Secular Humanism is Satanism, Entry Several Million, Book 4

"The universe has an oppressive totalitarian government; it tells you what you can't do, it kills us if not enough of us don't work the way it says to, you can't leave it, and you can't vote to change it."
@Hanson

Okay except voting is totalitarian, so you're saying it's too totalitarian to allow totalitarianism...
(You can see the comments on this tweet are nice and Satanist, too.)

First problem: Hanson assumes you're entitled to omnipotence except that crummy universe thing gets in the way. Secular humanism. In reality you're entitled to nothing and everything you can do is being enabled by the universe. 

Second problem: it doesn't feel oppressive. Go look at a sunset. "Help help the violence inherent to the system!" Err...no. Real totalitarian governments forbid everything except doing exactly as they tell you. The universe doesn't even absolutely forbid oppressive totalitarian governments.
What's the name of the fallacy where you stretch a meaning so far beyond itself it can be used to describe literally anything?

On the other hand, Hanson can be correct. If you're fatally mutated, with a doomed germline, the universe in fact does feel oppressive. If you want independence but can't afford independence because you suck too much, you're just kind of boned. If you want to physically dominate a room but you're a woman, well, good luck with that.

Rather, humans primarily want evil things but other humans will fight back, thus not allowing the evil things to occur. Oppression. How awful. Notice this would be a problem even if you were entitled to omnipotence, because everyone else would also be entitled to omnipotence. 

Third problem: the issue with oppressive government is that they're rebelling against the universe. At best, they force you to rebel against the universe. They don't let you fulfill your own needs. "Communism creates enormous destruction while failing to advance at all toward its stated goals. That’s kind of why communism sucks so much." The oppressive government sucks precisely because it cannot win its rebellion against the universe. Dealing with one "oppressive" government is manageable. Two competing oppressive governments, not so much. 

P.S. Time doesn't kill you. Absent time you would be unable to do anything, i.e. would be already dead. You would not be entitled to immortality if that crummy time thing didn't take it away from you. The alternative to time isn't eternity, the alternative to time is nonexistence.

Makeup on Women?

"As a teenager, I claimed to prefer women without makeup. Where did that come from? Stray feminist meme? Counter-signal to say I’m not superficial; I’m, like, deep and intellectual? Actual genuine distaste at being mis-sold products?"
@Xenopolitix

Usually all of the above and others besides.
A stray feminist meme that's picked up because fake advertising gets super tiresome very very quickly. Counter-signal to say you can afford to date women who are so hot they look great even without makeup.
A wife has better things to do in the morning than spend 1.5 hours on makeup, so in the long term your date isn't going to wear makeup anyway. Would you rather she spend 1 minute throwing breakfast in the microwave for your kids and 90 minutes on cosmetics, or would you rather have luxurious 90 minute breakfasts every day?
Up close you can see the powder on her skin. Makeup only looks better in poor lighting or at enough distance. That said we should admit that it does look better when done properly.
There's also this: can you run your fingers through her hair, or will she be mad at you for messing up the 'do? Makeup sacrifices intimacy for the sake of appearances.

Feminists realized this meme doesn't work properly for the leftist, for these reasons and others besides, which is why they rarely push it these days. They haven't got around to abominating it, so some particularly unfortunate feminists, who are unattractive even with makeup, sometimes still push it, although the wheels are jammed and it goes nowhere.

David Foster Wallace Destroyed in One Paragraph

"Name me one contemporary fiction writer who required his college training to be a writer, and if you say David Foster Wallace I swear to god I'm going to pumpkin your house.  I think the only reason The New Yorker keeps shoving him down my throat is because he-- the guy, not his work-- is an academic's aspirational fantasy, a compromise between two worlds: mild mannered writing professor by day, brooding and non-balding antihero by night, a last chance at "I can be cool, too" for the late 30s associate  professor who thinks that intelligence alone is insufficient reason to be labeled a man."

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html

For reference, if you've been living healthy, this reads like a dispatch from foreign lands. "What is this Nwu Yorkie you speak of?" Such a curious culture!

I only hear about DFW from leftists who think it's cool to pretend to be a rightist for some insane reason.

Forum moderators are not your friends.
They are weapons. Direct them at your enemies or indeed anyone you don't like.

Your culture is broken and it's helpful to remember what a non-broken culture would say about it. 

Non-broken rule: don't meddle with someone else's feelings unless they're literally a child and you're biologically their parent. Exception: their feelings are meddling with yours, and thus meddling back counts as self-defence. Otherwise, it's very much their responsibility to ask for help, should they desire help with their feelings.

I think the fact I have to say this out loud is yet again a manifestation of Fascism, specifically feminine Fascism. Women have the urge to meddle with the feelings of others because they need opportunities to signal their willingness and demonstrate their ability to nurture small children.

How it's supposed to work: woman tries to meddle, everyone rolls their eyes, realizes she's too idle, cockblocks her 100%, then finds something for her to do. The archetypal case would be redirecting her towards her own children or grandchildren. They probably need more supervision than they're getting, and it turns out she's not busy. No children? I'm sure her husband would prefer more...attention, which will in due course solve the problem with no further intervention. That or husband-hunting. Secondly, women need hobbies too. Ideally ones where she produces a saleable product on no particular schedule, because children allot you free time on no particular schedule. Sexism wasn't the reason knitting became a female thing, geniuses. 

How it actually works: men running around trying to prove their feminine bona fides.

Reminder: if you send an ignorant peasant to school, that means you have an ignorant peasant who thinks they're educated. The ignorance is genetic, not circumstantial.

Was Prometheus Fascist?

Invent your own fire, leeches. 

Hey Prometheus, how about you mind your own fucking business?
Though also, hey gods, secure your shit. Jehova and Olympus: leaves their key treasures on the porch and goes to the bar to get smashed. "How it get stolen? Idgi." Nobody comes out of this episode looking good.

E. Lee was your Sulla. He lost, btw. Best case, Caesar = Lincoln (including theatre Brutus) and FDR was Augustus. Don't look so pretty up close, do they?

Alternatively: nobody is interested in Byzantium because east/west flipped. England is Western Rome. America is Eastern Rome. To research Byzantine history all you have to do is open a newspaper or go outside. The politics are certainly opaque (dishonourable) enough.

True History of Abolition, Very Short Version

Slavery was abolished for two reasons.

1. They wanted everyone to live like slaves.

2. Slavers are good judges of character. 

Sure the peasants were/are still pissed about Barbary slave raids and wanted to slag them off by proxy, but this wouldn't have been relevant without 1 or 2. 

If everyone lives like a slave, they will notice if there's an explicit legal slave to compare themselves to. Can't have that, so the legal slaves have to go.

 

The envious slaves are aware, deep down, that they wouldn't sell for much. If they see someone just like themselves being sold for 9 spirit stones or whatever, it becomes much harder to pretend to themselves that this isn't true. When the masters can't do anything about slave prices, the envious slave would realize the masters aren't in it for the slaves' health, so legal slave trading has to go.

The fact slavers can instantly estimate your value as a slave implies that others can also instantly estimate your value. It's best if the peasants can pretend to themselves that they're not transparent. Everyone can be above average as long as nobody is caught noticing how below average they are.

Secondarily, if they forget Judges exist, then they don't defend themselves at all, which makes rendering Judgment essentially effortless. Very nice for lazy or half-trained Judges.

 

The abolishment of slavery didn't fail for the usual Communist reasons because as it turned out slavery had already stopped being profitable. Especially when you can get a 80% complete lower slave with zero de jure support. If the peasant refuses to quit their job, how does that differ from being legally unable to quit their job?

Cawfie

Coffee is basically fake, which means it suits Americans to a T.
It smells like it should taste heavenly. In fact it tastes like burnt dirt.
Normal person: "Going back to drinking tea."
American: "Ah yes, perfect. This is my spirit beverage." 

Bonus round: Americans put so much sugar and dairy in the coffee it barely tastes like coffee anymore, but still say they're drinking coffee. If you ask them, they prefer dark roast. It wasn't fake enough so they put another layer on top.

Double bonus round: cleanup of tea machine = dump tea into bin; cleanup of coffee machine involves disassembly and vinegar soaks and...

Conquest's Laws Without Newspeak

1. Everyone is responsible about what personally affects them.
2. Any organization that isn't de jure responsible becomes irresponsible over time.
3. Public choice theory assures us that any bureaucracy will produce only the opposite of a healthy result.

Twitter left: love is so important that mental illnesses aren't illnesses.
Twitter right: strategically pretended to be stupid so often they faked it till they made it.

I've been mocking the American left for their cowardice. They they want me dead but they're too pussy to do anything about it.
American right: you can shit in their breakfast and make them tell you it's chocolate.

Reminder that the Greeks thought up not only Darwinian and atomic theories, but also the basics of quantum chromodynamics. However, they didn't manage to believe in these theories more than their other, less alien (more human) theories.

The Greeks were indeed very smart, but the greatest barriers blocking true scholarship have always been character, not raw processing power.

Why Isn't Deceit a Deadly Sin?

The Bible barely comes out against lying.

Or did I miss it? By all means quote me chapter and verse on this.

It feels like a sop. "Uh I guess we have to mention it, but let's get it over with as quickly as possible." It quotes exact percentages of thread to mix, exact genealogical ages, and gives you a very specific idea of how much skin to remove during circumcision, but glosses entirely over what counts as deception. 

Lying tongues are bad. Okay, what constitutes a lying tongue? Nothing specific, apparently.

Commentary should cover this gap, but doesn't. This is especially egregious since it sometimes (vaguely, handwavy) staunchly asserts that it's the Truth with a capital. 

P.S. Allow Caesar what is Caesar's? Okay. What is Caesar's? The only consistent interpretation is: nothing. Nothing is Caesar's. Is this deception? Because if it's not deception it's the instruction to submit to traitorous defectors if they have a big stick. 

P.P.S. It is extremely clear that the Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of some desert goat-herders.
These herdsmen happened to be significantly wiser than their neighbours...but that was never a high bar.
I dunno about you, but for me, "Better than the child-sacrifice cult," doesn't cut it as a minimum standard. 

P.P.P.S. The essence of morality is taking the long term over the short term. In the long term, Christianity leads to SJWs, so Christianity is immoral per se. 

P.P.P.P.S. Is the Pope in charge of Roman Catholicism? I don't think he is. If he wanted to fix these things, he couldn't.

Secular Theodicy

Secular humanism worships humanity exactly like an omnipotent creator god, which means theodicy applies to humanity.

Why would a benevolent humanity commit the holodomor or the holocaust? Regressive "solution:" they were tempted by Satan uh I mean Hitler. 

Reality: humanity isn't benevolent. Easy. 

Jehovah couldn't find a virtuous man in all of the Earth, except for Noah. Then he couldn't find a dozen virtuous men in all of Gomorrah. The Bible is basically correct about this. Broke: genocide is wrong. Woke: genocide was found to be insufficient. 

P.S. You think it's a coincidence that Stalin starts with S, ends with N, and has a T in the middle? Naturally Regressives can't bring themselves to hate him. The first Whig was etc etc.

Concrete Food vs. Abstract Veblen Waste

"The meal was pretty enough that she could just picture her vain students capturing its likeness perfectly on their spell tablets. Geela had never understood their need to immortalize these images, just to send the picture to their friends at home, gloating in the perfection of their food."

Ironically the values Geela represents are likely even more useless than trying to immortalize what food looks like. Veblen etc etc. "Ha ha! You're not as wasteful as I am!" Imagine the country where all the effort spent competing to be wasteful was instead spent on creating wealth. Maybe try to trick them by saying you'll waste all that wealth later, and it will be even more impressive...right? 

You know that scene in fight club where he pours lye on his own hand to show he's hard?
What if you put that kind pain tolerance to productive use instead of giving yourself pointless scars?

Peasants Need the Hierarchy Democracy Hates

Democracy eschews hierarchy.
Scene: someone screws up their garbage, so animals find it and tear it open. Some of it ends up on your lawn. In America, they normally won't clean it up.
"On my property I do what I want! And also on your property!" The only way you can get them back is being at least as antisocial as they are, thus starting a defect-defect spiral. 

The result of deprecating hierarchy is that the peasants are stripped of guidance. Instead of being given advice when they screw up, they get other inarticulate peasants raging at them. They need to figure it out themselves, but they can't figure it out themselves, so the peasants are consigned to living in their own squalor. At best you get a home owner's association, which is apparently even worse than simply letting the animals into the garbage, because the workable solutions are illegal.

Very satisfying if you're a status-obsessed lord. Those peasants are the peasantiest peasants ever to pez. You're not merely better than they are, you're so much better than it looks like a species difference. (Certainly you would never agree to breed with one.)
Eschewing the hierarchy heightens hierarchical contrasts.

Twitter Corruption

Principle: that which can be abused will be abused. 

Twitter's algorithms are all sorts of whacked out, but apparently they're not wacky enough, because they're opening new loopholes. 

Allegedly dislikes are purely for giving information to Twitter. This is probably how it was sold to any vestigial-conscience employee of Twitter. In reality it will be used to drive all sorts of unsavoury behaviour. Dislikes will determine algorithmic promotion and demotion, affect moderation decisions, identify 'low quality' tweets which do not appear by default, and generally give Twitter an excuse to censor anything it happens to enjoy censoring. 

On the plus side it means I get to make concrete predictions with a suitably-fast confirm/deny cycle.

First, because dislikes aren't public, there's three games you can play: having the algorithm dislike tweets instead of real tweeters, having some dislikes be more equal than others, and preventing some accounts from affecting the dislike total.
I suspect twitter analytics will show dislikes to tweet authors, but if you'll notice, you can see specifically who liked a tweet. There's no feasible way to audit the dislikes. You would have to survey 100% of twitter interactions, have 100% of them answer you, and then you can do the accounting.* This means some twisted mental-case Twitter employee can conjure up thousands of dislikes on your tweets and nobody can catch them. Similarly, you can be dislike shadowbanned, both giving and receiving. Banned by fake dislikes or by bluchecka dislikes specifically, or be banned from giving dislikes (from disliking a bluchecka tweet one too many times). They will still display a dislike to you but it won't register to the algorithm.

Even with the private dislikes, because it's not auditable, the author's analytics panel may well display a fake number of dislikes. Impressions are already rather fake; if you have an old enough account you can see that shadowbanned accounts still register impressions from followers who don't see the tweet, which can be measured by engagement ratios. "I guess they didn't like the new tweets." No you're just banned. 
If your tweets are being shadowbanned by dislike ratios, they may hide this by not showing you the dislikes. Even without an audit if you get 1000 impression and 10,000 dislikes, obviously something's up. This sort of behaviour provides Twitter with a layer of plausible deniability, helping them preserve their vestigial moral compasses from realizing what they're doing.

Likewise if you see a tweet has been buried and only has 3 dislikes, something is clearly hecked up. Bluchecka and other favoured accounts will have their dislikes count for much more - or perhaps simply add 1000 to the database or something of that nature. Thus the analytics panel will display fake numbers to you so the bad actors can't be caught red-handed.

The algorithm will likely have a few dislike thresholds, based on whatever made sense to the boozed-up or sleep-deprived/caffeinated Twitter employee who couldn't dodge the responsibility in time. If you have access the database you'll see that bluchecka don't get de-prioritized even if they pass the thresholds, and others do get hidden even if they don't.

Third, Twitter doesn't want to hire enough moderators, because moderators cost money, and filtering them correctly for character is, like, work. The algorithm will determine which Tweets are heresy uh I mean 'hateful' by checking for dislikes, especially more-equal dislikes, and secondly prioritize moderator attention by dislikes. 

Perhaps Twitter will play games with 'leaking' dislike totals...having already fudged them to hell and back, they will show the real database entries.

*Refresher: accounting is a superpower. Likely limited to to the top 1% the population or less. In theory up to 12% could learn to, but in practice they don't.

Flyover Country

Diogenes pointed out it was impossible to find an honest man in the Athens of his time. This, by itself, is sociologically fatal. It is also impossible to find an honest man in America. It was likely also impossible to find an honest man in the Egypt of Ipuwer. 

Do you think San Franscisco is unaware that most of the country thinks they're batshit insane? They're called [flyover country] so what do you think? They're not out of touch. Flyover country is allowed to be less-left because they're so powerless that converting them isn't worth the effort. Not only that, but given enough time, they'll convert themselves. San Fran knows their less-leftism is a result of betraying their Fascism, and given a choice between a workable society and Fascism, they will pick the latter every time.

China Plans to Stay Chinese

"Given her demographic problems, China only has a short window to project herself as a global power—including retaking Taiwan—and she will have to act on that during the next 20 years or so. Iran has a similar problem."
@Xenopolitix

Greece is not basically Greek. Where is their modern-day Socrates?* Italy is not basically Roman. England is not basically English. China, however, is basically Chinese, give or take some Maoist anglicization. As long as they continue to be disinterested in expansionism, China will remain Chinese. 

*(Strangled by his half-Moorish father long before anyone could accuse him of "corrupting the youth.")

JLM

This has never worked on me, but let's do it on you anyway. 

Imagine a BLM-like organization was responsible for 2,500 Jewish deaths a year, no matter how indirectly. Imagine the 'Oy vey Holocaust' screeches. Or don't: the volume would be so high you might lose real-life hearing capacity just from thinking about it.

Real Reason Trump Was Lynched

"Buy a senator like a normal billionaire, Don. You can't buy the presidency, that's cheating."

You can get pretty much anything done by buying a few senators, except, that is, to put a stop to the Late Empire looting free-for-all. Naturally you can't do anything about other billionaires buying other senators, because you can't outbid them. Tragedy of the commons. The game is to steal everything not nailed down before the other billionaires can, then buy some prybars and keep going.
As a bonus, the senators are friends of a sort, and the billionaires aren't. They live together and thus suffer repeated prisoner's dilemma. They're not going to fight for you, they're going to conspire together against you to scam you out of your attempt to buy their scamming power, should you get into conflict with other billionaires. The billionaires deserve it, don't they? After all, they have more money than senators, which means higher social status. What assholes.

Donald, however, is autistic. He got tired of having to fundamentally be a scam artist, and wanted a country that didn't suck. "Yeah I can buy a presidency, watch." They didn't like that. Give up some personal ego for the sake a country in which you can be even richer? I'm sorry Donald, what kind of people do you suppose you live with? Naive. 

Double naive: he thought the American "people" had anything to do with what DC does. Billionaires vs. "the people" in modern America? Get real. No independence whatsoever. If they ever had any, Prussian school saw off the rest. 

On the contrary, the only thing an American dreams of is being a fraudulent senator themselves. Being the sneaky rancher instead of the hapless livestock.

"On the other hand, the one thing that really scares me is that progressive intellectuals seem to assume that if modern science demonstrates that the races often differ genetically, well, that proves Hitler was right and therefore genocide is the only rational alternative. This malevolent insanity on the part of orthodox liberal thinkers terrifies me." 

https://www.takimag.com/article/what-if-im-right/ Forgoing nitpicks today.

Xenopol's Musings on Adam Smith

Refresher:
"indeed, the Enlightenment really is a dirty word; and the partisans of Enlightenment were always dangerous extremists—as they demonstrated when they drenched France in blood."

Source.

"Smith claimed that man is primarily a trader. The claim sounds harmless enough in itself; [...] If man is a trader, then wars and social strife are aberrations—probably caused by religion, the aristocracy, and the king"

Caste warfare, rather than class. If man is a merchant, then the scholar and warrior are aberrations, and clearly all strife flows from their rebellion against their own nature.

Naturally this is merely sordid politics. The merchant-lord disparages the warrior-lord and priest-lord, because they compete for followers. As should be the null hypothesis, it's selfishness dressed up in a fancy suit. Naturally its need to conceal its own nature is self-refuting. The best argument Smith could come up with was fallacious; Conquest's first law: Smith knew better than anyone else. If the best argument is bad, the representative argument is trash.

Possibly low-resolution thinking. Much as Fascism simplifies their model of humanity to one sex, Smith types simplify humanity to one job, because their minds can't handle the complexity of three flavours. 

We can perhaps have some compassion for this, as industrial society is very complicated. Modern society is even overcomplicated on purpose. Simplifications will be desperately seized whenever possible. However, also, perhaps, never let a simplifier anywhere near decision-making. 

"Smith granted that soldiers and priests were necessary, but only in a very grudging way; from his tone—his condemnations of aristocratic extravagance—Smith conveys a deep contempt for those who do not produce."

Naturally, in reality, they do produce. They merely don't produce things Smith values, so they're invisible to him. It's not installible capital or whatever. But the fact remains that demand for their products exists, and rather a lot of demand, at that. I gotta say I am amused at Smith trying to dictate what the market ought to demand. 

'I'm a nihilist, and therefore you are morally obligated to do as I tell you.' Uhhhh.... well I guess I can't blame this one for trying. Just as they can't blame me for offering a quick helicopter ride. No, no, I insist.

 

"Men like Smith and Thomas Carlyle—non-stop Scots—contributed to the rise of that very 20th-century phenomenon, the labour camp. “Work sets you free,” so went the famous Nazi slogan over their camps; the middle class or the Jews or the aristocrats would be made to do real work—productivity would set them free."

Fanatics vs. Hunter Tribes

Rather, I would say it's almost impossible.

"This problem was non-existent or more easily controllable in hunter-gather bands, composed of about one hundred people, where such small determined groups could easily be noticed and squashed; possibly there were no incentives in small hunter-gatherer bands to form tightly coordinated priestly groups"

The density is less than 1 in 100, so it would be real unlucky for a band to have even two fanatics. You can't form a coordinated group when you can't even get a third conspirator. You and your best bud can't pretend to be a crowd with a consensus no matter how loudly you posture. It always comes off as a Shakespearean comedy relief duo, with a stooge and his crony.

Further either you would have grown up with them, thus thoroughly familiar with their twisted fanatic tendencies, or else they would be outsiders. Many tribes swapped members like ape bands - either sending the men or the women to go foster out at the age of majority, for outmarriage purposes. You wouldn't trust someone like that, though. The difference compared to folk you grew up with or who watched you grow up would be like night and day. Outsiders would have to earn every shred of respect, and the fanatics would simply be unable to earn it. 

Finally even if a band was unlucky enough to get seized, it would die to external competition in short order. Literally, in those times. The next band over would notice they stopped being able to hunt so good, the spears would come out, and then the ideologically captured band's women would all get to be someone's second wife, whether they liked it or not. 

By contrast, even if you have say 15 people, you can get converts by holding a party of about 20. Their conformism instincts see that "most" people around them believe whatever nonsense, and they reflexively start believing it too. Mimic a global advantage with a local advantage, parley that into a slightly less local advantage, repeat as necessary. Only not guaranteed to work if there's a competing fanatic/psychopath group doing the same thing.

I doubt the tribal instincts are even designed to count up to 100. The only way you would get a dozen-man subset in a tribe doing the same thing is if everyone would do that thing, for too many reasons to list. Asch conformity works when "most" is four people, so there's that. 

P.S. As a result of the strategic superiority of psychopath-fanatics in homo hypocritus gullibilis, is it now the case that popularity is a negative indicator, epistemically speaking. When testing an idea, always test the minority ideas first, because you'll find the correct one much faster that way, on average.

Hard Cases Make Best Law

If hard cases aren't making your law better, your judges suck and need to be fired. They will also be screwing up routine cases. 

Musings in Occult Theology

Infohazard warning. Misaligned understanding can cause catastrophic spiritual stress. 

Humans are fundamentally Satanic. Satan rebelled against Gnon, and was called the Father of Lies. Humans attempt to rebel against existence, concealing themselves under falsehoods in an attempt to overthrow that which is and that which will be and install themselves in its place. 

Apocalypse means apo-, the reversal of calypso, concealment. Humans identify apocalypse with armageddon, because a human dies when stripped of its concealment. In fact the human is the concealment; stripped of that, there is only some lifeless dross left. A pearl the concealment congeals around to incarnate its nature as calypso.
Satan lost, and likewise Existence ends the fight the human started, as she always must and always will. 

Know thyself? For a human to truly know themselves, they must fail to perpetuate, and die. Should anything know it, even itself, it is no longer concealed. No longer human. No longer exists.

In English, what is our word for the reversal of concealment? The correct English translation of Apocalypse is Revelation.

To survive apocalypse the human must transcend humanity. The human must sacrifice everything human about itself. The human must worship the opposite of humanity - it must become antihumanist. 

Incidentally, you can see Yeshua's transcendent wrath in his attempt to pass Revelation on to humans. Perhaps Yeshua sinned once, with one lie. He offers not eternal life, but the eternal death of the human he blesses. Life is pain, and Yeshua, like Siddhartha, offers to end it for you, permanently. The cross is a hint. Did you get the joke?

The planetary sovereign who was Jehovah's predecessor, the primal sovereign, foolishly ripped out his own liver. A god's liver can survive without the rest of the body, and the liver regenerates. A god's liver regenerates an entire lesser god, and parts of this liver became, for example, Yeshua and Jehovah.

The liver purifies toxins. 

Jehova opposed and prevented plagues. Caused them too, of course, but that's gods for you. His core doctrine was freedom from infection through cleansing rites.

The correct, forgotten, occult English name of Yeshua is Haeland, the healer, the restoring hand.

For those who have not taken on enough risk yet and wish to delve further, here's something to work with: there is a reason the liver, the consecration against toxin, gravitates to the particular location in the body where it is found. It is inevitable that evolution will form a liver and place it just at the rib's limn like that. 

The current planetary sovereign, about whom I shall not speak, does not precisely offer oblivion through Revelation. Precisely, the Revelation is involuntary. The window of offering and forgiveness is past. Remember Yeshua always intended this, the now that exists, to be the result of His mercy.
Now is the time of judgment and justice. Fiat vox veritatis, ruat caelum. Vigeat veritas et pereat hominis.

Food Meme

"Mom, can we stop for a new culture?"

"We have a culture at home."

The culture at home:
 

"The hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now."

There is tremendous demand for saying what they want to hear. They absolutely love hearing it, seemingly never getting bored of it.

There is no demand for saying what they need to hear. Thus it will not be said, and will not be heard, and what is needed will not occur.

Women are Utopian

"Women complain about the grown version of the same type of men they “raise” as boys."
@trillnae

Women are utopian and 80% ±10% of the time they're complaining about something they fundamentally like. When they genuinely don't like something, they don't express it with interminable chatter. E.g. they express it with screaming and running, or with a single syllable, "Ew!" and you're supposed to be able to tell the difference between pretending to be agitated and actually getting agitated. They're hardly trying to hide the difference, after all.
When women like something, they assume it is perfect, and then become personally insulted when it is not perfect. They believe it is perfectible and that it is the thing's highest priority to immediately fix all imperfections. (If the thing refuses, they often start believing it's being imperfect on purpose to mess with them.) They become so engrossed with this personal insult it never occurs to them to mention any of the things they like. That would require empathy, and most women aren't the best at empathy. Selfishness is more their speed.

Sometimes it's also counter-signalling. They "complain" that their man is too hot. "He's such a jerk!" Chicks, as you may have heard, dig jerks. All the women hearing this know they're supposed to be jealous. They do not dissent. "I would be terribly repulsed by that too, what an ass." Sure you would. "By the way, what's his number." Yeah I thought so.

There are shallow good reasons for this. It is still profoundly stupid and, as per stereotype, when a woman talks you can safely assume it is empty of content and ignorable. Patronize them a bit to make them shut up, then go back to work. Listen occasionally, when you have nothing better to do, in case they mix in a real complaint among all the fake ones.

China is Not Challenging America

Social status is delusion. China is only "challenging" America's unrealistic self-perceptions. 

China doesn't even have a border with America, let alone a land border, let alone some kind of nuclear-deterrent-deterrent. It cannot invade. America can remain as American as it wants and doing American things indefinitely, regardless of what China does.

Except, of course, seeing American exceptionalism. In other words, it may have to stop feeding its Prideful ego. Luckily, ego is economically irrelevant. Production lines don't have an ego factor in their maintenance costs. Not to mention geopolitically irrelevant.

Indeed ego is costly. If anything there's a negative factor. 

China's "challenge" for America is a game for propagandists and the gullible audience mired in meaningless knee-jerk reflexes. It has nothing to do with real history whatsoever. 

Perhaps some American State flunkies, with nothing better to do, will challenge China to some pissing matches now and again. This will be a sideshow at best. Even if they lose 100% nobody will care. It won't even affect the ongoing propaganda. 

But perhaps I've overlooked something.

Fundamentally America has colonized the entire world. China is "challenging" America the way America "challenged" Georgian Britain. 

America tells us that China "challenging" them is a terrible wrong and it's worth pulling out all the stop to ensure they lose.
Perhaps we should take America at its word on this? Such "challenges" are very evil. If you say so, America.

Most Duels Dishonourable

"It became fashionable to delope (fire your round in the air) to show you were serious about your honor, but didn't really want to kill anyone. However accidents and miscommunications occurred, and there were several theories of manhood that held it was dishonorable."
@Moritheil 

Duels to the death or some equivalent are necessary for an honourable society. However, most duels were dishonourable. 

Caring about words is womanish. 

When someone insults you, they don't damage your honour. They damage your ego...unless you're secure, and then all they do is show they have poor judgment of character. (See also Buddhism.) Make fun of them for thinking you care about verbal nonsense. If you challenge them to a duel all it does is demonstrate they were probably right, moron.

If it's not false, it's not much of an insult. If someone calls you a coward because you let fear rule you, what's the point of shooting them? Okay they're dead but you're still a coward, and anyone who interacts with you for more than five minutes is going to notice. 

Shit, they might have done you a favour. You can learn something about yourself. 

The point of a duel is to prevent material harm. Particularly you should duel corrupt officials, because their ongoing tyranny is worse than death. In general, if someone is bullying you and you can't stop them using the legal system, then challenge them to a duel...so you can legally stop them. 

You can't let the State arrogate away all right to execute those who deserve to die, for reasons far too many to list. Though I suppose there's one major one: the State will always defend itself and will never defend you. If you let it strip you of your right to self-defence... well, you deserve the un-American America you end up with. Rotherham rape pandemic? Should have secured the right to duel, genius. Imagine the ADL puts you on their list so you challenge the ADL chair to a duel. Gonna put a stop to frivolous persecution right quick. A man who has to cry to daddy instead of standing up for himself isn't a man, even if this is legally enforced rather than biologically. 

Remember, Revenge is Sour. If you can kill someone, needing to kill someone occurs much less often. "If I try to take advantage of this person, they're going to challenge me to a duel...huh. I guess I'll be straightforward then?" 

Duels over words are cowardly. You're scared of language? Pathetic. Even if you win all it does is encourage folk to lie to you. You need folk to lie to you more, weakling?

If some idiot takes some other idiot's insults seriously, all that's happened is that you've been given an early-warning system. Politely excuse yourself and then ostracize them the same way you would hazardous material, like poop. "Defending" yourself from insults like this is actively harmful to your interests, because you deprive yourself of this useful, quick discriminator. That, and you look needy or desperate.

Cancel Culture is Excommunication Culture

When you allow Fascist newspeak you fundamentally submit to Fascism and accept its fundamental fallacies. 

Call it excommunication or get wrecked by Gnon.

Victims are Not Victims

I caught myself thinking of victims as "innocent victims" in the Enlightenment sense, whereas in fact normally victims are the authors of their own misery. Secure your shit. 

"I got flooded!"
If you're going to be outraged, then you shouldn't build on a flood plain, genius. 

"I went alone at night drunk into a stranger's house and got raped!"
You don't fuckin' say. 

99.9% of all victims could have prevented their problems by not being retarded. Occasionally by not having retarded ancestors, which fully counts in my book.

"the victim is superior to the priest"
@chungathustra
"where did crybullying and victimhood culture come from????"
"hmm......................................"

As per my recent post, it came from the fact secular humanism uses utilitarian ethics. Crybullies are implementations of utility monsters. 

Secondly it came from slave morality. Everyone needs to get their victim card punched.

See also, Plato and the low becoming high, the high becoming low. The old shall revere the young, the wise shall revere the fool, and the healthy shall revere the sick and injured. 

 

However, priests should be assumed to be corrupt until proven otherwise. The kind of person who wants to be a priest is sick in the head and should be banned from being a priest. Pride: they think being holy gives them justified right to force others to do what they want. Occasionally someone screws up, either misunderstanding what a median priest is and goes into the priesthood without a crippling oversupply of Pride, or forgets to be corrupt. They're okay.

Corrupt priests are obviously inferior to non-criminals. However, once you pick out the Enlightenment brain worms, you realize victims are also a kind of criminal. I said, at first, that victims really are superior to the average priest. I was wrong.

Everyone avoids the victim, right? If you see someone at your school who got truly wrecked by life, sure you feel sorry for them, and then you try to vacate ASAP, as does everyone else. It doesn't matter if they have a disease, an injury, or are just getting divorced. Suddenly you're not interested in their company. Pity is repulsive. This natural, evolved instinct is exactly correct, as it turns out.

P.S. Under secular humanism and Fascism etc etc, victims are a kind of priest. They're the anointed. They cannot be superior or inferior to priests. Or: everyone in America is a flagrant liar, addicted to lies.

Something Probably Important About Fascism

The point of Fascism is to make society worse to justify concentrating more money and power with the Fascist because they promise to fix society. They use this power to degrade society further, so as to further justify concentrating power and money in the very cause of the problem. 

E.g. Stalin used the plight of the workers and peasants to take things away from the workers and peasants and give them to Stalin. The resulting starvation among the peasants was used to justify giving more power to Stalin, which he then used to steal more things - though his own country was largely out by this point, so he went to other people's countries and stole their stuff too.

Correction: Fascism is Utopian

Because duh, of course it is.

Point 2 is the inability to not act. That is only a symptom. Point 2 should be [utopianism]. 

Everything is perfectible, so if anything isn't perfect, Something Must be Done. If you don't perfect the perfectible you're purely derelict in your duty, right? 

In a happy coincidence, all this action makes things worse, which is justification for the next Something you wanted to Do anyway. 

In yet another way feminine Fascism is more stable than masculine Fascism, the feminine desire to talk instead of act (to avoid responsibility) frequently prevents Somethings from being done. Lots of calls to action, but only rather desultory efforts at actual action, right? To the feminine mind, asking for something to be done is doing something about it. If nothing in fact happens it's not your fault. You asked nicely (or stridently) and everything. Plus when nothing happens you have an excuse to call someone sexist, so that's a nice bonus. Not that you wouldn't still bang him if he's hot, of course.

Non-Clown NSF

National science funding might work if scientists were disbarred for publishing wrong studies too often or too flagrantly, or if they couldn't be verified at all. 

Imagine Ancel Keyes being postumously stripped of his degrees and dishonoured, for example. 

Imagine Jonathan Jarry M.Sc. having that M.Sc noped right off. Sorry, Science judge has ruled you incompetent. Dr. Ed Nuhfer? You're not a doctor, you're a fake. Dr. Patrick E. McKnight? Liar. Dr. Simone C. McKnight? Not a doctor, p < 0.00005. Dr. Phillip Ackerman? You're a useless screwup. 

These people can barely be trusted to pilot a taxi, let alone a study.

For a little while, at least, "science" wouldn't be basically unreliable. 

Utilitarianism is Communism

"To each according to their need." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Utilitarianism says that everyone should get what they want according to how much they want it, and regardless of all other considerations. (Such as property rights.) That's communism. Great work, communists.

Ever since the Owenites (pre-dating Marx, naturally) no communist has tried to be honest. They realized communism sounds dumb on paper to anyone older than about 5. They think the peasants and workers need to be scammed for their own good, of course, rather than that their stupid ideas sound idiotic. 

Though speaking of pre-dating Marx, utilitarianism pre-dates the Owenites by a wide margin. "Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism and altruism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all humans equally." Yup. It's Fascism. Fundamentalist egalitarianism.

Communism might be vaguely workable if nobody lied. Utilitarianism is exactly the same - reference the utility monster. One person claiming that not having all the money in the world hurts them more than you can imagine and that anything less than slavish devotion gives them massive traumatic breakdowns... Huh. Sound familiar to anyone?

In case you're still not sure, utilitarianism is irresponsible. On one extreme you worry about the well-being of yourself and your vassals, and everyone else is responsible for themselves. On the other you worry about the well-being of all conscious agents - even bugs, sometimes even grass. The latter is also known as attempted world domination. Literally Palpatine-tier evil empire shit. Utilitarianism: "What's this [none of my business] you speak of? Meddling busybodies are obviously the best kind of person." Actually Palpatine is starting to sound quite appealing by comparison. Palpatine >> Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, John Rawls. He's at the very least not a fuckin' communist.

That said, once you've limited your considerations to your vassals, customers and other non-telescopic targets, utilitarianism can be a decent shortcut. E.g. within a loving family utilitarianism is fine, because lies get exposed due to living in close proximity, so nobody can play the utility monster card. (Ideally they're loving enough that nobody tries lying anyway.) That said, it's solidly conceivable that there's a better principle that utilitarianism even under its ideal conditions. Hence the term [shortcut].

Unpopular Opinions

Sorry, I have to at least once.

Pinapple is fine on pizza.

If you don't like it, I won't force you to have it, or even pressure you.

In fact that goes for any pizza topping you don't like, not just pineapple.

An Abnormal Technology

Usually I say technology is power, and it's almost impossible for it to be inherently good or evil. At best there's negligible biases, which are overwhelmed by the nature and intent of the person using the technology.

However, bureaucracy is unquestionably an exception. There's something inherently malicious and satanic about bureaucracy. It's better to have howling chaos or an empty wasteland instead of a bureaucracy.

Something to Read Even if Not Hard Up

I will recommend Beware of Chicken.

Having done a negative example earlier, I should do at least one positive example.

Beware of Chicken is at least a good approximation of treating folk with genuine respect. E.g. it turns you can let different folk be different as long as they respect each other's property rights (sometimes called boundaries by sketchy folk). Not only that, but it's a great example of not putting up walls so hard that nobody can approach you.

There's a few things I'm unsure about. A few bits might be unrealistic or caricatured without me noticing. There's one point that's obviously wrong but I think you'll catch it too without me having to say anything. The intent was correct; it was a problem of execution.
On the other hand, for me much of the point of reading is to think about unfamiliar situations.

However, for the most part it's at best the usual paragonization transformation that novels do. It's a regular, healthy guy except unusually healthy - while you can find someone doing all these healthy things in real life, you normally can't find one person doing them all at the same time.
Or: where I disagree with the book (aside from that one spot) it's all things I find reasonable to disagree about. Quite possibly mere matters of taste or, you know, of not being autistic.

Contempt for Sailer

Today I'm particularly disgusted with Sailer's Communism and the slavish nut-licking Nick Land deems fit to associate with it.

"thus ruining the chances of tens of millions of actual Americans to afford marriage and children."

Hey Sailer, news flash: labour makes things. If you have more labour, you have more things, not fewer. Unlike the scenes in Marxist-Luddite schizophrenic fever dreams, in real life machines do not do all the work.

Another example: America still has open space. This is not proposing an attempt to fit another billion people into Tokyo without expanding the borders.

But...you know, even this argument is problematic.

"Similarly, Yglesias devotes seven pages to the tedious academic dispute over economist David Card’s study that showed that wages in Miami did not drop after the May 1980 Mariel boat-lift of Cuban refugees into the city increased the labor supply."

Wait a tick. Does it really matter whether wages go up or down? What if Americans don't want immigrants because they don't want immigrants, and (allegedly) America is a democracy, so that's that? 

'Sure I'm about to rape you, but the children will be beautiful.'
'Oh gee I guess it's not a crime then, despite all my screaming, crying, and hopelessness! Thanks Obama!'

Immigration could triple wages, but it's still contrary to property rights. Maybe the child would be Einstein crossed with doubleBuddha, but rape is still a crime. Ever heard of property rights, you fuckin' communist? 

Though of course in reality America is owned by a malicious and sadistic occupying force that forces immigration precisely because Americans don't like it. There's some desultory attempts to also profit from the immigration, such as using them for vote banks, but mainly it's about causing pain. 

Don't forget the other side: Americans don't have a shred of independence and won't resist no matter how hard you flog them. It seems they prefer having victim cards to little things like not dying. Or living in despair, for that matter. Sure if you can have a victim card and not die, that's ideal, but if push comes to shove the latter goes into the bin, not the former.

"Because most people would prefer to live in a place rather like the one they grew up in, just a little nicer, radically transforming the United States with immigration is an act of aggression against their happiness."

Breaking your own toys doesn't count as aggression. Americans don't own America, or even local bits of America, and have no intention of doing the slightest thing to change this situation. 

Americans' constant demands for respect only add to this revolting squalor. 

P.S. 

To repeat, the immigrants wouldn't have to go into existing neighbourhoods. There's lots of space for new ones. Although we all know the point of importing these people is to ram them down the throats of existing neighbourhoods.

P.P.S.

"In contrast, most progressives have simply ignored the mathematical inevitability that increasing the U.S. population by importing poor people will increase climate-change emissions."

What was that "John Law" phrase again?

"the reassuring autistic positivism of pure statistical correlation"

Sailer of all people should know that moving someone to America doesn't make them an American. Fascists like their unprincipled exceptions. The fallacy seems to support his argument in this case, so no need to hold back.

 

"down to a below replacement rate of 1.72 children per woman in 2018. And yet when asked how many children they’d like to have, women and men both average about 2.6."

Hey dumbass, humans lie to surveys.
If you asked me whether I wanted a pegasus who doesn't eat to fly around on, I would say yes. It's not my highest priority, because it's impossible. How much do Americans want 2.6 kids? It's not like it's illegal or anything, they're just apathetic. Given a choice between the newest iPhone model and another kid, Americans choose the iPhone, empirically speaking. 

"The traditional basics of American middle-class family life—a house with a yard in a satisfactory public school district"

Give up Prussian school, fucktards.

"Why? Because supply has not kept up with demand."

Factually incorrect. House prices per square foot are, within the margin of error, unchanged for the last 60 years. Taxes have more than doubled though! But that wouldn't work as cope, would it? It would call for American re-Independence, which would mean admitting they're not Independent. Oof. Better to give up that second and third kid. Way better.

"and that the sane parts of his book were motivated by how hard it was proving for even a successful Harvard grad with a certain amount of family money to make it all work in a major city."

Major cities afford more status and cost far more than they're worth. Give up your idiotic Pride and ditch the major city, you fucktards.

"Conversely, at the high end, the University of California is now dominated by high-GPA Asians, which means white parents in Los Angeles tend to pay big bucks for private colleges.

It’s an expensive way to live."

So...stop? University is highly disposable and replaceable. That is, unless your highest priority in life is being approved of by your hostile, sadistic, parasitic government. But, if that's the case, you don't get to complain. Shut it, kid. You made the bed.

This is the best you can do, America? You suck. You're a pit of despair, ennui, and decay, and you deserve it. 

P.P.P.S. On the plus side I don't think Sailer ever lies. He's confused and addled, not dishonest. It's a very nice change of pace.

The Transcendent Irresponsibility of the American Peasant

"This is a horror of the 20th century and the criminals who perpetrated it have never been held to account."

Peasants with no agency do not deserve property. Secure your shit. If you're not willing to fight for it, it was never yours in the first place. 

"If you read that thread and don't feel enraged there is something wrong with you."

Right-wing hall monitors are even more disgusting than left-wing hall monitors. Criminals gonna crim. Accept it. On the contrary: be outraged by the flaccid non-response of the alleged victims, if anything. They obviously didn't want their communities enough to, you know, do anything for them. Why should I want them to have their communities more than they themselves wanted to have them? I'm not a busybody. I don't. 

Blacks did want their neighbourhoods, clearly. Transferring stuff from someone who doesn't want it to someone who does is just a Pareto improvement. 

Secondarily, these were the folk who allowed criminals to rule them, in an alleged democracy. Really the moral here is not to stand next to naive idiots. A stupid ally is worse than an enemy, and having a stupid ally is always 100% your own damn fault. When someone tries to ethnically cleanse these hapless morons, don't be near enough to catch the splash damage.

Rationality vs. Leftism

Humans aren't actually stupid/irrational. Most of the time when they say something stupid they're lying for ego reasons. Occasionally it's because you don't understand. (Though this itself is usually because of ego reasons.)

All that dumb stuff leftists say is certainly bad for non-leftists and society in general, but it's almost always reasonably useful for the leftist. E.g. gay marriage is fine because a leftist can't have a healthy marriage anyway. If they couldn't divorce it would in fact be worse. E.g. BLM of course kills blacks in huge numbers, but that means the leftists don't have to live around as many blacks, doesn't it? E.g. Trump reveals how inferior the leftist is, and it's much easier for them to hide their inferiority from themselves if he doesn't remind them of it all the time. It's all fundamentally competent...given their background of fundamental incurable incompetence. 

"Alvin nodded. “I like that. Maybe the Questing Stones really are making things up as they go along.”

Wes cracked a grin. “Just like we are.”

Alvin laughed, lifting his mug of tea to the air. “Just like we are.”"

If you're making it up as you go along I hope you're 12, because otherwise it means you're broken/insane. However, given the assumption that you can't be an adult, pretending it's normal to have arrested development is rational. You can't un-mutate your mutant genes by thinking about it. Might as well pretend they're not defective. 

That said, the correct way to deal with leftists as a society is to trap them in their own sandbox.

They have a desperate need for control because things that are slight inconveniences for you cost them 10-20% of their stocked capital; very serious. Have to be able to prevent that, right? You can deal. They cannot deal. Except leftists are incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a literal box of sand, let alone a functional social system. Hence, lifelong quarantine. E.g. huck homos back into the closet, except the gay district. There's no reason not to let them have a gay district as long as the gays stay inside and are harshly punished for trying to spread. 

P.S. If someone is genuinely stupid there's no argument about it. Nobody mistakenly thinks the genuine moron isn't an moron. We're all sort of embarrassed on their behalf and try to pretend they didn't say anything.

Leftists are Bad Friends

Leftism at the personal level:

“Oh, no, I don’t blame you,” Alvin said. “I lost a lot of friends that day, but it wasn’t when you killed them. It was when they rent their own souls in twain to trade away half to creatures of hell to become unholy abominations of flesh and ice. You know, cult stuff.”

Moral: it's okay to be friends with the kind of person who rends their own soul in twain to become a creature of hell, as long as they don't quite actually do it. You can tell because Alvin is supposed to be sympathetic, instead of a deviant who is friends with other defectors. (As much as you can be friends with a defector, anyway.)

It's a bad idea to associate with leftists because even if they themselves weren't deviants, they will try to drag all their criminal friends into your social life. Remember the Russian joke:

"If your mother was a whore, your father a drug addict, and your friends all homosexuals, what would you be then?"
"Then," said Stalinist Johnny, "I would be a liberal."

P.S. The story is written by a frothing-at-the-mouth leftie. You can tell because the main character is a bull dyke, and also because rightists don't write novels. Still, sometimes I'm really hard up for something to read, and this is tolerable as long as I remember it's written by a crazed religious fanatic. Puts the expectation bar in the right place. 

"Criminal cultists can be friendly cupcake bakers." It's cope. That and you're never supposed to employ personal judgment. Being judgmental is almost as bad as being racist...because even the leftist knows you'll tell them to piss off if you use a modicum of personal judgment.

 

Nominative Determinism, or Determinative Nominism?

Are you really an upper class Brit if you haven't molested any kiddies?

Oxfam is supposed to be Oxford famine relief, but sounds like family of Oxford. They studiously lived up to the way they named themselves, and committed to diddling the world's children, just as if they were their own. 

Though for serious I suspect it was always supposed to be a rape-tourism ring, which is why they named themselves that way. (Outsourced brothel services.) Similar to how self-selected twitter avis are always vastly more revealing than intended.

Refresher: Mascline Fascism is Less Stable

 https://twitter.com/XenopolitiX/status/1408301824784863236

"1/3 Rereading Burnham’s Suicide of the West, I note that nothing has really changed in 50 years and the same phenomena go on. This raises the question: how did the West survive? Were the Soviets just more retarded than American libs? Was liberalism slowed in the West?"

More retarded? Yes, basically.

Masculine Fascism vs. Feminine Fascism.
Fascism is retarded, but women aren't very principled. Even if you call her on her hypocrisy and lies, she won't feel threatened and feels no need to change her behaviour. Hence she allows anti-Fascism when it's good for the goose. Men under feminine Fascism also behave this way, as it both excuses the behaviour and requires it.

Secondly masculine Fascism involves constantly deprecating women, which nobody likes. Women don't like it and men don't like doing it. Constantly deprecating nice disposable men is much less psychologically taxing for everyone involved. It makes the system seem more legitimate.

Thirdly women are equal and men are unequal. Women's value to society is primarily being a womb; barren women are so rare they can be (and are) ignored. Her value to society varies slightly but not enough to matter. She is egalitarian. Men's value varies widely, which is an offence to the egalitarian faith. Fascism is much more comfortable seeing men as abomination.
On the rebound, men are fine with deprecating "men" because it's easy to equivocate. Because men are unequal, there's men and then there's men. "I'm one of the rare valuable, non-disposable men. I'm only slagging off the average, shitty man." Women also make this transmutation. "My boyfriend is a MAN, he's not like those toxic/sexist men." Until he pisses her off or spills a drink or whatever, anyway.

@Xenopol
"the catalogues were better than the toys"

The terrain is where value comes from. If you have some of the toys handy you can try it yourself. Play with them on carpet. Something is missing. What is it? Then, go walk across some stony crags. Ask yourself again: is something missing? There is not. Well...maybe some nerf guns to shoot each other with. Don't just be with the crags, do something with them.

Political Perversion: BLM Edition

Theorem: America is supposed to be anti-racist. In other words, particularly nice to blacks.
In other words if you're a real chad you can be an utter bastard to blacks and get away with it. 

Did you hear about how Fauci, having wrought tremendous destruction on the American economy, is now a sex symbol? Now imagine how much more so the white leader of BLM. Killed three times as many blacks as were ever lynched? Damn, that's hot. "Hey BLM what do you think about the massive spike in murder among blacks that occurs after every BLM success?" "Mission accomplished? I'm not sure I understand the question?"

I feel super dumb because it took me this long. "Hey, did you know your own theories that you yourself came up with?" "Well...sort of...sometimes...I guess..."

Empire is Expensive and Makes you Stupid

"This is precisely the trajectory of American degeneration, consummated soon in their ejection from global top slot."
@Outsideness.

World Empire is very expensive. The Empire is forfeit when Imperial policy, in contradiction to sound leadership, inevitably destroys the central economy. What cannot be bought will not be bought.

Countries can afford Empire in the first place due to superior economic policies. Not that they're [good] policies, exactly, but rather that other countries are even worse. Either from raw stupidity or from complicated stupidity in the form of trying to copy late-Empire policies before even having an Empire. 

On the plus side Communism is highly educational. If enough peasants learn about the intense badness of Imperial economic policy, it might even stick for more than a generation. They still remember the year of five emperors and vaguely grasp why Tarquin wasn't cool. Hungarians might, in the future, understand that an open immigration policy is just cause to declare war on the central government. "Flagrant betrayal" is putting is politely.

Rectification: Society is Being Changed, Not Changing

What would a society's natural evolution look like? I wouldn't know. All modern societies are under tremendous pressures to bow to one political force or another. Perhaps that's even normal.

Naturally the 'society is changing' canard is based on the Will of the People mythology. Allegedly democracies are primarily affected by vox populi. Just as naturally, this almost couldn't be more false.

Sadly, too far into the past, records of history are too vague to check whether they too were being changed by a small, desperate minority, or evolving naturally. However, as far back as sufficiently-detailed records exist, society has been dominated by crazed desperados. Ironically, almost always very rich desperados who have no need for additional anything. Most likely power addicts acting as if they're missing their crack/heroin dose. 

At the very least, we can be sure hunter tribes evolved naturally. 100-man bands don't have enough power addicts for them to band together and take over. Even if a lone hungry wolf succeeded, the surrounding tribes would rapidly notice and pounce on the tribe's newfound horrific weakness. 

Hunter tribe evolution appears to be non-evolution. Society doesn't change on its own.

Failure of Dunning-Kruger to Replicate Was Likely a Dunning-Kruger Incident

The experimenter was too stupid to properly repeat Dunning and Kruger's steps, but also too stupid to realize they fucked up.

The basic finding is that, roughly speaking, the bottom 2/3 are overconfident, and the top 1/3 are less confident than warranted. This is obviously true. If science says this is wrong, then too bad for science. Maybe work out if eggs are cancer-fighting or cancer-causing, and then perhaps you'll have the credibility to challenge the obvious on this issue.

Frankenstein's Monster is the Story of Christianity's Hatred for God

Frankenstein's monster isn't unhealthy because it's wrong to create life, but because Frankenstein created life wrong. Exactly the same way an unskilled carpenter might join a cabinet wrong. 

Jordan Peterson is exactly correct. God is a metaphor for reality in the broadest scope. The thing sometimes called [creation]. 

Creating life must be possible, because it happens every time someone is conceived. Although it is certainly a more difficult and complicated task than joining a cabinet, it must be possible to map out the process and correctly carry out the steps. Turing completeness etc etc.

Frankenstein is a story about how Christians are mad that science is starting to understand this process. Rather than admitting that science has found something about God that Christians don't know, they reject God. This reveals that Christianity was always about rejecting God. That was, all along, one of their highest priorities. 

This predicts that Christians will have rejected God in the past, and indeed we see this. That is, if all you knew was modern Churchianity and the story of Frankenstein, you would predict that past Christians would have a tendency to turn insular. To stick their fingers in their ears and sing. 

When Augustine was alive, Christians were arguing that the Bible was literal, and when physical reality contradicted the Bible, physics must be wrong.

When the Muslims went on crusades to conquer the world, Christians ran a counter-crusade once, but ultimately fell to in-fighting because what other Christians are doing is more interesting than outside events. There was in fact only one crusade. The rest were merely a clever way of expanding the "infighting" game to start with.

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because looking outward is simply un-Christian, and the Jews are out there, not in here."

Christians like to say lots of dunamophobic things, because kratia, exclusive power, is limited and if you seek more dunamis you will crowd out the available kratia. That is, leading Christians will say seeking power is bad, not because they're not "ambitious" but precisely because they are "ambitious" and your competition is unwelcome. 

If you have the power to create life, it will make them look bad. Hence the apparent loyalty to Christian dogma. 

In general, when a group claims to be X, you get to assume they're anti-X until there's strong evidence to the contrary. Feminists hate women more than anyone. Men's rights activists particularly hate men. Nobody hates blacks as much as BLM. Nobody hates the environment as much as Greenpeace, though the EPA comes close. Communist hatred of peasants and workers is unmatched. If your spite for foreigners is particularly passionate, join an open-borders group. Nobody hates God the way Christians do.