Women value men's contribution to a relationship more than they value women's contribution to a relationship.
If a society openly backs feminine opinions over masculine opinions, it devalues women. Great work everyone.
Women value men's contribution to a relationship more than they value women's contribution to a relationship.
If a society openly backs feminine opinions over masculine opinions, it devalues women. Great work everyone.
When an American leader appears to be stupid, they're either lying or not a leader. The real leaders are responding rationally to real strategic considerations that you're not being told about. Almost as if military secrets are considered secret.
You can read this to get a flavour of what these sorts of secrets would have been in the past, in addition to learning how they responded to these considerations and thus how they're likely to respond in the future.
Indeed most of them still seem secret, albeit of lesser importance than Min Read makes them out to be. Did you know New Orleans is a strategic keystone to American economic hegemony? It's okay if you didn't know - even if you ran around telling everyone you knew, it would still remain secret. You can't cancel anyone for opinions about Louisiana, after all, what's the point of remembering anything about it?
Google was VC funded with Harvard's special tax-free endowment dollars.
American refuse to do anything without first acquiring Official regime permission, such as Google received. That's why Google is a monopoly. See also Facebook, Twitter.
Sure they can shut down Gab, but they can't shut down 1000 Gabs, simply because of optics. After the third or fourth twitter clone gets shut down it's starts being obvious corporate welfare. For now American can still manage to get into denial.
Though I'm a bit surprised substack has survived so long.
Harvard is tax-free because it owns the government and can casually order it to make them tax-free.
P.S. Seems like less-left Americans are starting to go into the denial phase of electioneering. Someone thought less-leftists had any chance in 2022.
P.P.S. Worldometers is an unforced error. You can use it to show politicians and journalists (but I repeat myself) are basically illiterate. I would like a less-left intellectual sphere which can recognize that America can't be a technocracy, since the folk responsible for day-to-day and month-to-month decisions can't read. They can't possibly be following the science because it's gibberish to them.
Seems like one of the major causes of American stupidity is their malnutrition.
Real food has made an enormous difference for me. In my case it's red meat, iodine, and vitamin D.
It takes time, though. They say it takes five years for a smoker's tar to clear from their lungs. Naturally this is optimistic. Plan on something more on the order of ten years. The effects of a bad diet last for a long, long time.
Fixing it is absolutely worth the wait.
P.S. I am starting to strongly suspect grains cause joint problems. Issue: this is a super prole thought. Grains cause grinding and starch causes dryness. Greasy meat causes good lubrication. No academic will admit anything can be even remotely as intuitive as that.
The American people are pathetic; a quick coda.
With the defund-the-police rhetoric, you could now put up a sign on your neighbourhood. "No cops allowed." Hire a sheriff internally, who will eject any trespassing agents. Your neighbourhood, your rules. None of the government's business.
Normally this wouldn't work. There would be lawsuits, and resisting the lawsuits would bring down the reserves. Now the optics are wrong. If they take down your "no cops" sign, BLM gets caught in the crossfire. Oops. If they try to bring in the reserves, everyone will be watching. Which the reserves themselves are well aware of.
Americans won't do any such thing, of course. They will grovel, like good slaves.
Pretty sure it's fake news. Merely a meme.
I still can't get a straight answer for why it's Communist. Sure there's a few commie-esque bits here and there, but they don't tend to get put centre stage. Christians don't think these bits of Christianity are important, and treat them accordingly.
It does have one commonality, though. Communism is about returning to the paleolithic. More precisely, to the garden of eden, where there was no shame or guilt, you just kind of frolicked around and it worked out. Likewise, Christianity is the same. In heaven nobody has any sinful impulses.
Though, even then. Christians think your sinful impulses will be removed. Communists (sort of) think your existing impulses are already not sinful. That any act you regret is caused by class warfare or false consciousness or something; making a mistake is impossible.
P.S. I've talked on twitter about how the garden thing is theologically wrong. Perhaps I should do so here as well.
Well aware that this is unnecessary, I write it anyway...
Jesus was a weak god who couldn't withstand being questioned.
And what about those miracles?
Jehova: "I made the entire world and everything in it!"
Yeshua: "I made dinner and took a stroll."
This? Certainly it's impressive if you're a poor shepherd or carpenter. Especially a hungry one. I expect the creator god to have a better imagination than me, however, rather than a worse one. Perhaps this is why Gandalf had to be so anemic? "I have, like, a lightbulb. A big one." Law 1 of the 48 laws of power: don't outshine the master.
Even Thor can make lightning. Jesus can make lunch.
Free fish sandwiches is cool and all, but it's not exactly top-tier, you know?
Jehova allegedly did bigger things, but conveniently it's all stuff that can happen non-miraculously, with the occasional thing that leaves no archaeological record. As if someone was making it up and was aware they might be questioned about it...
Likewise, the Christian miracles are all things than can be done by a canny schemer or outright lied about. Handy, that.
Of course we can do this to Zeus et al as well. What does Zeus do that's genuinely miraculous? He turns into animals. Apparently not only does he not make his own lightning bolts, they don't even return on their own. If his eagle rebelled he would be kind of boned.
No, what Zeus does is all stuff regular vanilla humans can do, ± exaggeration and embellishment. "My wife cheated on me with the strongman, but uh it wasn't her fault he looked like a swan at the time." Beastiality makes it okay, does it? Err, if you say so. Carry on.
Zeus was a peltast who was mythologized after endless retelling. The lightning bolts are distorted javelins, which is why they need to be carried back. The guy who invented music probably was named Apollo or something, but that was millennia before Attica existed, and he was just some dude, not literally the sun.
Allegedly ignorant tribesmen tell stories like this because they don't know any better. In reality there are atheists and skeptics even among the Yanomamo. No, ignorant moderns seriously pass on the myth that the tribesmen took these stories seriously, instead of telling them to children for entertainment.
Some fools would take it seriously, as the Yanomamo have not only atheists, but fanatics, just like everyone else. They tend not to be told because making fun of them is fun. Why ruin the fun? It's bonus entertainment. They probably won't believe the debunking anyway, what with being such fools.
Heracles could apparently crush boulders with his bare hands, yet he's okay with proving himself. The top dogs get angry when you ask them to prove themselves because they're aware they can't. (Zeus seems okay with it though.) I'm not 100% sure why this works. Why does anyone buy it? It does work, though. Being able to force others to stop asking for proof counts as proof, apparently. Not being able to do so counts as condemnation.
Perhaps because the bottom 88% can't read proof anyway? It would be meaningless even if provided. The top 12% already know they can't prove themselves without having to ask, but can appreciate that it is (sometimes) best not to rock the boat, a sophistication the bottom 88% can't manage. (Percentages subject to revision.)
You can ask an Abrahamite why Jehova didn't put a Fence around the Tree. This is the kind of question a genuinely curious person might ask to understand the stories. They don't try to answer it though, they just get upset.
Like it's two naked dudes and an allegedly omnipotent overlord. Who is really responsible for what happens in this situation? "I know the future. Therefore, what happens is your fault." Wat?
Quick question: would the creator god realize his performance would look like a scam to folk even the next town over? Would he expect this obvious-scam isomorph to be convincing in the future?
(Don't really ask this of an Abrahamite. Melting snowflakes on purpose is unkind, unnecessary, and ineffective.)
Theology is way, way easier if you assume there are no omnipotent powers, or at least none you can reach from here. Or, more generally: don't take it too seriously. I interpret St. Augustine as a Straussian. In fact he believed the entire Bible was metaphorical, but had to say he took some of it literally for political reasons. Churches tend to fill with foolish fanatics, after all. The "One True God" nonsense actively encourages their Prideful self-indulgence.
P.S. Don't outshine the master is such an important principle that Greene repeats it in the laws of war. Though partly this is because Fascism is an envy-worship cult, encouraging such degenerate anti-glory behaviour.
P.P.S. Speaking of foolish fanatics, care to laugh at folk expecting Greek myth to be consistent? Yeah when the one guy comes up with the Heracles/Atlas myth, all the other myth-tellers rush to ensure their myths show Heracles is strong enough to hold up the sky. Sure.
By the way, no Heracles wasn't dumb, he was intellectually lazy. Liked flexing his arms, not his brain. He could, but would avoid doing so if at all possible. That said, won't is a lot like can't.
P.P.P.S. The moral I take is that humans are fuckin' dumb and even if they were told about genuine divinity they wouldn't remember, or understand if they did remember. Exactly the same way that if you told an ancient Greek about quantum mechanics, they would dismiss you as a raver. Exactly the way that if you told an ant about grocery stores, they probably wouldn't even realize you're talking to them, and couldn't even imagine it if you did. Even though you're talking to an ant who is in a grocery store at the time.
Humans tell each other things they can understand that's vaguely divinely inspired, at best.
Let's imagine other contracts worked the way the modern Western "marriage" contract works.
You go to a TV company, and promise to pay for a deluxe cable package...unless you change your mind. Then they have to supply a basic cable package to you for the rest of the firm's life.
You accept a job offer. It's not a fire at will sort of thing, but a long-term contract. You promise to do your job in exchange for pay...unless you change your mind. Then they have to pay you half your salary anyway for the rest of the contract's original duration.
You go to a grocery store and promise to pay for that
watermelon...unless you change your mind. Then you get to keep half the
watermelon anyway. If the store has no use for the remaining fruit, tough. If you almost buy two but change your mind, they hack them both in half, right on the counter there.
You get a mortgage. You promise to pay the principle and the interest charges as outlined in the contract, unless you change your mind. Then you get to keep the house anyway.
For some reason the 'employment crisis' keeps showing up in Huffpo articles. They keep telling cable companies to 'firm up' and offer TV packages.
Marriage is outlawed. It's a gender-specific crime men commit against women. Customarily they're not supposed to prosecute, but at least half them do anyway, and it's a very serious crime with very serious penalties. Further, affords almost no way to demonstrate innocence.
Warning: disgusting imagery.
When a boy is homosexually abused as a child, it often causes them to grow up gay. This is because most peasants aren't really people.
Prepubescents can orgasm. This trips the Pavlovian reward/punishment system. During gay sexual abuse, reward is associated with dick. Hence, the adult peasant turns out gay. This is the essence of grooming. The better the groomer is at associating themselves with pleasure and not associating themselves with pain, the more likely they are to be able to distort the victim's sexual impulses toward themselves.
You would think the sexual impulses would be more robust than this, but it turns out peasants are janky. It's constructed of bubble gum and duct tape. In a peasant there's nothing more to it but a bunch of physical shapes paired with Pavlovian associations. It is unlikely they are ever properly attracted to one another. The impulses aren't really sexual at all. Rather it's all a feedback loop and which way the system goes depends almost solely on the initial bias.
It's more surprising that not all victims turn out gay. Most likely this is due to overlap with social mimicry. They copy the highest-status person around them they can realistically copy, and feel rewarded for copying it with more fidelity. They don't like chicks, they just like acting the same as everyone else. They don't dislike naked dudes, they merely see folks with lots of friends modelling disgust and thus model the same.
In general this article is some good ore. Today I want to work with the dross.
"exactly as the stigma against incest allows for the physical and emotional freedom of a family."
This is "conservative" Fascism.
A principle of obversion: if the stigma allows X, then lack of stigma prevents X. But, does it? In any conceivable situation, should the stigma vanish, the stigma would immediately reappear. It is no mere social stigma but a strong biological reflex. "The stigma against pain allows you to take your hand off a hot stove." This "conservative" is in fact a social constructivist. A fanatical nurture fundamentalist.
If you're a social constructivist, then why not simply construct a list of social rules where incest is allowed and doesn't block certain familial relations? Man is a Rational Animal, I'm told. He doesn't bow to silly things like fleshy biological imperatives. "Without a stigma against pain, having your hand on a hot stove wouldn't hurt." If Man is disturbed by certain actions, simply tell him there's no good reason to be disturbed, and He will stop. "Stoves can be perfectly safe for everyone (especially children) if only we can get rid of the stigma against pain and injury." Right? Right.
This "conservative" is doomed to lose rhetorically to the devout Regressive.
They say the Overton window and framing is a problem. In a sense, it is. The problem is that "conservatives" wholeheartedly accept the foundations of the Fascist world view. They do not want to escape the Regressive frame.
It's a bit weird that Regressives commit fallacies and use tricks so often, since it's wholly unnecessary. Trapping "conservatives" in their frame isn't a scam or a grift, it's where "conservatives" like to hang out when left to their own devices. The Regressive can defeat the "conservative" in debate all the time, every time, using nothing but the "conservative's" own positions.
Because the author is no rightist at all, but a less-left Regressive, ultimately he is unable to critique Regressivism sharply, harshly, or even consistently. He's ontologically committed to defeat. He always has to make room for his own Regressive commitments and impulses. He is, fundamentally, compromised.
I am perhaps relieved that the compromised consistently lose to the less-compromised.
The intolerant minority wins? Then, should the holders of truth compromise with dishonourable liars? I think not. I rather think not.
P.S. Let's get rid of the "stigma" against mental illness. Crazies only insufferable because you prefer health to sickness and failure, you damn bigot. There's nothing wrong with thinking wrong thought, right? Right.
P.P.S. Much as the stigma of incest is hard-wired, you will likewise never see hot chicks regularly walking down the street naked. Certain Regressives are likely to pursue both rules, but it's not going to work. Sure you get slutwalks but A) they're desperate, not attractive and B) it's called slutwalk because only sluts go. They tried to reclaim "gay" but now it's hate speech. They tried to reclaim ninja and you can see how that went. Sluts are slutty, and that's never going to be a high-status trait.
Scholarship is refined metal. Ore must be refined. Last Psych generally (though not always) produces scholarship. Almost everyone else produces ore. As with regular physical ore, ore comes in various grades. High-quality ore yields a lot of metal. Low-quality ore has to be intensively refined. Below that is ore so bad that the metal you get out is worth less than the refining effort put in.
It's fun to point out how Alone isn't cynical enough.
"Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit."
Why is this funny?
Because doctors don't care about your well-being. If you get sick and die, yeah, well, whatever. Shit happens. However, lawsuits are expensive and aggravating.
If you have a problem and doctors can help, you have to manipulate the doctor into using medicine on you. There's no point in relying on the doctor to use medicine or diagnose anything, because that's not what motivates them.
But that's okay. Getting healthy doesn't motivate most patients either. There's no demand for medicine, which is why it's so hard to find.
Patients visit doctors to signal they Care about Health, which is why it's called health-care. You can tell they Care because they're spending so much money on it; sure they care about their bank accounts, same way doctors care about their own bank accounts, but they Care about Health so much more than bank accounts! At least, patients don't care about their biological well-being until it's far too late.
Because I'm excessively intelligent, it is excessively rare that I don't get everything that can be gotten in the first reading. Last Psychiatrist is an exception. Damn that guy is sharp.
Last time I read that piece I just didn't get it.
Although, at least, I am disciplined. I think you can learn to be disciplined too. My discipline warned me: I didn't quite get it. I was aware there was something I was missing.
Maybe LastPsych could write more clearly, but that would take all the fun out of it. What if, for a change, I don't want to be spoonfed, like a squalling, entitled baby? What if I want to read something that can (must) be read into? If LastPsych had written more plainly, I would have no options at all.
Stuff like Ulysses doesn't work. Sure it must be read into, but there's a big difference: James Joyce was utterly full of shit, and Alone is almost never wrong. I have my own ass, thanks. If I want shit I can produce it myself.
Ironically, the cure for being in the spoon-feeding demographic is to endlessly ask why, like a toddler. Or perhaps that's not ironic? Levels of childishness. Toddlers can, at least, handle the final step of plate-to-mouth. Obviously squalling, entitled babbies need to pass through toddlerhood before they can get anywhere.
(Because of anglicization, Americans don't have families. Everyone needs a parent to be raised, so Americans get arrested at infanthood. For once, it's not because of Fascism.)
Hypothesis 1: wearing makeup makes you feel good.
Why? Why does it make you feel good? Why does that thing feel good?
Hypothesis 2: wearing makeup is for attracting men.
Why? Why does it...yeah okay you kind of already know the answer.
Why though? Why would this be unpalatable? Is it bad to attract men or something? "Having a husband is immoral." Well, to certain envious spinsters...
Yet, it must be the case that makeup gets worn, because actually women want husband-providers. Thus there must be some reason makeup gets worn anyway...
"if he said,
"ugh, you should put on some makeup, doll yourself up a little bit" but
women say this to other women all the time-- especially at work."
She's actually doing her a favour, since other woman in fact wants to wear makeup. But she's a woman, so she forgets. Sometimes she needs an excuse, since women can't safely take responsibility. Not only makeup, but the correct makeup. How is she to know what's correct unless she is corrected?
Surely some women don't want to wear makeup? Well, not really. Women and peasants don't have opinions, aside from the basic Darwininan imperatives such as get-pregnant. There's a hack, though: one of the Darwinian imperatives is [fit in]. Women and Asians are radically conformist. Thus everyone must wear makeup or everyone must not wear makeup. The latter is wrong, so the winning move is the former.
"your leisure time is spent justifying a behavior you can't not
do. "But I wasn't looking for those articles, I just stumbled on
Women and peasants don't have leisure time. They're always pursuing Darwinian imperatives because there isn't anything else there to pursue. They try to fit in, but harder, to relax. Relax just means none of their Darwinian imperatives are currently in conflict, so they don't need willpower or the terrifying responsibility of prioritizing one imperative over another.
This isn't something an aristocrat like Alone can appreciate naturally. He actively seeks out more responsibility and the skiving instincts of the peasant simply don't compute. (Among other differences.) At least, until someone informs him of the discrepancy.
"The choice to wear makeup is no choice at all, I know you think you
came to it on your own but you live in America, you don't make free choices here, freedom is a brand."
More precisely, in America everyone is a peasant. Even, or rather especially, if they're not a peasant. Fascists gonna Fasc. Even if you introduced the custom of allowing aristos to decline, all that would happen is that the Fascists would demand everyone pretend to be a declining aristo. Only options are all makeup or no makeup.
"Of course it's a "good thing" that women are Senators in
as much as not allowing them to be Senators is the bad thing"
Oops. America will be saved when Alone-tier Americans can not only admit that disallowing women to be Senators might be a good thing, but doesn't even find it "unpalatable." (Also, ban male Senators.)
"Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal"
Alone makes mistakes. The difference is: it's still good enough. Reading the article will tell you relevant things you didn't already know. Even if you fall into the traps you'll make a net gain.
Plus he's not lying. Honest error, not mendacious politicking.
Apparently this is some kind of Herculean achievement.
Or perhaps it's an internet dynamic. Alone was good. Alone stopped writing for the internet. This is not a coincidence. Perhaps Alone writing for the internet at all was a weird aberration.
"but from ground up to top down, and top down works in a very specific
way: it concedes the trappings of power while it retains the actual
If you get to know your friend well, you will realize they are unequal in many ways. They're unequal to you and they are unequal to your other friends. Fascism is fanatical nurture fundamentalism, and thus admitting inequalities is heresy. Thus no devout Fascist can know their friends.
Friendship works best if you assume exact social status equality, even though you can explicitly tot up their social merits and demerits and carry out fine rankings. Or rather, you unavoidably do this by reflex. However, luckily, you can waive the obedience rights higher status is supposed to grant, and base the relationship on negotiation and mutual benefit rather than one-sided dominance.
While it's not the core cause of natural narcissism, the core symptom of narcissism is being unable to see others for who they are. Fascists make being blind to others high status, and thus everyone desperately tries to be as narcissistic as possible. Narcissism is a real condition, so the symptoms are related. If you try to mimic one core symptom, you will unavoidably be trying to mimic the whole constellation of symptoms.
We can also get to this through the back door. Fascists believe everyone is identical except for some largely cosmetic accidents of history. Thus, why bother knowing anyone but yourself? If you know yourself, and everyone is identical, you know everyone.
And through a side door. Judgment is discrimination. I hope I don't need to point out how Fascists don't like discrimination. Narcissism is total lack of judgment of character. Gets a Fascist seal of quality.
A true Fascist isn't allowed to know anyone but themselves. A true Fascist approves of narcissism full-throatedly.
P.S. Even the most devout-seeming Fascist often isn't a true true believer. They're aware it's a game. They don't believe the rules, they're just loyal to the rules. However, they are truly loyal. While they approve of performative narcissism, they approve more of natural, genuinely-screwed-in-the-head narcissism. These narcissists will have advantages during promotion, either at work or in advertising campaigns.
P.P.S. For the slower readers: America is a place where you can't really be friends. Americans find genuine affection sincerely off-putting in almost every case. It's a bit weird if it came from nowhere, what with friendship being otherwise a human universal. If it instead it's a necessary consequence of Fascism, it would be weirder if Americans did like friendship. Contrast the behaviour on Friends with the behaviour in any random non-nihilist anime you care to name.
Scene: toked-up sophomores in their dorm room. "Bro...what if...what ifff....like, friends could, uh, like, do nice things for each other... *huffffff* uhhhh... instead of being mean all the time?"
Because Americans can't have friends, they must have a nanny State or they would be entirely without support. The State, of course, is only too happy with this state of affairs. P.P.P.S. Americans are anglicized, so they can't have families either.
Once one's Egalitarian faith is broken, there are two possible reactions. One is to reject the breaking, and the other is to accept it.
The dispirited theocrat can either try to squeeze more Communism out of the world, or surrender to the world's alleged imperfection. I would say there's a zealot/non-zealot distinction, but "conservatives" are still zealous, emotionally speaking. The distinction is more about immanent Fascism vs. transcendent Fascism.
If you ask a "conservative" they'll often say a perfect realm must be run by angels. If you get details you'll find "Christian" "conservatives" think God runs Heaven as a Communist utopia. They will tell you - albeit not in so many words - the world is "fallen" because you can't perfectly implement Communism in a physical country. You can often get a "conservative" to admit the races aren't equal, for example, but they will consider it a tragedy. "In Heaven we will be stripped of our sinful flesh, and thus there will be no further obstacles between us and Equality." (Secular "conservatives" think the same thing but don't believe in Heaven.)
"Men and women aren't the same (but it would be better if they were)." That sort of thing.
You will never get them to admit to inequalities that are most relevant to their own lives. They will never admit there is a King, and that King is strictly a better person than they are. It is as obvious as the sun rising in the morning that some are natural slaves. Aristotle mentioned it in passing because it no more requires proof than the fact a triangle has corners requires proof. However, you'll never catch a "conservative" admitting it has even occurred to them, let alone observe one accepting it.
(Everyone is Communist about what they know least - and as such they have to frantically pretend not to know the individuals that they know personally, lest they heretically notice they're un-Equal. Friendship is anti-Fascist.*)
If it often appears the "conservative" is merely a Regressive who is somewhat behind the times, it's because that's exactly what they are. While in particulars Conquest's second law is usually the result of direct legal pressure, the legal pressure is unavoidable because "conservatives" genuinely are a variant of Fascist in the first place. America has no right-wing party. America has leftist groups and slightly-less-leftist groups. When the hardcore Regressives manage to inflict a little more Communism on America, ultimately the "conservatives" are happy about it. They only opposed it because they thought that further slice of Communism wouldn't work. When it turns out worldly pressures cannot immediately douse it, they happily embrace the slightly-less-fallen-than-they-thought world.
In a sense, when Regressives call "conservatives" Nazis, they are correct. The "conservatives" are indeed more Fascist in the sense of being more dispirited. They have surrendered to the sinful world to a greater degree.
Secondarily, the "conservatives" capture the less-fanatic vote. While American peasants are Fascist, they cannot suppress their natural instincts as perfectly as the upper crust can. Their faith in Fascism is often weak, just as the peasantry's faith in Christianity was... imperfect. Devotion is a virtue and like all virtues the peasant's supply of devotion is limited. Their dedication reserves are depleted even before they fully manage daily life, let alone before they can fully act out the bizarre madness a Regressive demands. These heresy-contaminated voters have to be roped into Fascist elections somehow, and "conservatives" are perfectly placed to pretend to be on their side.
The unfortunate part is that "reactionaries" are also merely less-left. When I say America has no right-wing party, I mean it has no right-wing groups at all. Even the monarchists I've seen are merely Fascists in cosplay.
Fundamentally Cthulu always swims left because every American, without exception, wants him to swim left. Every American, without exception, is upset when he flinches right.
*P.S. Apparently I just worked out why Fascism == narcissism.
P.P.S. The term "conservative" also needs to be rectified, but my known options don't work on anyone who can't rectify the term themselves. Transcendent Regressive? Nobody who hasn't read this post knows about the transcendent/imminent divide among Regressives. (See also: many that have read it.) Masochist Regressive? Again, references those who remember a specific post from some years ago. Non-observant Regressive? Refers to a post that doesn't exist, also involves two inferential steps and has too many syllables.
Anyway the point is to know what the thing is. The name is just a crutch. I suppose I shall continue calling them Regressives and less-left-Regressives.To be honest only Regressives need care about the difference, so perhaps I need not talk about them at all.
Fun wrinkle: because you can't call them ninjas, the term [black] has to do, meaning the distinction between blacks and ninjas gets erased. All the connotations of ninja get applied to black. Great work, Regressives, you totally ruined an entire continent's reputation.
Totally lost in the shuffle: whites also have ninjas. Fewer, sure, but it's not like they don't exist. Much fewer by behaviour, since they suffer from lacking the political air-cover shielding them from the consequences of breaking the law.
The novel left-wing obsession with Russian spies backs up my assertion that Russia is going anti-Fascist.
While Putin is still fairly Fascist, he's gradually getting less Fascist over time, what with Fascism being such a bad idea. Putin has, like, genuine influence over Russia. (In deep contrast to Biden's influence over America, which is entirely retrocausal.) This causes general unease and disturbance among the devout Fascist Americans. Heresy! Heresy! Then, being secular humanists, they imagine this heresy is temporal in nature and has immanent incarnations.
My general impression is that Moldbug vaguely sensed something true, but cannot put into accurate words because, as usual, he lacks discipline. Because he can't put it into words, he can't bring it into focus, and thus managed to miss the point. Aimed centre mass - but unfortunately it was so blurred he confused it with the next target over. Ultimately he has made the exact conservative error he tried to describe.
"Yesterday, you sent your son to school in the morning."
Incorrect. He is not your son. You can tell, because you sent him to school.
He is the Regressive Regime's son, you're merely a slave caretaker who the Regime deigns to allow its child to be in the company of as long as you obey the Regime's strict child-rearing rules. You even sent the child to a Regressive Madrassah where thoroughly loyalty-tested Regime agents can continually monitor the child for any signs of heretical teaching or heretical treatment. You are what used to be called a pedagogue - child-leader in Greek, in the sense that a collared dog is lead by the leash.
Perhaps you doubt you're a slave. Does the Regime pay you for raising its child? You're a slave. On the contrary, you pay the Regime for the privilege of being scrutinized by its slave-supervisors.
It is still legal to simply not send your son to school. And indeed this is the correct answer, as the point of Prussian school is to cripple children. They're very skilled at this task. However bad a parent you might be, Regressive parenting is worse. Actively malicious.
Any agitation which secured the right not to hand your children over to Regime child-cripplers would be a significant victory. Anything which made it cheaper, easier, or more reliable. This is a victory the Amish have already won, incidentally. Aside from the strategic choice of target, such action would be identical to what Rufo in fact did.
However, for those who have enthusiastically embraced their pedagogic role, it is difficult to fight this fight. Sacrifice the children instead.
The anti-CRT stuff is basically Mr. Tumnus. One's conscience prickles when attempting to betray and sacrifice children, especially those you're related to by blood. However, unlike in Lewis' fervent dreams, the pricking is faint. (In almost all cases.) Slight, token gestures are enough to silence it. "Right, we're going to hand you over to perfect strangers who don't care about you, for the purposes of torturing you out of half or more of your potential, because that's just how we do things around here. However, we won't let them torture you in this particular way." Thanks Tumnus. When the Witch turns you to stone, I'm sure I'll get Aslan to help...probably...
If CRT didn't exist, parents would have to invent it.
As previously, Moldbug is a menshevik. Pursuing Moldbug avenues is a way of dissipating energy as opposed to applying it. It's porn. A way of tricking a psychological need into thinking it was met. Or, alternatively, of learning helplessness.
I find it impossible to believe Moldbug does not excitedly teach helplessness to his own children. You can trust your thoughts to him even less than his children can.
P.S. Even were a bureaucratic education institution somehow an exception to
Conquest's third law, it is obvious that the "students" would be subject to
bureaucratic propaganda over which you have no control. At the very least consciously choose the propagandaplex the children related to you grow up with.
P.P.S. I suspect guilt or a related phenomenon is the barrier between Moldbug and non-programming intellectual discipline. If he were too disciplined he would have to venture further into dissidence than he's comfortable with. Therefore, discipline is actively avoided.
Vindictive means vengeful. This means you don't let wrongs go unpunished. This is turn means the wrongdoer isn't allowed to go on committing wrongs with impunity. Someone who fails to be vindictive is partially responsible for any further victims.
However, peasants are not, in general, vindictive. If they appear vindictive, they are in fact spiteful. The wrong is merely an excuse to cause harm they wanted to cause anyway. Many non-wrongs also form such excuses. Since the other option is generalized spite and resentment, a non-"vindictive" peasant is simply not unpleasant.
The instinct for revenge generally isn't a revenge instinct, but instead a instinct to spite.
In practice, revenge is something that must be done rationally, and carrying it out expends willpower. If you need to take revenge, it means someone is capable of harming you. Much easier to avoid them rather than risk another confrontation. Even if your revenge succeeds - and even deters further deviance - it may form an excuse for spiteful allies of the vengeance-inspiring defector. Build a fence and then "live and let live," right guys?
If revenge seems to come naturally, all you're doing is enabling the spiteful. In the worst case, you may even be prodding the peaceful into acting spiteful so as to appear to fit in.
I shouldn't have to say the following, but probably do. Punishment isn't vengeance. If you can inflict pain with impunity, it means you have military superiority. If you have military superiority, you don't have to let them damage you in the first place, and [revenge] is a meaningless concept.
If you first have to achieve military superiority, as by conquest, before you can take revenge, then you can't take revenge, because the pre-requisites make revenge meaningless. "Hey, if you do that again, I'll have you executed." The point is deterrence, not to cause pain. If they do it anyway, execute them to encourage les autres. The issue is done with and you can put it out of your mind.
By contrast, a peasant who gains military superiority will usually turn to spite. Some mistakenly believe post-facto punishment is necessary. The peasant, however, won't allow one punishment to clear the slate. They will find some excuse to continually harass anyone under their power. The point of spite is pain, not deterrence.
Peasants generally don't go in for killing. Mobs do sometimes, and crazy peasants, but killing is too responsible, so peasants shy away from it. Even a peasant knows that, "I didn't mean to!" isn't an excuse when someone is dead. E.g. in mobs you can always say it was the other guy, who in turn can blame a third... Peasant instincts don't really get security cameras, unfortunately.
For low-level spite the peasant will continually find excuses that at least work in his own mind. My parents' neighbour would habitually mow a strip of my parents' lawn, because they thought how other people mow their lawns was their business. (They cut it so short their own lawn was a dead brown more often than not.) Or rather, because they were spiteful folk. There's no point in confronting them about it. Even if their excuses could be short-circuited, they would simply find something else to be spiteful about. Have to intimidate them by credibly threatening (apparently-disproportionate) vengeance, which is of course illegal in the Regressive regime.
Modern bans on "murder" are bans on both insanity (which doesn't work, for some reason) and of vengeance.
P.S. I guess this means being a mob should itself be a crime? Peasants understand punishment. It's much safer to let folk gather if you're legally allowed to grapeshot them at any time if they seem moblike. You can make peasants reliably snitch on their parents with tactics like these, and likewise you can make them snitch on a mob rather than join it...which means you hardly ever have to bust out the grapeshot.
""Have kids or step on a punji stick, which is it going to be?""
Fascism is fundamentalist theocracy. The religion is egalitarianism. They are radical nurture fundamentalists, which is how they reconcile secular humanism with not being so batshit insane they can't even tie their own shoes or understand the relationship between currency and food.
More precisely, Communism is a fundamentalist theocracy, and Fascists, per Nick Land, are dispirited Communists. They wish for Communism but have recognized that Communism is impossible to create in physical reality, and have to settled for compromised Communism, which is correctly known as Fascism.
Egalitarianism is inherently gendered. In reality, everyone is not equal, in any way, shape, or form, and as a result the "equality" is modelled after some individual. The specific individual doesn't matter much, except for the gender. Everyone is assumed to be a man, or everyone is assumed to be a woman. These hard-wired distinctions cannot be discarded, only distorted.
Russia and Germany went for masculine Fascism. America is a feminine Fascism.
Ultimately Fascism is the attempt to cram a large industrial society into stone-age social mores.
Problem: humans are exquisitely adapted to living on grassland with mammoths in groups of about 100, and very poorly adapted to concrete jungles with rats & pigeons in groups of millions.
Solution: stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you" when industrial society differs from paleolithic society.
As Russia, China, and particularly Sichuan* found out, if you deeply commit to stone-age sociology, everyone fuckin' dies because the carrying capacity of stone-age economics is (get this) at a stone-age level. Realizing this fact, either theoretically or empirically, is what transmutes Communism to Fascism. You can't stick your fingers in your ears and sing all the time, if you intend to not fuckin' die.
*(Sometimes Szechuan, and yes that's Rick & Morty's sauce.)
There are several diagnostic indicators of Fascism.
1. Dogmatism and xenophobia.
2. Horror of leaving things alone; wu wei == despair.
3. Obsession with the Plot of a State Enemy, who is, as convenient, practically omnipotent or childishly impotent.
4. Monogenderism; the 'wrong' gender is considered to be a flawed version of the true gender.
5. Demotism with unprincipled exceptions.
You can see they're inherent to the theocratic nature or inherent to the false egalitarian religion.
1) is common to all theocracies. Anyone committing a heresy and not immediately being struck down by Zeus is a threat to the false religion, because it has no natural support. On the contrary it is opposed by natural law, meaning anyone who is allowed to commit apostasy immediately gains a substantial competitive advantage. (America claims to be liberal and cosmopolitan because it is fact almost perfectly illiberal and parochial.) 2) obtains because Regressivism et al are rejections of modern industrial society. If you left it alone, heresy (wealth) would spread and folk would make do, extinguishing the impetus to destroy industrialism. 3) Is again the direct result of being a false religion. Because it makes bad prophecies all the time, both because of the bugs caused by the incompatibility of industrial mores and paleolithic mores & because egalitarianism is flatly false, there has to be someone to blame. Satan is awfully politically convenient, isn't he? These are secular false religions, so they blame immanent forces instead of eternal forces. Jews, Kulaks, Whites, whatever. As a bonus, since all the flaws of Fascism are blamed on anti-Fascists, the problems caused by Fascism itself get transmuted into justifications for further Fascism. "Communism hasn't been tried; we must do Stalin again, but harder." See also: America's permanent backwards day, where Fascists are called antifa, where anti-Fascists are called Fascists, and where masculine Fascists, such as Nazis or the KKK, are considered to exist. See also: bureaucracy in general. 4) is largely covered above. In addition, anyone modelling the 'wrong' gender is thrown out of public life. E.g. 'toxic' masculinity. Because of this, feminine Fascism, which involves insulting men, is far more stable than masculine Fascism, which involves insulting women. Further, women are far less principled so the Fascism can't be pushed as hard and the disease progresses more slowly. 5) if one person is a king, and everyone is identical, everyone is a king, which means everyone should have a vote. Some of the kings are evil tyrants (because anti-Fascism) but they'll be drowned out by the sensible middle class of kings, right? Right. Of course this is such pure nonsense even Fascists can't say it out loud with a straight face, so unprincipled exceptions to egalitarianism are made so that the country can vaguely function. Or, at least, so tyrants can parasitize in peace. Russia had elections except they simply invented the votes. Nazis suspended elections but totes promised they would abide by them anyway or bring them back or whatever. America (sort of) has elections except nobody but fully collared puppy tyrants are allowed to be candidates. American legislative bodies launder votes so they can pass whatever the fuck they want without any regard to "mandates" or any meaningful threat of losing their jobs; any 'bad' vote is blamed on low-information voters or structural racism rather than the representatives blatantly disobeying the represented bodies. E.g. California voted against gay marriage but it passed anyway. Californians did not object. 6) When stated in plain language, stone-age ideas are obviously paleolithic. Thus Fascists invent new jargon for themselves. The new coat of paint makes the retarded, repetitive nonsense seem fresh. Old words to describe the old ideas must be deprecated or, preferably, discarded entirely. Further, once tried, the stone-age ideas seem obviously paleolithic, and the new terms are discredited, forcing the Fascists to invent yet newer terms for the ideas they intend to repeat. E.g. CHAZ got discredited but the police hadn't been allowed to disband it yet, so it became CHOP. Likewise, the American original Communism was Owenism, which you have never heard about because it preached Communism in plain language and everyone not-Owen realized it was merely a huge ego trip for Owen. Owen tried it, and due to being Communist rather than Fascist, immediately got wrecked by Gnon. (He did not stop preaching Owenism.)
It may be impolite to reject some tribe's word for themselves, but it is dishonourable to assent to a lie, and the latter principle dominates.
As with all American virtue signalling, the American in question holds the vice corresponding to the virtue they espouse. E.g. if they bang on about empathy, it means they are particularly sadistic.
Americans call themselves Progressive when they intend to argue for stone-age sociology.
E.g. when you argue that carbon taxes et al will set the economy back, their true thought is, "Yes? Of course that's the point?" The more paleolithic America becomes, the better. These effects are not some sort of accident or oversight.
In fact I've softballed it. Regressives are trying to reify American myths regarding what stone-age tribes were like. E.g. genuine hunter tribes have very strong laws. You absolutely cannot go against the tribe. Traitors are subjected to heinous deaths - so heinous it's difficult to observe, because it's such a dumb idea that nobody even approaches risking it. It is troublesome to survive even mild disapproval from the village strongman. (Not particularly orderly laws, but strong ones.) By contrast, Regressives like to imagine they had no restrictions at all but could follow their instincts and impulses, like animals.
P.S. See also: Hobbes was basically an idiot.
They merely want the tax money.
Babysitters and single moms can be taxed. Mothers cannot. Have to convert all work to taxable revenue.
It remains weird that the IRS has so much pull when tax money is irrelevant to funding budgets. And yet, nevertheless.
Immigration is similar. Can't tax Mexicans. Bring them to America, where even the illegals pay sales tax.
Maybe that's why they hate lemonade stands, come to think. Too decentralized to tax. See also: optics of tax goons cracking down on 6-year-olds. It's not that they have any sympathy for children. Quite the contrary, which is why lemonade stands are de facto illegal.
"Sartre, ugly and bitter and personally cruel; Althusser, depressed and
murdered his wife; and Foucault, irresponsible S&M that led to HIV
infection. Are leftist intellectuals just ugly, unpleasant people? Is it
that simple? Ugliness and irresponsibility."
Yes. Afflicted with genetic corruption. The sins of the flesh makes them ugly and insane; they inherently conflict with themselves. Their healthy parts assume their sick parts are healthy.
The irresponsibility is related. With a responsible mind they would remove their tainted blood from the gene pool. However, there are strong Darwinian forces that prevent that.
Further, they are rarely crazy enough to avoid noticing that their gene lines are doomed. Sooner or later they will be cleaned out of the species. Or the species itself will be cleaned off existence.
"In the long term we're all dead." Well...for some values of [we], yes. Refresher: "morality" is approximately the tension between the short & narrow and the long-term & wide-scope. If you're a mutant leftist, why bother with the long term? In long term, they will realize you're not deserving. In the longest term, even Gnon's patience is exhausted.
Mercy is to not allow leftists to exist in the first place.
Harvard is an intellectual backwater.
I grew up in a backwater of a backwater. A small town in not-America. I realized it was a backwater, based on the well-known rural ignorance theory. Surely, I thought, I would have to take charge of my own education so I wouldn't be horribly behind when I finally escaped the backwater. I overshot dramatically. Turns out my backwater of a backwater was roughly on par with Harvard.
Was this because the rural ignorance theory was wrong? Was information flowing surprisingly well to my hick town? Nope. There's no way one idiot's thrashing can seriously challenge a locus of scholarship. It seems the modern world has no intellectual frontwaters. You have a wide selection of kinds of ignorance, and that's it. In retrospect, it is not surprising that religious fundamentalism is anti-scholar.
A most apologetic Fascist, but still a Fascist. A somewhat heretical Fascist, but still fundamentally Fascist. Sailer doesn't like how America is so Fascist, but isn't willing to give up Fascism to solve it. Even if he did, he would lose his audience, since his readers are Fascist as well.
"The two realities that are fundamental to understanding the headlines of 2021 are that, on average, blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics are more crime-prone and less smart than whites (much less Asians)."
Murray: "Since we have been unwilling to say that, we have been defenseless against claims that racism is to blame for unequal outcomes."
Yes, an unwillingness to say things is indeed a serious problem.
This is how seizing the frame works. They make it about race, therefore the less-left has an excuse to also make it about race but in a different way, so they don't have to talk about how, for example, police were ordered to stand down and not stop the BLM riots, except of course the riot around CNN.
Yes, it is true that lower-IQ populations are more susceptible to the effects of anarcho-tyranny. The Sauds can still keep crime down. The problem is the anarcho-tyranny, not the nature of the victims of the anarcho-tyranny.
Can we be 100% sure it's cope? We can. Anarcho-tyranny is, uh, not exactly a theory unique to me. Sailer has heard of it. He didn't think it was important. Only, Sailer is not a drooling moron. He did think it was important, but never talks about it because it's too spicy for him. The implications are too inegalitarian. It is not only dumb blacks, but dumb whites who do not deserve the "rights" and "freedoms" guaranteed by the 1776 insurrectionists.
Ultimately the problem is that Americans are Fascist, which means they like anarcho-tyranny more than they like law enforcement. Demand for crime protection is too low.
Honestly, what kind of prole lives close enough to criminals to get victimized? Gross. What a rube. Don't like crime? You're not admitting you're poor, are you?
P.S. Given that they refuse to even conceive of the truth, let alone say it, what's the point in not being cowardly? Why not say socially-acceptable things, instead of the truth?
Of course Murray failed to finesse that line. Oopsie, it was socially unacceptable anyway. Haha! It seems he was never fully cancelled, though. He doesn't work in a coal mine or ditch-digging these days.
P.P.S. For our purposes, "dumb" might refer to everyone sub-130. If you're really optimistic, 115.
All numbers have precision. 0 is 0 ± 0.0000001 or something. The thing after ± is itself never zero. In the case of 0, the precision in relative terms is always [∞]%. The number is perfectly dominated by its uncertainty.
This is probably why the vacuum isn't empty. 0 particles != 0 particles.*
If the possibility of measurement exists at all, there is something there to be measured. You can only have 0 if numbers don't make sense at all in that context - if the question itself is wrong.
*P.S. When you think true things, the world has a tendency to make sense. When you think false things, it is hard to think of an example.
"<i>the power it takes to compel someone out of a local maximum and across a
trough to a higher local maximum is the same power that it takes to
compel them out of a local maximum and across a trough into your organ
In particular, it is the power of slavery. If you can do this to a person, you own that person. They are your slave.
In theory, a slavemaster could demand the slave do things for the slave's own good. In theory...
In practice, if someone can be your slave, they are your slave. At best, they are someone else's unsecured slave. You can't emancipate them even if you want to, because they are incompatible with free living.
Check: slaves are like children. If you "emancipate" a 3-year-old, what happens? They don't exactly become independent.
Combat epistemology is the art of listening to two liars and going home with the truth.
It turns out the reason there's shortages this year is because ncov didn't affect the economy. Everyone listened to journalists freaking the fuck out, and expected the ""plague"" to be a big deal. It wasn't a big deal, and now all their projections are wrong.
P.S. I don't recommend that video. However, if you watch it anyway for whatever reason, remember he's also freaking the fuck out. Less than a usual journalist, but still wildly hysterical compared to how short the "shortages" are.
The last time a civilization had a purpose was Egypt, who wanted to figure out the secret of immortality.
Every ""civilization"" since then has merely been marking time. Exiting for the sake of existing, or because suicide is scary.
[Immortality] is probably a fairly dumb purpose, but it at least manages to be something you can either succeed or fail at. All post-Egypt ""civilization"" has been not even wrong. Can't succeed because it can't fail.
My calculator holds 12 digits. In other words, 1 + 10^-13 -1 = 0. In other words, in the context of 1, 10^-13 = 0. Or rather, 10^-13∈ . My calculator also has a limit at 10^-99, meaning x <= 0.9*10^-99 = 0.
You are a finite being and no matter what calculation you do there's a finite accuracy to it. Anything below that accuracy ∈. In other words x/[∞]∈ Mathies are wrong again, it is exactly the case that 1/∞ = 0, except that ∞ and 0 are sets, not numbers.  is just [∞] viewed upside-down. Or, equivalently, [∞] is just a way of looking at . When you define a [∞], you also unavoidably define a  relative to any member of [∞], and vice-versa.
E.g. for my calculator and x <= 0.1, 10^99 ∈ [∞]. Asking it 0.1/10^99 gives the answer 0. Sure I can handle way more nines than that, 10^9999999999999999999999, but eventually I get bored of writing nines and we've found [∞] in the context of me.
If that's not general enough for you, then generalize it yourself.
Political formulae are perverse. The justification for journalism is keeping you informed of the truth about recent history.
Thus the journalists with the biggest cohones can be spotted by looking at the most egregious liars and propagandists who nevertheless keep their journalism job. What kind of loser does what they're supposed to do? Obviously a real chad does exactly the opposite of that, and blows poncy cigarette smoke in your face when you try to call him on it. They can't even keep their story straight. "Evolving situation" means the lie they want to tell isn't the same from day to day. Only proles are held accountable for negligence.
Thus modern journalism. Or rather, journalism in general.
"The crime rate of England and Wales in 2019/20 was 103 crimes per thousand population"
"In 2013, the number of crime cases reported by the Ministry of Justice was 22,113, a 102% increase over 2012."
Wow, double. That must be a big number, right? Using the rest of the wiki page, we get: 70.3 per 100,000.
70 vs. 103. Not great, but not bad. Right?
Wait...there's an order of magnitude problem...
England is 10,300 crimes per 100,000. About 150 times. That's 15,000%. One crime for every ten people.
Shit, the FBI reports 2477 crimes per 100,000. A mere 3500% of the Saud's crime rate.
Average IQ in Saudi Arabia is 84, around the same level as American Blacks. Speaking of, American Blacks are not a big problem in England. Although it is confirmed that England is now somehow more lawless than America, is it really 400% as lawless? Regardless of the exact details, shit's bad. Shit's real bad.
Race isn't the problem. Law enforcement is the problem. In England it would be more accurately termed crime enforcement or law abjurement.
Fun fact: in 1900, the English murder rate was around 1/6th America's. Again: race is not the problem. It doesn't help, sure, but it's totally overwhelmed by other factors. Singapore has a ton of south Asians and they're still giving up locks as redundant.
That said, if you learned anything from ncov, you learned that the first world is the third world. America is merely the least shitty banana republic. All stats are fake. However, we can still identify broad trends. Namely, England is many times more criminal than the Sauds. Locking folk up is a consequence, not a solution.
P.S. Game theory of law enforcement. It is very much worth launching a massive manhunt for a litterer.
It's just litter, right? Let it go.
It's not one burger wrapper or spare bottle. It's all the other litterers who will be discouraged when you nuke the first one. It's all the higher criminals who will be spooked by your willingness to assign a 100-man team to hunt down a guy who spat gum on the sidewalk. In the long run, it's hard to spend too much on reliably persecuting criminals. Escalate without limit. If you have to literally nuke a fugitive litterer, then do. You shouldn't have to, but the option needs to be on the table.
Yeah okay the litter is like a 50c cleanup jobs and you just spent billions on a cruise missile. Just means you need to stop two billion littering events. Will nuking some bastard permanently teach everyone not to litter? Basically? Yes. It's worth. Not to mention all the bigger fish.
P.P.S. Crime has to go up in the West, because police (as opposed to sheriffs) are bureaucratic, and a bureaucracy's budget must go up. If crime is going down, especially going down by a factor of 10, then they certainly can't claim to need all their money, can they?
This is especially verboten because bureaucracies are paid 100% in graft. They're given sinecures and hobby-work in exchange for political support. Western governments are way too weak to be able to afford to piss off even the lowest ranked bureaucrat blocs.
P.P.P.S. Speaking of costs, "According to Clapham, youth recidivism was reduced from 60% to 8%.
Overall crime was reduced by 40%.
Youth crime was cut in half.
And it cost one-tenth of the traditional judicial system."
Costs less? Reduces crime? Definitely can't have that. It's right out.
What are police for? Being hostile, hazardous, and nasty.
Marx was a pure avatar of brain damage.
Marxists think all the work will be done by machines.
My reaction: "Neat, nobody needs to work and we still have electricity and clothes and iPhones."
Also my reaction: "Are you literally the stupidest person who can still speak. Machines will never do all the work, you negatively-numerate incarnation of lies. Do you deliberately train to be as illogical as possible? Did your parents compete in a drop-the-baby competition? Every year?"
Because Marxists are convinced the factories are going to go away, they spin it around, making the factories go away, because they are literally insane. They address cognitive dissonance by re-shaping reality to conform to their delusions.
Of the many reasons Exit is absolutely critical, this is one of them. What kind of sick fucks let these absolute morons be in charge of a cookie drive, let alone a government?
Why this re-shaping doesn't cause dissonance I do not know. Mad folk be mad, I guess.
Marxists' reaction: "Oh noes where will I work. I have to work!" They already think nobody needs to work, yet they want a job anyway, and yet they think having to show up on time to the job is radical injustice...
The English basically don't have parents. Likewise badly Anglicized societies, such as where Marx was from. E.g. English children don't belong in the family home, and are treated as such until they understand it in their bones.
A lot of English Communism is an obsessive search for their missing parents.
Plato brilliantly plays Hari Seldon in the Republic, and mentions that under democracy the high will be brought low and the low will be brought high. Fools (children) will demand respect from the wise (parents) and the wise will abase themselves and resent the fools.
Thus under Sophist regimes, parents come to resent their children and children come to hold their parents in contempt.
It seems widely applicable and very significant. Research underway.
E.g. can you think of a single public case of European children genuinely respecting their parents? Maybe it happens privately but it seems almost perfectly deprecated.
I think fostering was invented precisely because children were already starting to hold their parents in contempt.
Blogger has automatic view tracking. Thus I can see the perverse incentive.
If you post more, you get more views. This tells you nothing about the view/effort, view/post, reader quality, etc. Does give bragging rights, though. Hence the drive to post as much as possible and make quality take a hike.
Luckily I'm too autistic to care about views or to feel sad that I don't get 'enough' comments.
Unfortunately I'm also too autistic to care about quality, so...
Apparently this is a helpful thing to say:
Consciousness holds your values, which means it's what tells you when you're being preyed upon. Parasites denigrate spirituality to attack consciousness, so that you become weak enough to bleed. Hostile secularism is politically useful.
P.S. I have a series of posts on secular anti-consciousness deep in the archives. Comes up as the first result on Duck.
If logical positivism was a self-contradiction as claimed, then it would never even approximately apply. It can't be as if it were dark if the sun's out. There are no circles that appear to have corners. There are no bachelors who look married from certain angles. There's no fire that doesn't burn.
In reality there are many cases where logical positivism seems to apply.
Hence the self-contradiction disproof of logical positivism is itself self-contradictory.
In reality, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it doesn't quack like a duck, it's not a duck. If you can't tell if it quacks or not, then a difference of no difference is no difference; ducks and not-ducks are identical, which means you screwed up the idea of [duck].
Existence is defined by interaction.
There is an issue with the usual phrasing.
However, you'll notice anti-positivists can't provide examples of the truths they receive without verification. There's no obverse to this [like a duck] principle. Rather, it's a social move: they're aware of unverifiable ingroup dogma, and feel the need to pre-emptively defend it. (Choosing to ingroup those without a fervid commitment to bullshit is right out.)
It seems as if positivism's verification principle cannot itself be verified, because the untrained have an impoverished understanding of the word [meaning].
Words are pointers. They don't have meaning, they are arbitrarily assigned a direction which points at some meaning.
Thus we must ask what [meaning] itself points to. Obviously, positivists use a kind of [meaning] that makes the verification principle a workable principle. Unless you can prove no such meaning exists, you've accomplished nothing. Since I just proved the opposite by contradiction, you may be looking a long time.
Usually positivists refer to carrying information. Carrying information refers to helping you make decisions. It helps you discriminate between good plans that uphold your values and bad plans that contravene them.
Again, if logical positivism had a contradiction disproof, it would be impossible to make [good, bad] plans. You would be unable to tell the difference.
(Set 1:) Being able to discriminate good from bad means meaning exists. Since meaning exists there's some statements that are meaningful and some which aren't. Since there's a difference, you can discriminate between meaningful statements and meaningless ones, and this discrimination is called "verification." Namely, you make a plan based on that meaning and see if it's a good plan [quacks], a bad plan[doesn't quack], or in fact meaningless [no difference between quacking and not-quacking] .
Basically, get fucked, communists. You're comically wrong, and anyone who listens to your epic bullshit deserves the resulting epic suffering.
P.S. "In 1967 philosopher John Passmore pronounced logical positivism "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." Significantly, 1967 is after 1945, when science was nationalized by communist fanatics. The fact postwar scholars are against it is a strong point in its favour.
P.P.S. You can see the homestuck principle at work with Karl Popper. He was promoted after 1945 for views he held before 1945. America produces enough ""scientists"" that anything a politician wants to do has already been justified by some scientist or another, so they can simply cherry-pick the useful ""authorities"" who will, of their own irrational free will, rubber-stamp what they wanted to do anyway.
In the past, prayer &c was technology, not fashion and lifestyle. It was an experiment. When you pray there's supposed to be specific results under specific conditions.
Jesus is supposed to be omnipotent. Hence it is impossible for Jesus to be unaware of a prayer, and it is impossible for Jesus to be unable to answer the prayer, unless you ask for a circle with corners or for the sun to set during the morning. (Setting aside the problem, for Christians, that logic necessarily outranks Jesus. Logic is higher status.)
Theory 1: Jesus can do anything wholesome, and due to omnipotence already knows what you might pray for, but wants you to ask.
Experiment: step 1: want things, don't pray. Step 2: want things, pray for them.
Results: you can do this yourself? Remember to tabulate the results. Ideally in excel or something so you can have a binary computer run statistical algorithms on it. Keep track of the details to see if there's a wholesomeness pattern regarding pass and fail.
This means gods are fully scientific and natural. If they're real they answer prayers. If they're not, they can't or don't.
Theory 2: Jesus judges whether you deserve something and provides it due to benevolence, whether you ask or not.
Result: Jesus clearly judges the world is unworthy of justice, which is why it's not provided. Praying for justice is actually to pray that the unworthy get something which makes things even more unjust.
If Jesus is omnipotent, that is if he can answer prayers whether you voice them or not and doesn't need to consume prayer energy or can't see stuff unless you tell him or something, then some Calvinist variety of fatalism is accurate.
On the other hand having faith in Jesus is irrelevant. The benefits will be provided, due to benevolence, either way. Prayer is done for meditative reasons. Jesus won't make you have gratitude, because free will is more important and he can't make a triangle without corners, but gratitude and humility is still good for you.
Again the results of this can be tabulated and assessed. Try various prayer regimes and tabulate the mental health and mindset & habit results. Obviously, compare prayers to Odin &c.
In this case, gods are almost fully scientific and natural. E.g. they are natural enough that the results of theory 2 contradict theory 1. Popperian logical positivism applies.
I can feel a theory 3 around here somewhere. (Set 2.) Although it may merely be an underappreciated aspect of 1 or 2. It doesn't matter enough for me to go finding it. 1 & 2 more or less cover the bases. As before, I'm not a Scientist or a Christian, I'm an alchemist, practicing logiomancy.
P.S. Complication: principle: do not test the spirits. If you're praying to Jesus just to see if Jesus answers prayers, Jesus is going to recognize this and take a dim view of that prayer. "Hey Jesus, can I have a cookie?" Umm... If you test prayer in a lab specifically, Jesus is going to notice it's a stupid lab test and not something you genuinely care about.
This is part of the general principle of having a model of ESP, because otherwise you can't interpret your results. "Is ESP possible?" isn't an experiment, it's thoroughly unserious. A cloud of burnt weed.
P.P.S. Double complication: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God," John, 4:1.
Good and evil don't exist, but if you say those words to someone untrained they automatically translate it to [things I like] and [things I don't like]. These things do indeed exist, so it intuitively sounds wrong to them.
Good and evil don't exist because there's no external way to validate or invalidate your preferences. As indeed should be the case. Stuff that exists exists. You like what you like. The rest of the world can say or do what anything at all and it doesn't change that you like the things you like.
It's merely that if you like getting high on heroin, but also like not dying of opioid overdose, then upholding the first preference over the second is imprudent. The conflict is internal. (Shocking news: consciousness is subjective, not objective.)
You know this next party already, but I'm going to say it anyway. The [morality is social control] crowd is far more correct than not. It's common to identify [stuff you like] with ingroup and [stuff you don't like] with outgroup. Naturally this is done by those who can control what counts as ingroup and outgroup, thus controlling your ""moral"" compass, thus controlling your actions. Harming the upper class, no matter how parasitic, is always defined as immoral. Self-sacrifice is a myth spread by the most selfish, who offer the clarion call to sacrifice your interests in favour of theirs.
P.S. Most humans have no personality. They have no internal texture aside from maybe [hunger is bad] & [sex is good]. Changing their fake and pretend preferences for other fake preferences is trivial and largely meaningless to the human in question. If saying up is down and black and white lets them secure their next meal, it's all the same to them.
P.P.S. They can't have good taste because they have no taste at all. It seems bad merely because entropy; there is far more bad art than good art.
There is no such thing as ∞, there is only [∞]. x/∞ = NaN. It's exactly as meaningful as x/Tuesday or x/your_face.
To define [∞] you need two things. A specific number in question, and a precision. Let's pick 333. Precision say ±0.01%. [∞] is then any number such that 333/[∞] is 0 to within 0.01%, that is, smaller than 0.00005, meaning for our purposes [∞] is 6,660,100 and all larger numbers. Note the placement of the one is at five significant figures. To be precise [∞] >= 6.6601*10^6.
Let's recurse. We can easily see that [∞] exists for any integer or real number, because division works. That's the [∞] mathematicians like to talk about - the [[∞]], basically.
We can also see [∞] does not exist for [∞]. If we divide [∞] by 5*10^-5, we don't get a number, we get nonsense. [∞] is not an integer or a real number, it is a set of numbers. You can multiply any particular entry by 20,000 if you want, but that doesn't change which members belong in the set.
You can see that no matter how precise you need to be, there will be at least one member for [∞]. The set is never empty. However, statements such as 'infinitely precise' are meaningless. You can't have a number ±[4, 12, 0.09, 333]. At best that's four numbers, not 'a' number. What about [∞] defined on 333 ± 1/[∞]? Recursive, doesn't converge. NaN.
Numbers with finite precision do not approximate nature. Nature is inherently finite in precision, because infinity is not a number, and precision is a number.
Fun fact: 0 is also not a number. You can get arbitrarily close to zero, but you can't actually reach it. , not 0.
Godel numbers remain brilliant - too brilliant, which is why nobody is using them.
Godel's proof includes a particular number, g. This is a specific number, like pi or e, albeit finite. Except it isn't. Nobody has calculated g. You can't, because the number is self-referential and doesn't converge.
Likewise Turing's halting proof diverges. You can write the formula for its godel number, but it is not computable.
Basically this happens because they made grammatical errors. In reality, being provable from the axioms is what it means to be true. Godel appears to prove that true things aren't true, which means it must be appearance only, not substance.
Someone really should have noticed g diverges. But they also should be using godel numbers in real applications, so...
As always, counter confirmation bias by looking for counter-evidence rather than looking for confirming evidence.
Nobody can point to a single true mathematical statement that is unprovable. The denial evidence does not exist, as expected.
Math can answer all your questions.
Exception: if you don't know what questions to ask, math can't help you.
Knowing what question to ask is what consciousness is for.
Likewise, it's very possible to build an unconscious robot or raise a p-zombie which could carry out your decisions exactly the same way your evolution-designed body can. However, the robot's distribution of decisions would be wrong. It can make the decisions, but it can never figure out why to make them.
If someone attacks the robot, why would it defend itself? It doesn't want to be alive, nor does it want to be dead, the same way the number 8 isn't intrinsically orange. "Are circles left-handed or right-handed?" The question is wrong. The robot can defend itself or choose not to defend itself, such as when it's not under attack, but it can't tell the difference between being attacked and not being attacked, because for the robot there is no difference to notice. It can't make the right decision. Or rather, there is no such thing as a right decision for the robot, because it is indifferent to its own survival.
Insects are almost totally robotic and can't figure out why they're doing the things they do, and subsequently you can trap them in lethal behavioural loops. They will play with you until they die, because they don't and can't care.
Moldbug says inflation is about giving more money to rich people.
Naturally, this is not the case. (Envy inc.) Rather, those given Cantillon-privileged dollars become rich.
Inflation is about giving more money to politically-connected people, such as congresscritters or the folk running the Harvard endowment fund. This is mainly done using political favours, not inflation; they can accumulate wealth on below-inflation investments because they have various advantages, such as being exempt from taxes or regulations. E.g. Harvard can make a loan to Google which will pay back less than it's worth, after inflation, then immediately sell the bond at a premium to Fannie Mae or someone. Harvard and Google make money, Fannie Mae takes the haircut. The loan was nominally profitable to Harvard due to Harvard tax privileges, which is how this graft is legalized.*
Inflation benefits those with debts and those being paid recently-printed money. Again, the latter are politically connected. Inflation is neutral to purchasing power and previously-purchased objects. Indeed that's often why real estate is "hot" as it holds value (accumulates nominal price) against inflation.
The point of investing is exactly to make more-than-inflation returns. (P.S. perhaps this is why everyone hates deflation so much: there are many complications blocking accounting of real gains when prices are typically falling.) You can't hold regular dollars, or T-bills or bonds, because the dollar's value is always falling. A good investment, by contrast, takes all the money from competing, failed investments. Horse betting, except you're allowed to fully investigate the health and abilities of the horses.
Moldbug most likely has to take this "inflation for the rich" line because he's jealous of those with profitable investments. It is true you can live like an idle aristocrat on investment returns in modern times. Moldbug has to come out morally against this either because he tried and failed, or because he chose not to try. By contrast I could have bought BTC at 17 cents and didn't, yet I'm still pro-BTC and approve of anyone who holds substantial amounts of it. (Not a flex, I was just born that way. Got it for free.)
That said I think the net-worth measurement of inflation is a good one. Half the US economy is inflation? Plausible. When you have the global reserve currency and invoke the Triffin dilemma, your inflation steals from the whole world. America as a whole is certainly Cantillon-privileged compared to say, Africa. Though, frankly, this is an idiot tax. Never allow a reserve currency into your country. Indeed, as previously, you want at least two internal currencies, not to deliberately join a currency bloc. Joining a currency bloc is utterly retarded. Pure brain damage - except for the central bank, and their friends, who are pushing the currency, of course.
Though this also means Moldbug didn't calculate inflation across all dollars. It's not easy; you have to figure out the dollar-backed fraction of the net worth of everyone holding dollars, then find out their gross gain, then fraction out the not-dollar gain and the dollar-gain and also factor in any dollar purchases or sales... Bleh. Not impossible, but ridiculously expensive. Considering statistics are fake around 98% of the time, and you have to do this globally where statistics are accurate only by accident...
*SEC regulations are written based on equality before the law. Folk are not equal before the law, and anyone so unequal can quite legally scam the SEC regulations as long as the buyer is stupid or institutionally required to be stupid.
Do you know any three-letter agencies who are legally required to be stupid? Maybe one or two?
P.P.S. Come to think, since investment is betting on horse races, a monopoly is the only time when investment is inherently unprofitable. If there's no competition then you can't eat the competition's lunch and the return on investment should always be below par. Investment return is proportional to disruption.
Except maybe [idiot tax]? The thing to do with an monopoly is not buy it. Americans seem extremely bad at not buying monopoly products, especially when there's a superior alternative to signal not-nerd by not-buying. Instead they let the monopoly's privilege eat away at productive companies, thus providing a nice investment return for folk who buy the monopoly instead of buying the monopoly's products.
Note that Congress and the Fed have a monopoly on money-printing. It's supposed to be a duopoly, but they're all the same people so it doesn't matter. Cartel.
In short, numbers don't have colours.
If I say some numbers are blue and others are green, you should first ask me, "How do you know?" The answer is: I don't. There's no difference between green and blue numbers. If I accidentally mislabel them as grue and bleen, I won't be able to catch the mistake, because in reality numbers don't have colours. It's an arbitrary hallucination I'm applying to the numbers in some largely irrational attempt to meet some orthogonal-to-math psychological need.
3 + 5 = 8. It's not like 3 + 5 = [orange] if 3 is blue.
All secular consciousness research (e.g. everything on this sidebar) says some equations are conscious and others aren't. Except, 3 + 5 = 8. It acts exactly as if it's unconscious. The green numbers act exactly as if they're blue, and vice-versa.
Occasionally some of the sharper philosophers will notice that this system requires everything to be conscious. Problem: anything which can be interpreted as an equation must be conscious, which means everything has infinite consciousnesses, and again this is like saying 3 + 5 = triangle if 5 is yellow. They're conscious in the way they would be if they were fully unconscious. Green is blue.
"The causes of [bureaucratic failure] have proven quite resistant to conventional analysis,
but there is one thread running through all the social pathologies:
Failure of Feedback."
You have an employee you can't fire and who sets their own wage.
How much money do you expect to spend on them, and how much useful work do you expect to get out?
Apparently these two lines constitute transcendent genius that an entire civilization cannot fathom.
Naturally, in reality, a bunch of parasites were tasked with finding out why parasitism causes pathology. "How do we stop parasites from sucking blood?" It is not surprising that they couldn't come up with anything even remotely convincing, given that anything remotely accurate shows they can all be fired without thinking about it.
I'm not against censorship. I think there should be a lot more of it. A nonpartisan or objective publisher is a ridiculous self-contradiction. In a real country all platforms would have to declare their propaganda angle.
Twitter claims to be against censorship.
This means every time Twitter censors something, Twitter is declaring that Twitter is evil. The fact they have to make excuses shows they themselves believe they're doing something that needs to be excused. Mens rea.
There's no reason we can't take them at their word.
Purchasing power can't be fudged by accounting tricks. Total purchasing power is the amount of stuff for sale.
If Ford has 100 cars for sale, and you double the monetary supply, Ford has 100 cars for sale. If Ford has 100 cars for sale and the monetary supply is slashed by 90%, Ford has 100 cars for sale.
Though certainly if you perform radical operations on the money supply, the feedback gets all buggered and the price system has a tendency to lock up.
This is the very good reason not to have a national currency. Want at least two, so if one locks up the other can take over with minimal fuss. That or genuine specie-backed currency which makes manipulations impossible.
Basically accounting locks up when prices become inconsistent. A handful of bird feed is not worth as much as a car, but if the price system is buggered vigorously enough, the nominal prices can converge. Or, equivalently, when only folk who already have a car have any money, and thus Ford cannot see any demand from those who wish to buy a car.
If you really bugger the price system you can always just re-issue the currency. Sort of guess how much money everyone is owed and re-set their net worth on the new standard. In other words issue funny* money and declare by law that its holders are allowed to buy food and pay wages and so on. As long as folk keep making stuff, the purchasing power exists and there is stuff to buy. Grandfather in revenue streams. It won't be accurate but it's better than accidental mass murder.
*Funnier money, in this case.
The second stage of this plan would be to slowly wean the system off newly printed money. You absolutely don't want the government centrally deciding wages any longer than strictly necessary. Or: methadone exists. If you have a heroin addiction, use it. Don't like methadone? The alternative is death, so...
It is very obvious that feminism is rooted in genuine misogyny. Nobody wants to insult women and cause them to suffer more than a devout feminist. To a feminist, women have no power, no agency, and no ability to accept these facts so she must be patronized. She can be tricked by any man and every man, and happily signs up for abusive relationships unless someone forces her not to. Feminists have utter contempt for women and think they need to be punished for being so terrible.
"... If I'm understanding the plot it's that feminist theory built this creature in a lab for confused strategic purposes, but when it comes around it turns out to have implacable hatred for any life-form with XX chromosomes. Meta-ironic gore-storm then begins."
Feminist misogyny is simply manifesting as intended.
See also: declining female life satisfaction. Feminists as well as non-feminists know motherhood is good for women, which is why feminists hate motherhood and successfully campaign against it. If feminists have daddy issues it's only because they hate their mom for picking their dad.
Naturally feminism is merely a special case of Fascism, which also hates everything it claims to love.
"You made horseshoe theory real."
The left-left-left-rightists and the left-left-left-leftists think they can gang up on the left-left-left-left-leftists and therefore beat them at lies and other Satanisms. Satan is pleased, I suppose.
I think left-left-left-leftism is roughly Stalinism, while left-left-left-left-leftism can be summarized as Trotskyism? Though they were masculine Fascists, while Americans are feminine Fascists, which makes some difference.
The true religion is wildly different from any false religion.
When your religion is true, Gnon is constantly reinforcing your beliefs. "I believe X will occur," and then X in fact occurs. It is easy to be calm and collected.
When your religion is false, the opposite occurs. Your faith is constantly being "tested" by which I mean falsified. It is easy to be paranoid and insecure.
Fascism is a form of fundamentalist religion. One reaction to having your faith falsified is to double down. Devils or the demiurge or racists or whatever are clouding your eyes and mind, right? Right. It can't actually be a fact that favoured groups have low IQ and disfavoured groups have high IQ. God wouldn't just dis your ingroup like that.
Because Gnon is constantly dissing your false religion, the adherents must even more constantly reassure each other with signs and symbols. (As I like to repeat, firms continue as they are founded, thus express these symbols the same way across generations.)
Basically taunting Zeus and getting away with it. "May lighting strike me down if the pride parade and/or the persecution of Gyews isn't holy!" The proponent hasn't died or been imprisoned yet, so their beliefs must be good, right? Of course in reality Gnon doesn't give a shit about your stupid human blather. He just sends HIV and chortles to himself, and he was going to do that anyway. See also: child abuse rates under same-sex couples. Notice how no other category has pride parades? They're deeply aware the condition is shameful. They're not trying to convince you. They're trying to convince themselves. (It's not working.)
Fascism is characterized by totalitarianism, or the "public-private partnership" which means firms must first produce false-religious propaganda, and only secondarily products and services.
Though it is certainly curious that Fascism is so committed to ensuring the religion is unpopular. Is this Impact? The lack of a holy book? A natural result of the religion being particularly false? Perhaps the religion is selected for being particularly false so as to better justify parasitism. By contrast, imagine every firm throwing up a cross flag in like 1500. "Yes, we're all Christian here. We know."
P.S. I wonder if Christianity survived because Rome couldn't properly centralize doctrine? Communication was poor. The lies could be idiosyncratically papered over by the local priest without anyone noticing the discrepancy. Not even the priest himself. It would have to be idiosyncratic because the alternate lie that plays well with the bulk of the doctrine would vary from place to place and time to time. Religion suffers greatly when it becomes obvious that you have important doctrinal differences from the folk only a couple towns over, never mind other countries...
P.P.S. They seem to get more strident every time because the little cricket inside them keeps chirping on how they're wrong, and they're trying harder and harder to drown it out. Turns out the Christians were correct: even if you're fuckin' gay you're better off if you don't engage in homosexuality. Basically gay sex gives you a hangover and you need the hair of the dog to fix your mood, which in turn gives you a hangover...
P.P.P.S. They know it's unpopular, and that's why they have to keep repeating it. It's not even popular with those repeating it, so they truly understand. It's far from any possibility of being taken for granted.
Previously I realized American conservatives must prefer failure to success. Slave morality: if you get flagellated, you're worthy. The more badly punished, the more worthy you are. I've now identified a second fraction. (A very obvious one, in retrospect.) The one that thinks they're winning. "What does victory look like? We're advancing! Advancing in a retrograde fashion!"
I'm tempted to wonder which fraction has worse mental problems.
On reflection, isn't it obvious that only those with severe mental problems would voluntarily take up politics? No, the only question is what kind of politics your brain damage forces on you. Turns out masochism or delusions of grandeur cause you to become a "right"-wing politician. Meanwhile the further-left is the result of insecure narcissism or sadism, among others.
Certainly much of it is cynical manipulation. During a war you say the worst things you can about your enemy; the worst you can get away with. Make sure ingroup is as hysterical as possible about outgroup. To start with, Fascism is always especially xenophobic and anti-cosmopolitan.
However, the way and style in which they immediately jump to accusations of a coup is revealing their own internal paranoia. They're well aware they should have provoked a proper full-contact coup attempt. They're well aware they've done many things to deserve being thrown down. They are presenting this stuff as a great threat because it feels, to them, greatly threatening. So much so that even yoinking a ceremonial podium is threatening enough to possibly collapse the allegedly "rational" regime.
"UC Berkeley sociologist G. Cristina Mora writes that, before government classification, there had been a “consistent empirical finding” that “Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cuban Americans overwhelmingly considered themselves to be separate groups. They ‘didn’t really identify’ with one another, and they ‘didn’t really know what Hispanic meant!’”"
The categories "white" and "black" are also fully artificial categories, invented for political convenience. Racial-envy warfare trumps class-envy warfare, because nobody can imagine changing to a differ race. (Except Dolezal, I guess.)
This is the sort of thing which government status dominance causes. Entirely fraudulent submission. Or should I call it submission to fraud?