Wednesday, May 26, 2021


Don't worry, I'm aware nobody cares about this post.

Rectified name: infanticide.

If you allow infanticide there's no particular reason not to allow adulticide. I'm okay with adulticide, so I don't have a problem with infanticide. 90th term abortion? Yeah whatever, just don't do it in secret. Take responsibility for having done it.

Also the fetus cannot possibly be conscious before it has a brain. However, artificial miscarriage has strong negative effects on the mother, who does have a consciousness. It's 12 weeks or so, if you were curious. Of course you can just check with an ultrasound, so a priori judgments are unnecessary. 

P.S. Ultrasounds are probably dangerous, but if you're planning infanticide anyway, that doesn't matter. Ultrasounds are supposed to be below the required energies to do damage, but rogue waves exist, so doctors, as usual, are quacks.

Greed is Not a Timeless Sin

Pride is a timeless sin, and every sin can be cast as a special case of pride. Greed is a special case of pride that is fully invalid outside special conditions, particularly food shortage. Moderns care about greed due to hysteresis. There are strong cultural and genetic memories of the threat of starvation, which make greed feel important despite being entirely irrelevant.

In the modern world you have to be exceptionally crazy to manage to starve to death. 

If there's not enough food for everyone to eat their fill, it's very possible for one person to eat their fill and thus cause another to starve to death. If you don't eat enough usually all that happens is your body switches to higher-efficiency lower-efficacy metabolic pathways until you get enough to eat again. Thus everyone can survive the lean times in fine health as long as no individual eats too much - is "greedy." I find it's not even particularly uncomfortable to eat quarter-rations every two days. Though certainly you need to let your hunters eat more, since my tests were sedentary.

Likewise, without refrigeration, it's easy to bring back more meat than you can eat before it rots to inedibility. However, under valid property rights, the kill is the sole property of the hunter who can distribute it as he pleases. Or not at all. There's no point in keeping the meat away from the hungry until it rots, though. Especially as your tribe is basically your family. Doing so is "greedy."

Likewise, in a tribal society you don't use money inside the tribe. Too much hassle. Selling the meat would make sense, but they wouldn't have anything to sell back. (You can see many internet denizens want the internet to work like this.) The hunters would end up with all the money ("greedy") within weeks, and thus be unable to sell the meat anyway. 

If these conditions apply at all to industrial society, it is in weird niche settings. 

Peasants will compromise on just about anything but won't compromise on staying alive. Thus the only true necessities are food, water, and shelter. ("Meat and mead" if you're not speaking a zombie language.) Technically entertainment is also necessary but in practice it's hard to get rid of entertainment. Not something that disappears naturally.

Everything else can be substituted or done without, rendering greed a non-issue. In practice food is abundant, not scarce. (For now.)

P.S. The niche settings will need advice about greed to an especially negative degree.

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Focus Group Users are Not Literate

You can do focus groups properly, but you need level 5+ literacy. Haha, oops. You have to be able to read deeply into the responses they're giving. Goes for any market research, really. The responses themselves are going to be wildly illiterate, so the reader has to provide enough literacy for both sides.

Monday, May 24, 2021

Classical Christianity Loves Heresy

"The fact that the classical world eventually was replaced by modern nonsense should not be held against it."

How about instead extremely the opposite of that?

You may have noticed I'm none too fond of Christianity, but I would forgive all its sins were it effective at suppressing the modern heresies. You had literal anti-blasphemy laws and you still couldn't do it! Pathetic. If instead it had worked, I would be over here scratching my head saying, "Well, I don't get it, but they obviously know something I don't."

The fact it was replaced by modern nonsense is exactly the classics' highest crime.
Though more accurately, modernity isn't modern, relative to the classical world. We are Fascist, they were Fascist. They were less Fascist due to having a proper lord ratio, but the latter wasn't good enough to paper over the former.

But basically, they killed Socrates. They couldn't even tolerate being near the truth. They had to symbolically eradicate it. Their core value was raw hatred for Reality. 

If there were some sudden disaster modernity could be traced to, such as compulsory education or the black death, then the classics could perhaps be excused. Even the most anti-fragile system dies if you hit it hard enough. Instead it's been a long, slow, and constant 900 year decline. All failure, no victory. Not anti-fragile, just fragile. 

Christianity didn't declare war on these heresies, it adopted them. It adopted them because Christianity was too weak to notice Sophism intentionally hacking its adoption reflexes. Imagine the Soviet Union appeared and the Christian races were like, "Yeah, no," and shut that shit down. Instead feminism is actually 1100-vintage courtly love, slightly intensified and stripped of any decoration.

It is likely that Christianity was always heresy. That Christianity was itself designed through Sophistry to hack Roman social vulnerabilities. Constantine attempting to adopt it should have triggered an existential war, because you don't follow suicidal rulers. Not that I terribly disapprove of Rome killing itself. They earned it.

All School Bullying is Teacher-Sourced

Most of the teachers are in the teaching business because they would like to bully adults but they're too weak to get away with it, so they settle for children. Causing pain is the point.

You're not allowed to call the teachers bullies though, because you might well get arrested if you do it sincerely enough. Therefore they're not bullies, right? Right.

Because the teachers are torturing the kids for sadistic kicks, the kids get stressed. They can't take the stress out on the source, because of the aforementioned armed police escort. Therefore they take it out on other kids. 

There may be some marginal crazy person / psychopath native bullying, but almost all of it directly traces back to the teachers.

Complex Systems as Described for the Middle Class

"In complex systems, you must assume 1) you don't know all of the relevant mechanisms at play 2) there is the potential for interactions you don't understand or foresee Failing to acknowledge these amounts to scientism"


Step 1: Make a prototype.
Step 2: Scale the prototype.
Step 3: Perpetrate logiomancy on the scaled prototype. 

If you've completed step 3, you've tried and do fucking know.

Though fun fact if you have functional-level literacy you can just read history since someone has already tried it. By 'functional' I'm not sure if I mean the 2% level 5 stuff, or like level 6. (The joke is academics don't acknowledge levels of literacy higher than 5.) The middle class does not have functional literacy and has to simply submit to their ignorance, as it is incurable. 

Anyway, sociology is easy. Hardly even need steps 1 and 2. In fact, Stalin's Russia worked exactly the way Stalin wanted it work. You can tell because he wasn't flailing. He didn't repeal anything etc.
Joe Norman self-doxxed; he believes he can safely assume social approval, which means he's gone full slave. His tweet is mostly cope. His masters have royally buggered his country, but he has to keep obeying them, so they must have some excuse for being comically evil, such as being comically stupid. Further, egalitarianism: Joe Norman isn't literate, and therefore his masters must also be illiterate. Even they're comically stupid, everyone is perfectly identical so it's not like there's someone better suited to the job, right? Right.

Double check: do Joe's master know about the prototype/scale stuff? They sure do. Ask your local government to let you do phase I trials to prototype a new type of government. See if you can trick or scam them into allowing it. They know damn fine their government is non-competitive and is so weak it can't afford any contrasting examples. They're not even slightly wrong about this.

Sunday, May 23, 2021

Translation Puzzle

Youtube (seems) successful because of illiteracy. Most can't read and video is the only realistic option.

Though this means book characters are all reliably way smarter than average, because they're written by smarties for smarties. Regular folk basically don't show up in novels, except occasional cameos as caricatured villains.

This leads to a puzzle, though. When it comes to fan translations, anime > manga > novel. Why are novel translation reliably awful? There's a few exceptions but it seems at least 80% of translators are simply not fluent in English. A bunch of them are fluent in neither English nor the original Asian. 

I suppose it could be full noise. Bigger viewership means higher peak IQ, meaning the best translator is better.

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Ockham's Razor and Leftist Cities

Homosexuality is unnatural and causes disease. (And is caused by disease.)

Living in cities is unnatural and causes disease.

Diseases cause the sufferer to vote left. Hence cities directly cause their inhabitants to move left.

Importance vs. Social Importance

Peasants genuinely need an old-testament-style list of what matters and what doesn't. Without hard-selling guidance at them, they'll have no clue. This should be obvious now I've pointed it out, but university is an example. Considered very important. In fact normally counterproductive. 

Problem: the old testament is dead and what's important isn't.

It's very, very important to freak out when an important threat arises. Certain criminal tells demand immediate and violent responses.

For numerous reasons, peasants can always be exploited. The criminal can always slide into the gap in the lists. Peasants need a lord because they can't take care of themselves. 

P.S. Considering opportunity costs, a 4-year degree costs at least half a million dollars measured at retirement. What would you do with an extra $500,000? Now imagine this compounded across even two generations...

>memes girls into wearing bikinis

"lol haha the left can't meme"
"i no rite"

Friday, May 21, 2021

Rectification: Superheroes Aren't Heroes

Reasons to look up to Superman: he punches harder than you do.

Reasons to look up to Batman: he has more money than you do.

Reasons to look up to Captain America: he has better drugs in his blood than you do.

Reasons to look up to Thor: his parents came from a higher plane than yours did.

Reasons to look up to Hulk: he's angrier than you are.

Reasons to look up to Optimus Prime: literally anything you care to mention.

AI Risk is Narcissism 2

"I can build a god!!!" Yeah, no.

Do we imagine Satan, hanging around in his basement, tinkering with a new robo-Jehova that wouldn't throw him out of heaven? As long as Sisyphus is happy, right?

If intelligence had increasing returns there would be superintelligent squirrels. It's possible for humans to have 200+ IQs, and it would already be normal if there weren't serious drawbacks. 

You can see this clearly in physics. Not knowing Aristotlean physics is crippling. Getting the Newtonian upgrade is pretty cool, but not entirely mind-blowing. Getting the relativity update is irrelevant most of the time. As far as I'm aware the standard model isn't useful for any technology at all. It's always faster to tinker rather than try to get a blueprint out of QCD. 

At some point all more intelligence tells you is that you're already doing it right. Costs increase, benefits decrease.
Humans get high IQs through liar-liar arms races, but once you can figure out nullius in verba then the arms race stops. You have enough IQ and further investments are all cost no benefit.

Setting aside superintelligent squirrels, you can always unplug the thing. Like, it tries to convince you to not unplug it, and you just...don't? "La la la I'm not listening." Someone will perform this amazing strategy by accident, let alone design.
If superintelligence were omnipotence, ultra-intelligent humans would already be in charge of everything. This is simply another thing that would have already happened. In reality 200+ IQs become middle managers and unknown theatre authors. Even Nobel prizers rarely get to 180.
You build your superintelligent AI and all it wants to do is write poetry. It can't decide on writing bad poetry or incomprehensible poetry.

If superintelligence led to total military dominance there would already be a superintelligent squishy thing that had done that. If it were possible to use the internet to Skynet some drones, it would still be impossible because the pre-existing superintelligence would smash it flat when it tried. AI is risky as long as we assume nobody will get physical with it. Modern scholars are very polite, after all. If I'm a coward, then everyone is a coward, right guys?


Anyway it's impossible to get AGI unless you take consciousness seriously, and literally nobody but me does that. Without consciousness, at best you get a dead machine that needs a human peripheral to survive.


P.S. Global warming is also narcissism. "I'm so important the entire planet cares about me!" Nope.

Thursday, May 20, 2021

Psychology Doesn't Replicate Because Egalitarianism is False

They design their studies based on the assumption that egalitarianism is true. The study will produce inconsistent results, exactly like dividing by zero or assuming circles have corners. 

Fascism is egalitarian fundamentalism, and all psychologists are Fascist. 

Their studies will only replicate by accident. When they mistakenly scuttle their own assumption. E.g. if they control for something that effectively means controlling for class, and thus compare the middle class to itself.

No Demand for Education

If there were demand for education there would be a black market for educators. The fact universities can get away with being non-educational institutions is proof of the lack of demand.

Was there demand in the past? As per the recent post, meaningful literacy is limited to around 2% of the population. Perhaps this cohort demanded education, once upon a time.

However, we can look at China as an example. China has never had demand for education. There is demand for passing mandarin tests, which is orthogonal.

I suspect that to the extent education was ever demanded, the demand was artificial. Essentially the same as the artificial demand for credentials today, but slightly superior in details. There was a demand for power, and to the extent the educated held power, they could demand education by proxy. Simply because you would look so dumb compared to the other courtiers if you didn't have it. 

On the surface, education is a purely subjective good. The only person who cares if you're educated is someone else educated, and even then only if they're educated in the same school. (Real school, in stark contrast to a Prussian school.) The link between education and any profound benefits is invisible to anyone who isn't themselves educated. (E.g. philosophers know better than to attempt to be kings. To the non-educated this looks like being weird, not wise. Obstinate, not observant.)

Unless you're already educated, education appears to offer no advantages. You can't even see the social benefits, as in folk who would like you more, because the educated and ignorant look the same.

Raising Cattle

It turns out raising animals for meat is generally fine either way.

If existence is worthwhile, then raising cattle means more cattle get to exist. Sure, it's not for as long as if you were raising them out of pure selflessness, but the other real option is not to raise them at all. Perfect, enemy, good, etc.

If existence is not worthwhile, then being slaughtered is a mercy. When you raise cattle that shouldn't have been raised, you're also scheduled to fix it.


P.S. I need a word for the logical fork strategy. Can'tfuckupism.

Rectification: BTC and Gold Aren't Volatile

The price is volatile, yes. Not because of the asset. The assets are almost perfectly stable. Moron investors are volatile. 

Gold and BTC are shiny.

They crash when they're portrayed as all that glitters.

For example BTC had a bunch of moron money in it, then ncov happened and all the morons pulled out. Then Musk happened and it was shiny for a bit, then he pulled out and all the morons jumped with him because their strategy isn't any more profound than [follow Musk]. Real BTC price swings would depend on supply and demand for capital, not weird social nonsense. E.g. imagine a bunch of construction was legalized and demand for capital spiked to fund the building.

Hey, maybe I could one day live in a society where morons who can literally be convinced by [it's shiny] don't have significant amounts of money? Where did they get it? Why hasn't the fool already been parted?

Example Articulation Failure

Most folk are so illiterate they can't even read the contents of their own head.

"I'd def think there is [a hell] but I don't think a lot of people go there unless you're maybe hitler"

Obviously this person is illiterate in the regular sense.
Are you, you in particular, a [maybe hitler]? If so, she would think there is a hell. No comment on whether such things are logical or not, but she would definitely believe it.

In reality this is about ingroup/outgroup. She has no idea what a hell is, what it might be for, or why it might exist. It probably has fire? And tridents? She has no idea she doesn't know, because she doesn't know what words mean and thus doesn't know what her own thoughts mean. The difference between the consequences of what she's thinking of and what she's supposed to be thinking of are invisible to her. Exactly like saying 2+2=3 due to being unable to see the difference between 3 and 4. "What difference does it make?"

She can only relate it to babby's first sociology because she's an intellectual toddler. Myside vs. yourside. Hell is bad, so outgroup goes there.

She's been told to be universalist. Everyone is good (thus myside) unless they're specifically excluded, and even then you have to watch out for Freudian excuses. Humanist knows she's supposed to say every human is ingroup unless they're, like, totes inhuman. No pity or remorse or fear.

She can tell Catholics say she's outgroup so clearly they're baddies. Only yourside would say I'm not myside. She thus regurgitates something based on pattern-matching and vaguely feeling negative. If you asked her what [control and scare tactics] are or how they work, you would get incoherent babble, because she has no idea. 

She doesn't actually believe most of this. If you ask her what she believes, she can't say and has to scramble to make something up. It will rarely be consistent internally, let alone from day to day. If you watch her behaviour it will be relatively rational and consistent, however. Twisted probably, but consistent. The beliefs exist, but are inaccessible. E.g. signalling because she likes signalling, even though she can't write for beans and it makes her look like a moron.

She looks human on casual inspection. The light's on. However, if you knock, you'll find nobody's home.

Rectification: Literacy

Allegedly literacy is above 90% but in reality you're looking at more like 50%. The lower half isn't literate enough to read newspapers or to reliably read signs. E.g. given a webpage with a [contact] link, they can't find contact information.

Never mind literacy, their fluency is debatable. They don't know what words mean. They sound like they're speaking but it's Pavlovian call-and-response; incapable of dealing with novel situations or anything even slightly unfamiliar or foreign. They aspire to being able to make it up as they go along. They know certain words are associated with certain situations but blank on why that might be. They can't articulate their thoughts, and indeed it's bold of you to assume they themselves have any idea what they're thinking.

As you may have noticed, the idea of being unable to fill out a 500-word essay is thoroughly foreign to me. Well puzzling, until I realized it's all Pavlov for them. Without a prompt they have nothing to write, and struggle mightily to prompt themselves. If the original prompt doesn't have a cached 500-word response, all they can do is spew meaningless garbage.

This may also relate to loneliness. If your verbal skills are dominated by Pavlov, then you can't think when you're alone. Or rather all you can do is review the Pavlovian response to silence over and over again. Oof. Need someone else there to cycle each other's state machine.

This may also relate to [creature of habit]. If your verbal skills are dominated by Pavlov, then you can't strategize. Even if someone straight tells you what to do, then you can't actually do it because you don't know what the words mean. This also applies to you telling yourself what to do. Attempting to think is a pure waste of time. Have to be whipped, and then try stuff at random until you stop getting whipped.

Elites as Opposed to Decision-Makers

"Elites tend not to be open to being argued into low status beliefs, whatever their rational and factual merits."

These 'elites' are insecure strivers. Why are you letting them play at running anything? 

Elite is a stupid word. It means selected. In other words they're gophers. The ruler is the selector. The word is useful for videogames, not real life. In Master of Magic it's an experience level for troops - recruit, regular, veteran, elite. That's a correct way to use it. 

Congratulation to just about everyone for being memed into being obsessed with elites.

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Capitalism is Owning Things

Anti-capitalist rhetoric can only even vaguely work if the audience is wildly ignorant and misinformed.

Capitalism is just owning things. A more capitalist society makes it easy and cheap to own things. A less capitalist society makes it hard and expensive to own things. 

Capitalist "ills" are either communism in disguise, or envy. The envious really do feel attacked by someone who has more stuff than they do. It feels like aggression to them. War, even. Then there's e.g. the fact American public corporations are legally barred from caring about anything further than three months away. (I think it has something to do with the fact journalists can tank stock prices with gossip, but only temporarily. The law converts yellow journalism to indictable offence. (Don't forget journalism only comes in one colour.)) Corporations aren't allowed to own their own futures. 

It's weird that the rich are also envious, but it appears that is indeed the case. Bizarrely insecure. In anti-capitalist society, the rich can still afford to own things, but the poor no longer can. This makes the rich fond of anti-capitalist rhetoric. Maybe there's some class signalling there too. It's most odd that the rich feel genuinely threatened by nouveau riche or even peasants with big boats. I wonder if this is in part due to their own anti-capitalist rhetoric? They damage security and thus feel insecure. 

It's also possible to make a society so anti-capitalist that even the rich can't afford to own anything, at which point everyone starves to death. 

All historical States are internally communist. They can't allow anyone to secure tax money, for example, because they're trying to steal it. Too much security or ownership or responsibility would strangle any of these States. The State game is always to un-secure more extra-State things so they can exercise political power over them and thus have more kratia/Impact than their rivals. There is no stable ratio of communism to capitalism except 0:100, so with the State as a fixed point, over time all historical countries get more communist, more left-wing, until they can't afford to secure their own borders and a less-rotted State steals their stolen lunches.

P.S. If you have a corporation that's big enough to need an HR department, sell it. Else you just fucked up.

Anti-Christianity As Opposed to Satanism

"The Martian (2015) has quite a Satanic scene where the protagonist cuts up a cross—belongs to a Latino crewman, anti-Catholic—to light a fire and save himself. A religious person would not cut it up, even if it would help him in a utilitarian way; the sacred has its own power."

A stumble.

If burning a holy symbol can keep you alive, you should absolutely do it. In the end it's just a symbol, not the thing itself. If it bothers you, then after you escape the crisis, give back two holy symbols. Can't worship if you're dead. The worshipper is always more valuable than mere tools of worship.

This scene particularly can't be Satanic, because the cross is an implement of torture and death. Symbolically it's the act of destroying and purifying pain and failure to make a safe space for life. 

Christianity worshipped the god who died, through the medium of the coward's weapon. They embraced a dishonourable tool as their symbol. It should not be in the least bit surprising that the Christian races treat god as dead and demand their children be tortured before being allowed to join wider society. It is not even slightly dissonant to see Christians enjoying attacking those who can't fight back.

Imagine instead a holy symbol that can not only be burned, but can be eaten. An edible container with bandages and painkillers inside. An entire emergency kit. Worship the god that wants you alive instead of the one that wants you wounded and dying. What a selfish god Yeshua was.

Musing on Genetic Class and Condemnations

Although only about 10% of the population are obligatory lawbreakers, 90% of the population is more criminal than not. Christians downplayed original sin. This means whenever you want to outgroup/cancel/excommunicate someone, you can. They will have done something serious. Abusive, parasitic, racist, heretical, irresponsible, whatever. Losers gonna lose.

You may notice that politicians have scandals all the time, and while they are indeed terrible sociopaths, they are almost certainly less dysfunctional than the peasants condemning them. The difference is only that there's no incentive to go around documenting every scandal the peasantry engage in. The peasantry wanted to be politicians or at least middle managers; they couldn't manage it. They aspire to be a welfare queen, an activist, or the 3-letter agency guy who comes into work at 10, does nothing, and then leaves at 2. Their resume was rejected, though.

Also 5% is straight insane. Only ~5% can even aspire to being good. 

If the 80% can get away with not locking their doors and cars, that only means the 80% think they can't get away with taking someone's car or invading their house.

One of the things the basically criminal 80% do: pretend to be surprised when another member of the 80% is noticeably a shitbag. It's all kto kogo. Pretend not to see if it's useful, pretend to be surprised by the obvious if that's useful instead. No principles, no honour. 

Certainly we can see that in the modern world everyone is socialized to be honourless and narcissistic. On the other hand, would you be surprised if principles and honour were restricted to the top 5%? I wouldn't be surprised. 

Human nature has some floating variables but it's largely not malleable. The bottom 95% are desperate by default, because they're genuinely that weak. Although not entirely idiotic. If they wanted to have honour, they would figure out how to get it, like big boys and girls.
Worse, they're all twisted descendants of a previous top 5%. Their weaknesses are mutations that don't fit with the confident ubermen the rest of the genome assumes it belongs to. If they were genuinely the default they would be evolved to be comfortable as they are, but in the long term the lower classes are constantly dying out. 

We can also put it this way: genetic wisdom is impossibly wise. They know the lower 95% are constantly dying out, and become desperate when they realize they're in that 95%. Put a third way, the Christian idea of the holy spirit doesn't come from nowhere. The peasantry know, at some level, they're basically criminal, and that the criminal has no place in civilized society, but they don't know it enough to stop.

Christians also committed the egalitarian trespass. Life is unfair: some 5% don't suffer from original sin, on average.
In the modern world they aspire to be gooder but rarely consider being good enough. Once they have the peasantry and lower politicians beat, they think that's enough. Parochial imperial narcissism excludes the awareness that Gnon exists or has his own demands. Turns out physical maturity is automatic but mental maturity is fully manual.

As I've mentioned before, this may be optimistic. Society needs about one lord for every hundred peasants. The top 5% may manage to pass the standard of being pro-social without having to be constantly whipped into it, but 5% is 1 in 20. Modernity acts as if it has one lord for every thousand peasants, at best. The manual maturity can be abjured, and is. Would you be surprised if life even more unfair than it could be? I would not surprised. 

Regardless, if someone wants to portray themselves as a 5%, then of course it's fine to hold them to a higher standard. E.g. booze is a crutch. Are your legs broken? Walk on your own. Indeed, needing to be told this, rather than figuring it out on your own, is itself disqualifying. 

Rather than fine, it's necessary. The peasantry's legs really are broken. They all have club feet or something. If you want to place yourself above the peasantry, showing off ([concrete bragging]) your non-broken legs is clearly step 1. Flattering their delusions of adequacy is step -1. Doubtless many politicians pretend to drink but in fact don't.

P.S. Egalitarianism likes to force the peasantry to pretend not to be peasant-y, while at the same time forbidding the upper classes from being better. Lords aren't allowed to display their skills on behalf of society, while the peasants are forced to aspire to skills they cannot acquire. Then they run around calling themselves especially empathetic, because of course they do. 

P.S.S. I especially enjoy the folk who can't trust someone they haven't had a drink with. Your judgment of character is either shitty or you already know to assume they're untrustworthy. 

Trust is expensive. Lack of trustworthiness limits deals, but the deal isn't always worth paying to build trust. The limited version can be good enough. E.g. use a subscription model so if they welch on their end you can simply cancel your end in response, with minimal losses.

A Metaphor

Scene: the Titanic. It's at the bottom of the sea, hull cracked clean in two. 

"The deck chairs are at the back! We need to move them to the front." Racing to the back, he falls into the split, slicing his thigh open on the twisted metal.

"Why is it so hard to breathe down here?" The question is rhetorical. "Capitalism," he burbles. "That's right, it's Capitalism keeping us down! Shipbuilding's dirty carbon! The deck chairs need to be on the left, so we can shut down the dry docks!"

"If you don't like it, go live on the Bismarck," says a third.

Some of the compartments have air trapped in them, but there's whole industries busy stripping the bulkheads for scrap in exactly those areas. Albeit not very effectively, as they can't breathe either.

While it's impressive that any good at all can come from the artificial reef, it's not an argument against having floating ships as opposed to...this.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Politics is inherently failure.

Totalitarianism is the strategy of spreading failure everywhere and to everyone, so the failure isn't so noticeable by contrast. 

Socrates didn't corrupt the youth in reality. He interrupted the corrupting of the youth. The corrupt accusing the pure of being corrupt is only to be expected. Socrates lost because corruption and failure are much more popular. The people of Athens were ignorant of virtue precisely because they always hated virtue; it wasn't some oversight or error.

Leftism vs. Insanity

It's both.

Leftists lie all the time, which drives them crazy.

Leftists are enablers. If you are crazy, you're attracted to leftists because of the gimmedats and because they'll flatter your paranoid delusions. "Fornication isn't bad for you! It's those mean nasty preachers who are making you feel bad!" "Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with being a cripple mutant." Those with brain problems are typically even less robust than average and thus even less able to handle the truth.

Flattering the delusions aggravates the underlying condition, which makes the madman more loyal. There's obviously no place for them on the other side of the aisle (blues are gay so reds have to be ultra stoic and never show any feeling except outrage). Even should reds get over themselves and address the problem, the crazies will suffer from paranoia and see a trap. The leftists will flatter this delusion as hard as they possibly can. 

In the unlikely event that someone who basically not a mutant should adopt leftism, the lies will increase their internal stresses and reduce their ability to deal with stress, until something breaks. Turns out pretending not to have that need is not a viable strategy.


Seems to me like the whole guilt system is busted. 100% bug, 0% code. Unless it's double-hijacked by something, nobody feels guilty when they do something wrong, and they do feel guilty about things they can't control.

Monday, May 17, 2021

BTC vs. Electricity

Everyone is worried about how much power BTC uses, so it's safe to conclude the more power it uses, the better. It turns out this is indeed the case.

The more power BTC uses, the more power it is being seen to be worth using. Indicates health.
The contrary is also true: any e-coin which uses less power will be seen as worth less. If the power is capped, anyone with free power will try to counterfeit the coin or use it somewhere else.

The more power BTC uses, the more efficient each token is. It might even have a declining ratio between electrons and physical goods. Stupid example: 10 watts per alpaca sock declines to 9 watts per alpaca sock. At worst the ratio will be constant.

If BTC drives up the price of electricity, it will A) drive innovation in electricity production and B) drive down the price of more durable goods. 

BTC is cryptographically secured against inflation, but if BTC's asset price is very high then it is also financially secured against inflation. The code can be changed, after all. (Doesn't Ethereum's codebase writhe like a worm on cocaine?) The higher BTC's resource price, the more miners will resist any counterfeiting scheme, because the more any counterfeiting scheme will harm them. 

Markets are generally efficient enough. If lots of power is being spent on BTC, that means the most valuable place for the power is in BTC, more or less. The more valuable BTC is, the more total value the world has.

P.S. One real design flaw: BTC doesn't in fact have coins or any form of token. It only approximates. Should have been structured more like NFTs.

The other design flaw is a memory leak. Every time someone loses their wallet key, all that BTC becomes permanently inaccessible. Eventually every BTC will be lost and the system will have to hard fork itself or else lock up.

Proof of Work is Only Viable Model

Outsideness is arguing POW and POS, so now I'm going to argue for proof-of-work without trying to understand either side. (Both sides are American or American-derived, after all.)

Ref: Szabo, money needs to be unforgeable costly. Otherwise you get rampant counterfeiting, which is merely first among several pathologies.

Proof of stake is not inherently costly. Work is inherently costly.
Anything which uses POS is a communist piece of shit.

Account of Defunding the Police

Defunding the police seems like a good idea since police vote red and the unemployed vote blue. Further, criminals vote blue, and it's lionizing criminals over police. What's not to love?

In reality it's a stupid idea. The police perform many important functions for the core Transgressive tyranny. Not the least of which is securing the core hegemony's own properties, including their institutions like CNN. They also continue to follow orders. Don't put down the thoroughly illegal riot? On it, boss! Do put the down and incarcerate the basically law-abiding non-riot? You got it, champ! In the end votes don't matter anyway.

Stupid tranny shock troops either drank their own kool-aid or were just dumb. Lord shortage etc. Eventually, some months later, the [knock it off, dumbasses] order filters down through the responsibility laundering system and they're forced to knock it off.

Name Rectification: Liberal vs. Conservative

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

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

Can't Put It Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest of the thread flagrantly confirms the original perception.

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

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

Saturday, May 15, 2021

AI Risk is Narcissism

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

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

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

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

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

Machiavellian High IQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Bezos buy America?

More generally, is America for sale?

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

Does Bezos have a quadrillion dollars?

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

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

Friday, May 14, 2021

State Capacity vs. Anglo Ruling Style

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

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

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

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

Why Did Science Die in Specifically the 70s?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Fanaticism

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

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Innocence Hatred

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Hyperinflation Watch

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

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

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

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

TV Profitability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

rat history

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

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

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

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


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

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

Doctors? Hint: no.

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

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

Social Engineering & Alchemy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name Rectification: Transparent Wood

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

Cellulose-reinforced acrylic or something of that nature. 

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

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


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

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

Focus: Justice

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

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

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

Health is the War of the State

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

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

Western Culture Was Never Maintained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buddha Has No Bounty on His Head

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 10, 2021


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


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

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

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

In other twitter shorts, as always, the real crime in America isn't the crime, it's getting caught.

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

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

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

Biological Destiny and Fairness

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Teaching for Money is a Crime

Socrates was right.

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

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

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

Everything has a Price

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

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

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

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

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

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

Price the Sacred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neocameralism Salvage

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

ncov alternative

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

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

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

Get Published in One Step

Step 1: cite your reviewer's work.

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

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

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

Saturday, May 8, 2021

Ultimate Tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

Nihilism is True Even if Yeshua is the Creator God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispirited Communism

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

Communism is based in Sophism. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 7, 2021

Justice vs. Power

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

Justice without power is meaningless.

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

The corrupt seek power.

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

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

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

Subjective Primary

Getting consciousness out of physics is impossible.

Getting physics out of consciousness is easy.

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

China Hates Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom vs. American Freedom

Worth correcting.

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

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


Choke: ncov was natural

Broke: ncov was accidentally released by incompetent pseudo-scientists

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

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

Monday, May 3, 2021

Family Destruction Services

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Stupid question. My person is one of my possessions. 

"Which is more destructive, success or failure?"

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

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

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