentally I was wrong.

Morally equal? WTF was I smoking? I was trying to say murder is murder. In reality, if you murder a murderer it's not murder, it's extrajudicial execution. Run a posthumous trial. If the body is convicted, you get off. I could go further but I think you get it. 

All Men are unequal in every conceivable way it is possible to be unequal. At best, sometimes the differences are negligible, but they're still noticeably different.

Three Way L

Theme: in most conflicts, all sides deserve to lose.

"Yeah no. Naked fucking cruelty from a group of people who already know that shibboleths are simply arbitrary tools of social control is not a win for anyone. I thought the people in this space were cool and interested in exploring ideas judgement free and this is anything but."

Postrats get many Ls for being Fascists. I condemn you to be spiteful mutants...oh wait, that already happened.

Moritheil and ZHP get Ls for not realizing 'postrationalist' is yet another euphemism for Fascist. The very first time I saw one I knew they were 'nice' in the [be nice, or else] way, and they have never disappointed my expectations.

ZHP gets an L for getting upset. You don't get upset when your predictions come true. 

WGD explains:
"His response suggests that he shouldn't be on the internet, however. The social world is broken right now, but getting angry on-line is never the right move."
Note date. Did you enjoy the retrocausal explanation? Very cool. 

In short: why are you arguing with Fascists? Communism has never been tried and I guess talking down a communist has never been tried.

Mori gets an L for thinking ZHP is worth defending. He's a liar. He wants you sick and weak. ZHP lets the New Yorker tell him who to care about, such as David Foster Wallace. His prediction failed because he got high on his own supply. I guarantee ZHP tweets put Mori's hackles up, same as they do mine and yours, but Mori ignores the sensation.

Of course there's Ws to go around as well.

Mori has good relationships with several higher-quality people, and postrats really are an insult to rats.
The postrats got all their friends to agree with them. Big ol' hugbox. Lots of self-confidence. ZHP really does let them live rent-free in his head.
ZHP has his 30,000 twitter followers or whatever, and he certainly sees that as a win, and they support his behaviour. Postrat morality really is gay with a side of faggot.

Your tastes may differ, but I find these less important than the part where they have bad judgment of character, can't see the road they're driving on, and/or are Fascist. Further, all three are rooted in the sin of Pride. They're not making different mistakes, they're making the same mistake different ways. Any condemnation between them immediately boomerangs. Accounting adds up to L. 


By the way, most likely the real story is everyone wanted to fight because they see themselves winning the fight. Had a craving for conflict and didn't see themselves as guaranteed to lose. The targets were largely incidental. Happenstance. 


By the way, let's do a quick spot-check on eigenrobot. In theory he's one of the good ones. In reality he's very good at pretending to follow the rules. Goes a few inferential steps higher.

"i legitimately have no idea what is going on"

Or rather, he knows exactly what's going on, but only at hunch level, and is thus very carefully ensures he doesn't see anything which confirms the hunch and might make him have to take a side.

At best, when it comes down to you vs. the Fascist, he will try to go Switzerland and not take sides. At worst he will attempt to appease the Fascist. The former would be honourable if he took a firm neutral stance, the way Switzerland in fact does, instead of trying to look like everyone's friend.

If you're genuinely neutral you don't try to sound innocent. You don't talk about it at all because you don't care. Imagine Switzerland constantly issuing statements on the yellow vests, the way the CCP is constantly scolding America.

As I mentioned recently, if someone is dishonourable to you, there's no reason not to be dishonourable back, as viciously as possible.
However, more importantly: if it reaches the point where you've allowed someone to be dishonourable to you, you dun fukt up. If you see Aaron coming, build a wall. Don't wait for him to get there. If you can't build a wall to stop him, then you fukt up earlier and now need to undo your error before it compounds. Probably with a GTFO manoeuvre. Though you can also stand somewhere Aaron won't see you. (I do this a lot. E.g. Google wants to delete my blog but doesn't know it exists.) Make sure you don't stand around drooling like an idiot until there's a problem, the way Lucius did.

I once gave a postrat the benefit of the doubt. I let him follow me. Later I made a mild joke about trannies, which was hardly unrelated to his OP, and he immediately went to defcon 2 and used unrelatedness as an excuse. Sadly I'm not disagreeable enough to enjoy being treated like that. I asked myself: did he ever hold a leftist to the alleged standard? No, of course not. Blocked for being a liar. Wall up.

Any unpleasantness was ultimately my own fault, and indeed I knew the risk I was taking. When it didn't pan out, I closed out the postrat's account as far as I was concerned. If I hadn't always been capable of simply blocking him, I wouldn't have taken the risk in the first place. 


The Hillary vs. Russia war is a myth. Alleged-rightists trying to out-Satan Satan. Amateur liar hour.

Putin has definitely fired everyone stupid enough to start a nuclear exchange with America. Quite possibly with literal fire.

America's ruling class are incredible liars. Nothing they say is true. They don't believe a damn word of it. As I've said before, a fortiori: the liars you see and hear aren't in charge of anything except telling you lies. Stooges. Gofers.

I mean I can't quite 100% guarantee America has no idiots in power, because there's certain checks I can't carry out, but when I see a genuine crazy who is willing to shoot first at Russia, they work at Teen Vogue or something and do not matter. No evidence to the contrary.

Deal With Users of Human Shields

I don't accept the Geneva Convention because it was written by communists, but something Geneva-like is a good idea. For the sake of argument let's pretend the Geneva Convention doesn't suck.

When someone breaks the contract, respond by breaking the contract.

Using blinding lasers.

Using blinding lasers targetting with facial recognition technology. Imagine a little screen which marks the individual faces it has identified, you highlight the criminal, and then the system automatically blinds them for life without harming the hostage. Don't have to worry about unsteady human aim. Maybe only one eye is visible, so it waits for someone to flinch or whatever, revealing the other eye and blinding that too. Problem: solved. With little bonus 'fuck you' for breaking the rules.

Anything else banned by the Convention that seems useful: go ahead and use it. Maybe they're using good goggles. Thus: landmine their holdout and simply walk away. Their options are now: give up or get fucked.

While certainly in extremis you can shoot the hostages, if war crimes are on the table you have much better options. 

However, never negotiate. This merely leads to future hostages, who, in a real country, would be able to sue you for encouraging hostage-taking.

More vs. Dishonour

The correct way to respond to Aaron is to behead his son. Right in front of him.

Message: if you break the contract, I break the contract. It's just that simple.

Never, ever let your honour be used against you by someone of lesser honour. 

Indeed it's best to cause Aaron maximum anguish. Sterilize his son right in front of him. Using bronze age methods. "I left him alive, just like you wanted!"

The contrary, upholding your half of a broken contract, is an outright crime. Message: please abuse the honourable. That's not an honourable message. A little the opposite of that.

Further, your word is worth as much as the person you're giving it to. Given someone of negative worth, like Aaron, then your word is worth less than nothing. It's perfectly okay to agree to the trade and then, without waiting for his response, behead his son right in front of him.

We could also imagine torturing his son to death. I don't like this because the son hasn't done anything wrong, but it's not dishonourable. Except: his son has done something wrong. He carried Aaron's dysgenic genes. That's why Aaron wants him alive. We're killing Aaron because the genes need to go. Hence the sterilization.

Or: a fortiori, keeping your word to the unworthy is a crime, with the exception that sometimes keeping your word to them advantages you more than breaking it. E.g. perhaps we do leave Aaron's son alive. For a while. Explicitly so we can yank the hope away again.

I don't think real bronze-age men were doormats the way Lucius is portrayed. The play was written for Shakespearean England, which was already full of dishonourable doormats. They had no knowledge or desire for knowledge regarding how honour works.

This is a classic Satanist trick. Portray the opposite of dishonour as being a doormat, and hope nobody notices you anti-rectified a name. It turns out this hope is well-founded. Even I think being a worthless shitbag is better than being a gullible doormat, and would choose to be a parasite if that were the only genuine alternative. Luckily, Satan is Father of Lies, and my message is this: fuck him with a rake.

Progressive Taxation vs. Thaumaturgic Slavery

Income taxation is piecemeal slavery and progressive taxation is totalitarian psychological slavery.

Easy to see thaumaturgically:
Better wages => higher status + more slavery.
More slavery becomes linked to higher status.
Population tries to elaberately mimic the habits of slavery in an attempt to gain status.

Result: slave population.

Gee, where do we see an essentially slavish population? 

Refresher: the core slave mindset is external motivation. The slave doesn't do anything unless massa tells them to do it. Or they're starving to death; such impulses look the same as massa whipping them. 

Problem: slave habits are inherently, biologically linked to low status. The population becomes convinced that no matter how successful they are, they're scum. They feel like the sovereign (highest status) is telling them to be scum, and as slaves, they obey. 

Being scum, they cannot possibly fight back, which justifies the slave habits.

An absolutely brutal trap. 

You have to get fancy to unpack the thaumaturgy into psychological atoms, but it does work. The populace has to understand in their bones that income taxes are isomorphic to piecemeal slavery, but they in fact do understand that. 

Income taxes make it slavery at one remove, because you decide which job you work instead of massa deciding. This decouples the knee-jerk [feels like slavery] sensation. This helps hide the slavery from the executive consciousness. A big win for narcissism. However, the rear parts of the brain will notice if they spend even a second thinking about it, and do. Taxation is theft. Slavery is nothing more than direct theft of labour, QED. 

Bonus round: because the slavery is partial, it's possible for the executive consciousness to focus on the non-slavery bits. If you had to work on a plantation under the whip for two days of the week, there would be no hiding it. That's not the implementation, so it doesn't feel the same, but taxes are perfectly isomorphic to stealing your work this way, so I don't see them as any different. 

By contrast, poll taxes and rents can, in principle, possibly be fees for service.

Quick Note About Evolution and Rationality

Groups who regularly fight in the face of overwhelming odds leave very few descendants. The odds were overwhelming. They only win by fluke or catastrophic errors on the opposing side.

Groups who regularly surrender in the face of overwhelming odds leave no descendants at all. 

This is why humiliation feels so bad; everyone who didn't feel it so keenly got killed off long ago. 

In the short term, surrender may be rational. In the long term, it is not rational. Although since the difference between few and none is small, this process is slow. I rather suspect the 10,000-ish* year history of so-called 'civilization' is too short to properly evolve immunity to State control. Surrendering to State control is long-term irrational...but very long term, it would seem.

*(Might be more like 30,000-ish, but it's definitely not 100,000-ish.)

Friday, April 16, 2021

Honour Among Dishonour

In short: don't.
Don't cooperate with defectors. Don't treat the honourless with honour. 


Who should I swear by? Thou believest no god:
That granted, how canst thou believe an oath?

And Aaron essentially replies, indeed, an oath from me is worthless. But I know that you have a belief in morals and ethics. I know that if you give me your word, you’ll keep it,

For I know thou art religious
And hast a thing within thee called conscience.


Your conscience should tell you this: betray him as flagrantly as you can. Whenever possible, offer leeching or sabotage to the honourless. Trickery is not forbidden, it is mandatory. Let the honourless be deprived of everything. Keeping your promises to them doesn't make you upstanding, it makes you an idiot.

Unless it benefits you, of course. Self-sacrifice should be the opposite of your principle when dealing with the unworthy.

Truth as Opposed to Consequences

Conspiracy theories are always wrong, of course. (Btw I'll take the cheque in BTC, thanks CIA.)

Every education board in the entire Anglosphere thinks the same way, but only one gets fired for it. 

"After dismissing parents as pot smokers who only want schools reopened so they can “have their babysitters back” (rather refreshing for teachers’-union hacks to be so honest about their skill level), and threatening to “fuck up” any parents who try to force them back into the classroom, one “hero” suddenly realizes “oh no, this is public!” to which another replies in disbelief, “Nuh-uhhhh.”"

This upholds the deep American value that being a worthless criminal shithead is fine, but getting caught is gauche and prole and Just Not Done.

It's not like anyone is investigating. You're playing on easy mode and you still got caught. Wanker.

Not that they were wrong or anything. It's Oakley. They are potheads.

Rhetoric Practice & Anti-distraction Practice

 I screwed up. The idea is to sharpen the point to atom thickness and stab it as far as it will go.

What I propose: internalizing costs instead of externalizing them.

What the liar rebuts: "You're trying to stop your neighbours associating."

Err, then: even the liar has to admit that merely internalizing the costs would result in near-zero immigration. Immigration is costly, not profitable. Even according to its alleged defenders. 

Clearly, I want to restrict immigration because I hatez furriners. The liar knows he needs to subsidize immigration, because immigrants aren't worth anything. What a fuckin' liar.

More on Honour

"the hobos force the cop to bark like a dog, louder and louder, to “affirm” the turkey’s fake identity. Once they’ve tormented him enough, they break out laughing and offer the poor bastard a drink."

50 years ago, Americans knew not-nothing about honour, or at least remembered someone who did.
"Look man, you screwed up. Maybe don't screw up so much next time, eh?" You have to imagine the cop smiling ruefully to himself. "You trapped me but good, chaps." Like he was taking responsibility for his actions or something. In classic American tradition it's still pro-crime, but never mind...

By contrast, narcissists never break character. They will cut you out of their will for mentioning off hand, to someone else, that the dog was a turkey.

Parenting Outside America

Apparently the Atlantic had a brain fart and published a good article. I figure I'll read it so you don't have to.

Turns out parenting is fairly simple

-don't be fake
-let other families help
-have genuine empathy
-when the kids want to help, let them

To summarize the articles:
Americans get way too excited. Calm down. Even if children are trying to manipulate you, they're too childish to do it well, so ignore it. The nuclear family is an utterly retarded idea. Hunter tribes don't need to hit their children and neither should you. 

Americans by and large are too narcissistic/childish to be decent parents, regardless of how well you advise them about parenting. Europeans must have had hunter-style parenting at one point, but the knowledge was interrupted by something. I suspect it's largely from Prussian school exposure, what with Prussian school being specifically designed to make the victims childish. Might also have been the black plague.

You are most likely not childish and narcissistic, but you will have picked up bad habits from being around everyone else. A quick examination of the habits' stupidity will break them almost immediately.

Children are excitable, which means parents don't need to be. The mildest reward or punishment is sufficiently intense to affect their behaviour. (If you have memories that go further back than three days, you may recall this yourself.) You know you're bigger than a kid, right? Don't get bound up in shoulds or oughts. If you can't stand it, you don't have to put up with it. Physically abjure it. E.g. if tantrums in the grocery store are such a huge issue, stop taking them shopping with you. You're a big boy aren't you? Figure it out.

Because you're in control, you can calm down. If you're calm, the children will be much less stressed. If the children aren't wound up, they don't snap. If the kids aren't going nuts, it is much easier to remain calm. (This also works okay on animals.)

"Sally just approached everything they did with the most calmness and composure I have ever seen. At one point, a little toddler, maybe 18 months at the time, I think he was pulling the dog's tail or something. Sally picked him up and, when she did, he scratched her face so hard that it was bleeding. I would have been irate, but Sally, I saw her kind of clench her teeth, and just say, in the calmest voice, “We don’t do this.” Then she took him and flipped him around with this playful helicopter move, and they both started laughing. Then it was over—there was no conflict around it."

Because you know you will win, you don't have to fight. Assume victory.

Also, if you make a mistake, don't make a big deal out of it and it won't be a big deal. The kids also know it's out of character for you.

Does parenting even with two parents seem exhausting? (Let alone one?) Well duh, that's a dumb idea. Pre-modern societies couldn't stop kids from imposing on other families even if they wanted to. You're supposed to take breaks and pass your kids off sometimes. The children want to hare off somewhere else. All you have to do is let them. Let the grandparents have them for as long as both find it tolerable. Ideally, let them go watch other adults work.

Admittedly this is complicated by car-supremacist laws.

Seems to me America screwed up badly when they allowed factories to become hostile to children. Probably at the behest of a whiny minority who hates children. Supervising children should be part of what work is like.

Children don't like being treated like children. They know the point of being a child is to learn to act like an adult. Allowances have to be made - there's some things you just can't do when you're two feet tall - but children want to act as adult as they can. Maybe give them a child-sized seat so they can sit the way adults do on adult chair. Don't give them a child-coloured child-material chair, especially if it's still too big. 

Subtle social cues are enough to thoroughly control adult behaviour. Again with some caveats regarding the weak understanding of children, children are more sensitive, not less. That said, even inside a proper framework, their self-control is weak, which is where the calmness, control, and empathy comes in. 

Children universally ask to 'help' with the chores shortly after they master that whole walking and talking thing. Their 'help' will not be very helpful at first. As if they're children or something. However, the last thing you should do is discourage them from doing chores. Americans spend years discouraging their children from 'helping' with chores, and are then baffled the children are so resentful when they suddenly start demanding help with chores. 


Children often have emotions they don't know the meaning of. It's your job as a parent to help them try things until they figure out what it is they need.

Wars are Dishonourable

All modern wars are based on lies and therefore dishonourable.

It is hardly impossible to have an honourable war. I have to imagine, given Rome's brutal realpolitik, that Caesar's legions knew they were fighting for Caesar's right to break the law whenever he damn well pleased. I wouldn't have fought for that, but it's none of my business and not my decision. While it's still true that Rome would have been vastly better off had Julius been drowned as a baby, this war, at least, was honourable.

Remember the difference between murder and vig. It's fine to kill someone as long as you kill them from the front. Take responsibility for the life you're trying to take.

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Commentary on Prey Propaganda

Let's talk about prey mindset. Stop me if any of this is too obvious to mention. But, zeroth: Americans are so diseased their prey gives me more of a 'kill it with fire' sensation than slavering sensation.

Honour == good, which means people I like have honour, and people I don't like don't have honour.

Halo effect on steroids. Maybe call it a unifying halo effect. Reverse-causal halo effect.

Prey only genuinely cares about one distinction: my herd vs. not my herd. Humans are very sophisticated herd animals and have all sorts of clever ways of distinguishing myherd from notherd, and perform all sorts of complicated dances to disguise the inherently herdlike nature of their behaviour, but that doesn't make the herd classes into not-herd humans.

Refresher on how herd animals act. Skip the first section; ctrl-f to [Sheep are evolved]. 

How can you get along with the honourless dogs in your herd if you shame them for their dishonour? Clearly, you can't. Plus you'll be setting yourself up higher, as a worthy judge of others, which will incite herd jealousy. This also applies to yourself. Since you're inherd and not outherd, you must be honourable, which means honour must mean something other than honour. Seems prey is inherently dishonest.

By contrast, the predator must be cosmopolitan enough to distinguish herds from one another. Herds that differ will resist different hunting strategies, and the predator who cannot tell the difference is going to go hungry or get seriously injured.

Predation must be bad, because you're afraid of it. 

You can't see yourself surviving a run-in with a predator. You can see yourself surviving a run-in with a parasite, so that must be relatively okay. As such it's important to discourage predators as much as possible. Even if they're your own children. As prey, there's no possible defence except trying to talk them out of it.

First problem: this admits predators need to be morally discouraged. The prey can't even pretend to claim that being prey is better than being a predator, so they have to tell some other lie. Predation is in no way irrational, especially given the frame my parent comment put the issue in. Prey is aware they have no true rhetoric, which is why they have to pretend they misunderstood the frame. Second problem: see below.

Self sacrifice is good. Especially if you do it, because it lets the rest of the herd, i.e. me, run away.

In reality being in a pack is awesome and being in a herd sucks ass. Sure, the pack contract isn't free and occasionally you have to do things you wouldn't if you were alone. However, if the pack isn't paying for itself, your pack is a herd and you need to leave. If your pack asks you to kill yourself for it, then you haven't betrayed the pack. The pack has betrayed you. Tell it to get fucked.

Every single thing about herds is terrible except for the predator protection, which is merely necessary. There's a bunch of assholes horning in on your grass. Nobody ever helps you find better grass. If you could graze alone it would be better in every way except the part where loners are delicious, especially to pack hunters. No wonder herd animals dislike predators so much. 

Except, prey likes to be preyed upon? Often called slave morality. If Hitler didn't exist, the prey would have had to invent him. The prey is jealous of anyone whose blood is being sucked less. They can't get along. They need to submit to parasitism so they can prove their prey bona fides to other prey. (Especially humans with severe pride or narcissism problems.) The prey is absolutely terrified of anyone who refuses to be drained - they're probably one of the dreaded predators.

They're not wrong about that, admittedly. Elon Musk is almost certainly a net tax consumer, and good for him. Not my thing, though; it means dealing regularly with bureaucrats. Eww.

Is it true that wolf packs have only one mating pair?
Wolf packs are so valuable it's worth giving up your reproductive opportunities to join one. Can you imagine a herd that's even remotely that valuable?
Thus I explain to myself the reason Americans are so bad at joining. They can't see packs, only herds. Packs have high cost of admission, and no herd can possibly pay back that investment. Indeed herds are nearly identical from a cost/benefit standpoint, so switching is utterly moronic. Even prey isn't that dumb. Thus I further explain for myself the preference for Voice over Exit. Exit is pointless anyway, for prey - though they will never admit as much. 

Prey doesn't understand non-zero-sum except insofar as it understands being preyed upon is zero sum or less. There's only so much grass to go around. You can't grow more grass; where would it get the food? Are you going to steal plant food from Uruguay or whatever, like some filthy predator? If China is taking our jobs (we as prey couldn't possibly stop them or anything) we need to steal jobs from someone else. It's not predation/bullying if we do on someone sufficiently incapable of fighting back, see. They're not people, they're grass. Even if they're our own children.

Refresher on honourable prey: the lion can't catch the healthy antelope. There's a biome in northern Canada where you can watch wolves and elk hanging around together in valleys, because healthy elk are in zero danger from wolves. Apparently the wolves let their cubs chase the elk occasionally, knowing the elk will have to run for a bit and maybe be slightly annoyed before the wolf is forced to give up. (Or maybe the elk enjoy the opportunity to show off?) If you want you can go as a human and hang out with the wolves and elk together, because the elk knows it can't eat you and the wolves know human packs are fuckin' dangerous.

A lion chasing an antelope is not a free meal the way a government chasing a serf is. The antelope can run away. If the lion isn't careful, the antelope can fight back. Certainly the antelope more directly puts its life on the line, and they don't get to start it, but the lion too puts her life on the line. If at all possible, the lion will choose a weak or sick elk. Such as one that had a run-in with a parasite.

(Further, you may say being hunted wasn't the antelope's idea, but it was no more the lion's idea to be an obligate carnivore. Even further, in the end, lions are eugenic for antelope, just as antelope are for lions.) 

By contrast, if we woke up, got a cup of coffee, and abolished government tomorrow, they could get jobs in the private sector. Their actions are pure childish narcissism. The peasants could decide to do such a thing, too. The government requires a certain level of despair. Pure parasitism. 

(Coercive governments are always dygenic. Empires always degenerate and become full of degenerates.)

I'm not sure what a good term for lionizing dishonour is, but narcissism is close for now. Let's return to the elk and wolves.

If the elk were narcissist, they would have to destroy the wolves for reminding them of their mortality. They would be unable to see anything respectable or glorious in the wolves. Then they would breed and eat themselves out of house and home.

If the wolves were narcissist, they would have to destroy the elk for reminding them of their lack of omnipotence. To chase an elk, a prey animal, and fail? Humiliating, right? Can't have that. Then they would starve to death or a lucky few would be forced to live off rabbits and rats.

If the humans were narcissists, they would shoot all the wolves for having the gall to take a human who wandered into the valley alone and without a gun. Maybe just for being scary predators. Ooh, scary. Then they would compete to bag the largest elk, until there were no elk left. Then the winner would be ganked by all the rest of the hunters, due to jealousy. Then the second-ranked hunter would realize they're now first-ranked, which means next on the guillotine, and start shooting first. It would degenerate from there.

Naturally, trying to uphold honour will get you killed now and again. Individually.
Dishonour is death. Like, not social death. Literally you all fuckin' die.

Humanism is Anti-humanism

Should have been the null hypothesis in the first place. The political null hypothesis is always that the opposite obtains. Welfare spreads malaise, CDC spreads disease, DoD is for attacking domestics, etc. 

If you don't think America is secular humanist, I'm sorry, you have brain cancer. It's terminal. My condolences.

Problem: humans have a hard-wired threshold for how good something has to be before it is respectable. Someone who is nasty to everyone, appreciates nothing, steals constantly, and can't even show up on time, will never be respectable. 

Hence, to worship Humanity properly, (vox populi, vox dei,) humanists either have to turn a blind eye to the brutish nature of humans, or have to go into the humanist version of the Gnostic fallacy. There is no way to believe that default humanity is even remotely worthy of worship. Humanists are liars or insane. (In shocking news for everyone, false religion drives you crazy. Are you shocked? I'm shocked!)

"They're trying! They're doing their best! Lots of sincere folks in government!" This is also the mindset that makes single women and old people invite gangs of male, military-aged immigrants into their house. This is also the mindset of someone who likes Humanity but is distinctly violent to any human in particular. The human hasn't lived up to the divine standards of Humanity, which is clearly an excuse to bully them. Right? Right. 

Christians are super skittish about what exactly the Gnostic fallacy is, because they have to lie about it. I figured it out though: it's believing that God is Satan and Satan is God, because the Bible was in fact written by Satan. Certainly this belief is worthy of the bile they spew onto it. (Real Gnostics were more sophisticated, though it is also true they often did things which pissed Gnon off, and got wrecked, due to thinking isomorphic to identifying Gnon as Satan.)

Environmentalism is of course a strain of Christianity, except it's humanist Christianity and it's gone thing-which-is-called-Gnostic. Humanity clearly hasn't lived up to the standards of Humanity, and must have been Satan all along. As opposed to those silly numinous Satans, this imminent Satan can be destroyed. Like the Gnostics wanted to destroy the Demiurge's veil, except the environmentalists' veil is made of people. (Naturally an unprincipled exception will obtain. If they did manage to become omnicidal they would forgive themselves of being Human due to special gnosis. Nobody who thinks half of humanity should kill themselves is willing to go first.) 

In short humanism inevitably makes you a vile person. Even worse than default humanity, which is saying something.