Tuesday, August 31, 2021

"I don't know that I'll ever get completely used to smelling weed while walking/ driving around."
"It gives me this weird vertigo when I smell it in public and remember how many people I know who had their lives ruined over it little more than a decade ago"
"Kids were kicked out of school, thrown in jail, children stolen away from their parents over it. 

Over something that boomers now go to Colorado to sample like wine and that therapists encourage adolescents to use. 

Fucked, man"

Getting super cracked about drugs never made sense, especially while booze is still legal.

The Empire is exhausted. They can't maintain all the hysterias they would like to. They can't put on the 24/7 witch trials the way they could when they were younger. Have to save their strength for the important hysterias.

You know they're seriously in trouble when they can't even get it up for those.

Diogenes Wasn't Cynical Enough

Diogenes tried to persuade Athenians to suck less, in his own way. As we can see, it didn't work. There was nothing that could be done or said to make Athenians suck less; they had no demand for virtue, and great demand for vice. Diogenes should have accepted the inevitable, got his, and got out. In other words, don't live in a jar, because nobody cares anyway. Live in a mansion, though be aware mansions are expensive and the ROI might be negative. Find the peak housing and live in that.

My starting point for modelling humanity is pure evil. There is no people anywhere who you can say nice things about. Rounding to the nearest 5, 10% are obligate defectors, 85% will defect at every opportunity, and 5% have the capacity to cooperate. In other words, 95% criminal.

However, humans appreciate some aspects of Gnon's wrath. If they are intelligent enough, they can sacrifice their urge to defect now in exchange for fulfilling narcissistic greed in the future. In other words you can say basically anything mean you want about Americans without any risk of being wrong, except the fact they're smart enough to occasionally understand Gnon will wreck their face if they indulge in the wanton depravity they would prefer. As it happens, other countries understand this less.

Except the most criminal 10%, who just can't help themselves. Note these are mostly families, not random mutations. Put another way, 10% will steal pens from the office even while you're looking, 85% will steal pens if you're not looking, and 5% can be trusted not to steal the pens.

It's not hard to blame government for this. Coercive government is inherently irresponsible, and government is always population husbandry. The reflexive, knee-jerk eugenics program they stumbled upon has made the populations effectively 100% shitbag everywhere in the world. As with all defection, this is fatal in the long term. Government will husband populations into annihilating government, having made them so depraved it cannot support any form of organization whatsoever. 

In a sense, the common Statist / Hobbesian argument that the State is necessary to suppress human viciousness is true. I've had to change my mind about that. Unfortunately, the common Anarchist argument is still/also true: if humans are inherently vicious, you can't afford to have a State, since that only provides more opportunities for viciousness. It is a net viciousness gain, not net viciousness suppression.

Occasionally a State arises that's aware that it needs to suppress its own tendencies toward viciousness, so it doesn't get wrecked by the vicious neighbouring States. However, sooner or later the leaders realize they can get theirs and skedaddle, and they'll die before they have to lie in the bed they've made. Then the State falls to infighting until it can't defend itself even if it wanted to. Meanwhile the gene pool is being constantly degraded by twisted State edicts buggering the selection criteria. 

Spandrell notices Singapore is a gene shredder. Au contraire; all of so-called civilization is a gene shredder. Buying temporary wealth and knowledge by permanently selling genetic virtue. Saying Singapore is a gene shredder is way of being able to forgive Rome for being a gene shredder, because you want to be Emperor so you can do vicious things to foreigners, until you can afford to do vicious things to the domestics too.

If you believe there is a solution to this problem, by all means propose it. I will almost certainly make fun of your ridiculous level of ignorance, but there is an "almost" in there. It would be very stupid if there was a practical discussion to be had and I dismissed it without even trying. Trying and failing is cheap, by contrast. (Principle: in uncertainty, assume you're going to do the wrong thing and do the right wrong thing. Make the right mistake.)

Remember it has to be something we can actually try. E.g. some conversational gambit we could go on Twitter and test on someone, which would indicate they have some secret demand for virtue if they can be informed of how to reach for it. 

Then we can try it, and I can laugh at you for thinking it would work. 

Even Diogenes couldn't do it. It's really, really hard to be more cynical than the Human World deserves. You can go as extreme as possible without epistemic fear. Just push until you can't.

P.S. I guess I do believe in the Great Filter after all. Though I also still believe there has been no other observable life in the universe, because humans are so early. It's not a technology or telescope problem. There has never been anything else to find, at least not yet.

P.P.S. There's also the reserve currency thing. The Fed inflates the dollar and distributes some of the re-distributed wealth to Americans at large, making America seem richer than it is. You can tell every country is governed by morons in absolute terms, because it would be very smart to straight-up ban $ and $-denominated securities from your country entirely. "Hey America, no stealing, assholes." Admittedly any country that switched back to a gold standard or some equivalent would immediately draw literally insane levels of envy from Arlington, Foggy Bottom, and the London central bank. Sadly all three have invested heavily in tools of destruction. 

P.P.P.S. https://www.xenopolitix.com/post/267-youthful-folly-vi

Monday, August 30, 2021

Life vs. Risk

They say life can't be without risk. Naturally this is a normie-ism, not a truism. 

All the good choices in life are risky. That's a fact. However, you can always invest in the "safe" option. The treasury bill option. There's no risk: you are guaranteed a slow death. Instead of a chance of gain, there is a iron promise of loss.

Prudence, ironically, is always risky. 

P.S. The sophism of T-bills: risk can always be made relevant to the risk-aversion reflexes, which distracts the mark from doing the accounting regarding what a T-bill in fact guarantees. 

P.P.S. Aristocrats win because peasants can't safely take risks; [informed consent] is a joke, because they're inherently too ignorant to achieved the state [informed]. Peasants can do what they're told and hope they have a wise teller, or they can do even worse than that. Ref: democracy. 

P.P.P.S. Mutual funds are index funds except some rando is paid enormous amounts of money to get very stressed about the fact it's an index fund. He pretends to work, we pretend to hold him responsible. Lots of struggle sessions. It's not communism because his salary is real; it comes out of your investment. 

Hedge funds are scams, except the part where the investors are the scammers, not the marks. (Usually graft, often insider trading, occasionally other exploitations, rarely de jure legal, always de facto legal.) Which is why de jure peasants aren't allowed to buy into them. A) It would work, can't have that. B) The peasants would then become marks, not the scammer, inverting the hedge fund dynamic and forcing the associated degenerate fops to dream up some other scam.

Malnutrition Causes Obesity

I've come down on the position that Americans are fat due to malnutrition. My key phrase is filter feeding.

As far as the body is concerned, calories are just another kind of nutrient. If you can't get enough manganese but have plenty of calories, you keep eating until you get enough manganese. If you have plenty of manganese but not enough calories, you keep eating until you get enough calories. The issue is that farmers are being subsidized (everywhere) which means their plant husbandry is dysgenic. Farmers have bred plants for appearances, strongly to the exclusion of substance, in the apotheosis of the American style. Estimates say plants have lost 90% of their contents, though it's probably more like 40% or 50%. It's a lot, but American are hyperbolic in addition to being obsessed with appearances, and the hyperbole ought to be deprecated.

(E.g. brussel sprouts are still weakly bred, meaning they taste funny but are still sort of nutritious.)

Since nothing has nutrition, it's all junk food. There is quite possibly nothing you can get in a grocery store that isn't junk food. 

Whales have to drink enormous amounts of water to find a small amount of krill. You have to eat an enormous amount of plant material, or meat fed on farm cultivars, to get a small amount of vitamins and minerals, and as a result become whale-esque.

The key datum is that lab rats are also getting fat. It's definitely an environment thing, not laziness or other genetic problems. Maybe it's a ferociously poisonous and ubiquitous airborne pollutant. Or maybe even rat chow is made of plants, not from chemical feedstock, meaning they, too, are suffering malnutrition these days.

Sunday, August 29, 2021

 "As we experience the world we do not have the time, nor are we able, to investigate every phenomenon we encounter in a scientific way. Nobody lives this way"

Hello, my name is Nobody, and I live this way.

Certainly, it isn't cheap. I don't have time to go to bars or other wholly frivolous activities. However, it is well within the realm of the possible. Similarly, it is highly worthwhile.  

Everyone who is truly serious about knowledge or wisdom lives this way. 

I make many extraordinary claims, which are reliably verifiable or replicate on demand. How do I solve the problem of consciousness? Etc etc?

Simple: more experience. More effort (though in my case it doesn't count as work). I "work" much harder than anyone; it is not surprising that I know much more than anyone. Indeed it would be rather embarrassing if I didn't dramatically outperform the dabblers and dilettantes (apparently, basically everyone else).

On Cathedrals

"Correction to Yarvin: Satan is the father of lies, “the Cathedral” is a distributed lie-creation network. Ergo, it is not a cathedral, a beautiful thing, it is Pandemonium—literally, “place of all demons”; and it creates literal pandemonium, chaos, as well."

Let [a] refer to that which leftitsts believe cathedrals to be and represent.
Let [b] refer to that which leftists have in fact built.


It's also a reference to Eric Raymond's book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Raymond is basically a leftist and fully believes in leftist mythology about cathedrals. The leftists, Raymond, and many alleged outer rightists, believe Fascism is a bazaar-like phenomenon. (The exceptions think it's about the Gyews.)

This is why Yarvin's term is more on-point than not.
That said, it is something of a joke or troll. Ironically it lampoons Yarvin's own beliefs, which makes it even better.

Cathedrals themselves are of course beautiful buildings. 

I personally believe them to be an attempt to stave off Sophism. With a typical cathedral planned to take 100 years or more to build, it is one of the very few virtue signals that in fact signal virtue. 

From the fall of Rome to 1100, Christianity was basically healthy. (At least sort of healthy.) Most Cathedrals were started around the time you would expect the infection from Toledo to reach the place. E.g. Notre-Dame late 1100s, Florence 1200s, Russia, 1500s. If they were caused by Sophism, they would suck. They don't suck, so by process of elimination they're a reaction. Checksum: modern Sophists hate cathedrals and want them destroyed. 

Unfortunately, it turns out Christianity was never healthy enough. 

P.S. Many of the Gyew-obsessed wish to rename Cathedral to Synagogue, exactly the same way a bunch of pitiful, lame leftists made /r/therightcantmeme in reaction to left-can't-meme. It's the difference between having your own culture and having to copy someone else's. See also: there's this je-ne-sais quoi about Europeans copying DNC talking points word for word. In English.

"Religion Means to Rebind"

"Religion is the opposite of analysis, since it means “to rebind”. Symbol is also related, since it means “with throw”; it hits the mark and holds things together."

The True religion is the one which, when attacked as viciously as possible with the alkahest of analysis, doesn't unbind. 

Logic is ridiculously caustic. If you think you need a hazmat suit for dealing with dengue fever or hydrofluoric acid, you really, really need a psychohazmat suit for dealing with logic. Your brain will tell you immediately if you attempt to handle logic with your bare thoughts. On the plus side, dealing with HF or the black plague is of dubious use, whereas logic is one of the most powerful abilities you can possibly acquire. 

Logic is the alkahest.
The True religion is the container which can hold the alkahest. 

Saturday, August 28, 2021

Shitty But More Accurate Song Remixes: Boxhumping

I get knocked up

But I abort it down again

You're never gonna keep me up

Rhetoric Resistance

Rhetoric resistance is necessary, because it's stupidity resistance.

Sophism killed the West. It's an ongoing terminal infection that started in 1100, as I've elaborated previously. Sophism can be described as intentionally inflicting stupidity on someone else. Nobody would use rhetoric if it wasn't possible to design it to be more convincing than logic, which means Sophism works.

Which means you need to make Sophism not work on you, which means being as resistant as possible to rhetoric.

In short rhetoric is a crime and you need security.

The practice is simple. Whenever you hear a statement,* do the experiment, as part of a Set 1. Check whether it's true, then compare whether it was convincing. If it was convincing and untrue, it's rhetoric, not epistemology, and you need to learn to resist that rhetorical move. 

*This includes statements you say to yourself. Meditate enough to develop mindfulness, watch what you're thinking, check it for rhetoric solecisms, then practice not being convinced by lies until you're not convinced by that lie anymore. Recognize the rhetorical style or trope, and set up a trigger to remind you to tell it to fuck off, and keep trying until it's habitual and automatic. Rinse. Repeat. 

When I tried it, I became impossible to fool, or so close it's indistinguishable. I certainly didn't start out that way. By now, when I see a new style of convincing, I'm automatically aware I shouldn't find it convincing until I've checked, even if I can't immediately see any other reason to doubt.

How degenerate is my blog audience? Do I need to explain how to stringently test something for truth? It's hard to test something too stringently. It's always worth checking again to see if it replicates, for example. (If it doesn't, go meta.) Every time I thought I had done enough, I checked the "I've done enough," thought for epistemic validity, and found I was wrong. Haha, oops. You can really put the thumbscrews on statements, and it's super fun if you think of it that way. Attack it viciously and ferociously. Predator mindset. It will survive, if it's true.

P.S. Christianity is fundamentally a Sophist structure, having arisen and adapted to a Sophist/Fascist society. The "Dark" ages discredited Sophism and they were relatively healthy for a few hundred years, but ultimately the Sophism was dormant, not dead. Know them by their fruits: read a newspaper. This is the natural, logical endpoint of Christian society (and I am 89.9% convinced Yeshua intended exactly this).

P.P.S. Journalism is irresponsible. We can also see journalists use rhetoric exclusively, meaning journalists are inherently AAA-grade criminals.

P.P.P.S. For completeness I will mention: if rhetoric made you perform wise actions it would be logic instead. Truth => good ideas => prudent action. If it's called rhetoric it's trying to make you have bad ideas and thus do something dumb.

Friday, August 27, 2021

Jehovah, Adam, and the Tree

Why didn't Jehovah put a damn fence around the Tree? Did he want Adam to eat the Fruit?

Obviously it would destroy the metaphor. Also, there's no story. "Jehovah put up a fence, Adam frolicked in Eden forever, the end." 

No, the problem is that allegedly Gnon wrote this book personally. You're telling me the creator god can't figure out a way of telling this story except giving himself the idiot ball? That's, uh, that's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

The simple fact is the Bible makes perfect sense as produced by a bunch of nomadic desert goat ranchers. There are no weird inconsistencies. Everything in there are things goatherds could reasonably know, and the weird overreaches are all very effective rhetorical tricks as practised against other, more ignorant goatherds. 

By contrast, the Bible makes absolutely no sense if we suppose it is made by an omniscient deity. "Oh yeah, God Himself isn't very good at writing. Random movie scriptwriters are better. This makes perfect sense, right?" 

If we assume the Bible was written by goatherds, it's at least a little impressive. Those bastards got on the ball, and they stayed on the ball, dammit.
If we assume the Bible was written by a deity, it would have to be the lamest deity in the history of divinity. 

P.S. To repeat myself, the "miracles" likewise are all things which can either naturally occur or which we can now do through technology. No wonder some Christians were so anti-science; according to their own book, we are now literally as gods. A bit difficult to have faith in a god who can be outdone by a fancy pipe network, eh? Luckily this is because their book kind of sucks in absolute terms.

model purity

"Dawkins says that models > experience. In other words, he prefers an abstraction to experiment; in other words, he is a priest and not a scientist. Reality is messy, models are clean and perfect—just like a religious dogma."

A model that doesn't include the mess is a lie; it is far more impure than a model that highlights its dangling theads, invalid domains, and ambiguities.

Is Dawkins a priest? He's certainly not a scientist. To be precise, he is a liar-priest. A Sophist. At best, a science-themed Sophist, who occasionally, by accident, offers some real science. 

A model without the mess is more properly called a novel. If it's a really nice model maybe we can call it fine art. Michaelangelo's David portrays someone who never existed; that doesn't mean sculpture is bad. However, only a Sophist would try to pass it off as science.

(I do think David shows big M was phenotypically a sodomite. His paintings had limp wrists too. Still, the φαγγωτ was technically excellent in a way moderns can't even dream of aspiring to.)

Rhetoric is Inherently Evil

Another way to phrase Satan, Father of Lies, is the Devil, Lord of Rhetoric. All attempts to use rhetoric for good are self-defeating.

In theory you could use rhetoric to convince some idiot to be less idiotic. Rhetoric can, in isolation, be used to convince anyone of anything, after all. That's how it's usually so destructive. However, should you try this, they're not going to become logical. The wise actions will be rewarding, and they'll attribute that high to having listened to rhetoric, reinforcing the vulnerability. You'll find that the rhetoric they accept rapidly becomes inconsistent with wider and wider areas of prudent action. 

If you tell someone to save money because God, Lord upon High, likes it when you save money, they will also find that God, Lord upon High, likes it when you don't save money as long as you're giving it to a priest. Uh, oops. Clearly, he prefers this even to saving money. Rhetoric always works like this. All temporary gains come at the cost of long-term losses.

If you can, in isolation, use rhetoric for good, the truth runs as thus: "You're too dumb to run your own life and need to listen to exactly what I say or you're going to fuck yourself." This is not rhetorically effective.

Surely, you could use rhetoric to convince someone to become logical directly? Try the end run?
Lies are bad, mmmkay. It's kind of the point of a lie that they're illogical. No matter what rhetoric, what lie, you use to support logic, it's going to be inconsistent with critical components of logic. It's inherently and directly self-defeating. "Oh yeah, that was a lie I used to convince you to become more logical. Now you're ready to hear the truth. (Or am I only going to lie to you again and repeat this indefinitely?)" Fun fact: this is not rhetorically effective.

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Elizer Yudkowsky is constantly re-living the trauma of the Black Death.

Bonus round: moderns never see death, in part due to this traumatic overreaction to the Black Death, so they suffer Black-Death level trauma from experiencing even one death in their social circle. 

The Black Death really was extreme and an extreme reaction is rational and warranted, but the idea is to stop reacting to the event when the event ends. The idea is not to fixate on death, and especially not on death alone. It is not the worst thing ever for all time, totally eclipsing all other things.

Comment Moderation Off

I'm going to try turning comment moderation off so you can post at will.
Bonus: at some point it became possible to turn the captcha off, so it's off now. 

That said if you post something I consider stupid or annoying, I will delete it. I consider it to be vandalization of my blog, so I don't think of this as censorship, but as tidying. If you don't understand the rules and find them frustrating, understand that I find vandal tears delicious. Kindly get even more upset. 

I do not appreciate comments on my blog; I am not grateful in any way. This is for your benefit, not mine. If you think of posting a comment for my benefit, it won't work, so refrain.

A spambot followed my blog for years. I think I've finally convinced it to stop vandalizing my ~zero reader blog, due to moderating them into oblivion. If they return, so will hand-moderated comments. 

Taking my troll hat off: I'm here to talk about ideas. If you are not here to talk about ideas, I am going to delete your comment. Though, fun fact: folk who aren't about ideas don't have the self-awareness to be aware they're not about ideas, so they'll consistently feel wronged and get upset. I will take this as more evidence demonstrating they're not about ideas.

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Broke: "Please be patient, I have autism."

Bespoke: "I can handle both patience and impatience...but you probably won't like how I handle your impatience."

When someone speaks as vaguely as this study does, they're doing it because they have something to hide. However, being this vague always reveals there is something being hidden and the authors lack any trustworthiness. Indeed the impression they give off to when viewed naively is likely the opposite of the truth.

"A transportation technology is leading to the development of obesity-like symptoms in users of the technology."

...are you saying cars make you fat? Are we talking about scooters here? Is this about leg atrophy? What's the deal?
They're deliberately baiting you to misunderstand in a motte/bailey strategy. "I didn't say cars make you fat!" Indeed, you didn't. And yet.

I did a modernism.

Should be the solar set and the lunar set, not set 1 and set 2. 

In my defence they were always placeholder names, but even having placeholder names similar to a modern "scientist's" names is a wrong thing to do. 

E.g. the existence of a solar set and a lunar set suggest the existence of a stellar set, which I have not written down.

Anti-Communism is Fundamentally Stupidity Suppression

Even smart humans are tempted to do stupid things. If nothing stops them, the stupidity accumulates. 

Under communism (and especially Communism) stupidity accumulates, because it has numerous pathways whereby stupidity is forgiven. Discipline is abrogated. Starting with the fact Communism doesn't work on paper, thus Communists always have to lie* about what they're planning to do or nobody takes them the least seriously.

The problem isn't communism, per se, but stupidity. By contrast, should a system actively persecute stupidity, it ought to be particularly anti-communist and thus particularly functional. In other words you want your society to be as Social Darwinist as you can possibly manage. No matter what downsides you find, it probably won't be as bad as letting unnecessary stupidity build up.

I don't feel I've explained this well enough, though I also can't see what I've missed. Do I also need to explain that the Sun rises in the morning? Let's try explaining the Sun sets in the evening. 

Stupidity is a form of crime. Crime is fundamentally defection in the prisoner's dilemma. Stupidity is fundamentally, at best, less-cooperation, thus more criminal. Even the most agreeable stupid person has to be told what to do, because they can't/won't figure it out for themselves, which means having a stupid person around is expensive compared to a not-stupid person.

Unfortunately, yes this means some people are genetically criminal. Their existence is a crime - a net drag on every other individual they run into.

A society with less crime is necessarily more wealthy. It's really hard to find a crime-suppression technique that isn't cost-effective. If it's relevant at all and not superstition, it's worthwhile, because the more effective it is, the less you have to use it, and this self-suppression scales faster than the costs. Ideally you threaten the measure but never have to carry it out. Unfortunately the problem is stupidity, so...

P.S. Humans are Turing complete, so brain damage aside, stupidity is never a can't sort of thing. It's always merely won't. This reinforces the fact stupidity is a crime. 

P.P.S. Probably not a coincidence that almost all prison inmates are stupid. Being stupid is criminal, and then also causes outright lawbreaking, just in case it wasn't criminal enough. 

P.P.P.S. *How well known is it that lying is intentional stupidity? Do I need to mention this or is it obvious?  

P.P.P.P.S Socrates is correct. Evil is ignorance, because cooperation is always rational. Crime is always a mistake (and mistakes are nearly isomorphic to crime). 

P.P.P.P.P.S Exit is my favourite form of discipline. Sacralize Exit and stupidity will always be punished by withdrawal of agents to be stupid at.
I find stupid people hate Exit, exactly because even they realize they will be on the wrong side of such discipline. Obversely, if you're not stupid, you don't Exit a good deal. Double whammy, oof.
Intellectual laziness is isomorphic to stupidity. Do your sets. 

Bonus round: Exit means what counts as "stupid" is none of my business. Don't need a Meritocratic Decider deciding what counts as merit. A) if it looks stupid but it works it's not stupid; I'm stupid for thinking it's stupid, but under Exit I can't force you to ditch the relationship, because you'll Exit from me instead. B) if it really is stupid, then I can Exit and let you wallow in your stupidity. Doesn't affect me.

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

universalists have fewer friends

"Still getting off far too lightly given the damage they do IMHO."

If moral universalists damage someone, absent extraordinary conditions, they deserved to get damaged by moral universalists. Secure your shit.

As with all criminals, they do the most damage to themselves. You may be involuntarily exposed to moral universalists, but take a moment to pity the universalist: they have to live with one literally 100% of the time. That's really gotta sting. (As shown upthread.)

Memory Crystal Example

The number is 43893. To remember this, remember it several times. It has two sequences of numbers one apart, first going down, the second going up. Like this: \ /; I give it a tune, though for some reason it's / \ -. All numbers are in these two one-apart pairs, of which there are two. It also has a 3 - 9 - 3 sequence, although not in a row, which sequence itself is mnemonic. The chronologically first number in each pair is related, in ascending order. 4 - 8, 3 - 9.

I think my memory is good due to habitually using a technique I call a memory crystal, where I form complexes of memories that reinforce one another. The simplest way is to remember a thing, and then remember remembering it. The two memories drift independently, and can be used to correct each other's errors.

If I forget it starts with 4, then I can remember it has 3 - 9 - 3 and sequences one apart, so I can guess 4 and see if it feels right against the tune. If I forget the 3 - 9 - 3 I can remember the two pairs are related by one-ascending factors, 2 (with 4) and 3 (with 3). If I only remember they're one apart, I can remember there's two sequences - they're not both up or both down. Etc etc. 

After correcting a dyad crystal once, the memory of correcting it forms a triad which is ridiculously stable. It's essentially impossible for a triad to drift together and lose information. 


Cost: this does mean I read kind of slow, I think. I did it so consistently, starting in childhood, that it's nowe unconscious and automatic. Or rather, I read pretty fast except I'm reading every word 3-5 times so I can see all the sentences' properties and use them to remember each other. 


Due to repetition, the techniques themselves are heavily chunked. I have like nine properties of this one number? It feels like fewer than 3, though, because the properties are so heavily compressed. I didn't mention some because the sentences describing the properties take up a order of magnitude more memory as the properties themselves do, which makes the description feel wrong. I've thought about a number before, after all. Once or twice. 

(Make that ten properties, since there are nine "natural" properties and the 3 - 9 - 3 sequence.) 

Likewise, I'm remembering so many properties I will remember enough of them by chance. Takes zero conscious effort. 

The crystal feels meaningful. The number isn't just a random sequence of digits anymore - it feels a little profound, like there's something under there. After all, I went digging and found something under. The internal relationships are no longer trivial or nonexistent, de-fusing the natural tendency to discard pointless information.

Monday, August 23, 2021

Reminder: You Get What You Pay For

If you're only willing to pay nothing your purchase will be worth nothing.

In particular if you want free medicine you will get not-medicine. You become the merchandise, not the customer.  The social function of "universal" medicine is dysfunction; to make doctors rich. It's very effective at its genuine purpose.

Again, Communism is a bad idea, even on paper. 

Although, ironically, the ROI on getting rich through doctoring is negative. Gnon punishes doctors for endorsing Communism by making them work in brutal, barbaric Communist conditions. They really do get rich, though. There's no demand for having a soul, and lots of demand for big houses and fancy cars.


La Wik's article on mires is comfortably autistic. Explains the jargon rather than merely using it. 

"A fen is located on a slope, flat, or in a depression and gets most of its water from soil or groundwater (minerotrophic). Thus, while a bog is always acidic and nutrient-poor, a fen may be slightly acidic, neutral, or alkaline, and either nutrient-poor or nutrient-rich."

Hey you guys, what if you read encyclopedia articles to hear about the topic, instead of politicized religious catechism? If so, then this article. This one is good. 

"A simplistic calculation, using typical values for a Sphagnum bog of 1mm new peat added per year and 0.0001 proportion of the catotelm decaying per year, gives a maximum height of 10 m. More advanced analyses incorporate expectable nonlinear rates of catotelm decay."

Examples. Christ. What country did this come from?

Watched a little bit of the streamer xQc. Like pewdiepie, I often wonder if the appeal of these kinds of shows is exactly that they're so boring and have no appeal.

Sunday, August 22, 2021

Stupid Scientists, Sexual Selection Edition

Sexual selection allows individual genes to survive instead of having to pass along the whole genome or none of it. 

Scientists are confused at how sexual selection is so universal even though they only pass along half their genes per child.

If you pass along your whole genome, you also definitely pass along your whole genome. One fatal mutation kills the whole thing. This is especially important because occasionally you get lucky and survive for a few generations. (In the presence of welfare, several generations.) If you have a delayed-blast death aberration, you could potentially locally extirpate yourself, after you replace a majority of the population and then you all get wiped out.

By contrast, if you have sexual selection, about half your kids won't have the death-blast mutation. If, like many species, you have millions of kids, it's guaranteed to pass along basically your entire genome except the problematic gene, just by chance. The non-deadly "half" of your genes will be a different arrangement in each egg, covering all possible genes.

Many species give birth to millions of kids. "Only" passing on half => effectively half a million => way more than can possibly survive anyway. This is a non-cost. It's all benefit. 

Put another way, on average two parents have two kids. If any population grew without bound it would have eaten the entire Earth already, and possibly moved onto eating the Sun. On average, extinction aside, populations are stable. Two kids, half each => 100% of the genome. One mitotic parent has on average one daughter => 100% of the genome.

Saturday, August 21, 2021

Mutations in the brain reliably make you crazy, so it's a lot easier for women to evolve to match the shape the brain is expecting rather than the brain to evolve its expectations to match what women are like. Result: women are way more beautiful than they're supposed to be, meaning they are superstimuli. This leads to overinvestment in woman-chasing and so on and so forth.

Thursday, August 19, 2021

Note on Moldbug Grammar

Moldbug uses [she] instead of [he] or [they]. This is Fascist. Egalitarian fanatic. He's not fundamentally opposed to the Regressive Inquisition, which is why he keeps trying to give them advice. Menshevik, not Reactionary.

P.S. If you stop trying to beat Satan at lying, you can use the correct pronoun. Use [she] for pregnancy and [he] for agency or ownership, etc. [They] is fine, despite certain shrill, meddling prescriptivists and their cringing peasant followers.

Quick Version of Solution and its Impossibility

There's nothing physically impossible about permanently going [Benedict option]. Carve out a culture directly opposed to government, while assuming the government will continue to exist. Start with stealth. Governments are functionally blind; almost trivial to bamboozle if you don't trip their big obvious opposition-detectors.* Elaborate on anti-government security, so even if they detect something's weird you're too much trouble to be worth the effort. Do this under the assumption that the wider culture will always be pwned and therefore hostile. 

Government will always be diametrically opposed to eudaimonia. The peasants will never not be too stupid to reject coercive government. If you want to live well you must first insulate yourself against government. Treat all government and government-pwned peasants as ritual contamination. Occasional desecreation is just a fact of life, but re-consecration procedures are hardly made of phlebotinum.

However, clearly this sort of thing is psychologically impossible. 


I know for sure it's not impossible because the Amish have already done it. However, they are drastic, giving up all modernist technology. While certainly a net win, it shouldn't be necessary. Going Benedict is drastic enough without tripling down. 

The impossibility comes from strategically designing and choosing your own culture. This amount of agency is vanishingly rare, and comes associated with plenty of competence, meaning a man with this much agency can succeed regardless of his political surroundings, and doesn't need to go Benedict. Note the Amish arose organically, which is why their solution is somewhat inefficient. They do not and never had the ability to tune it.

*E.g. say ninja instead of jogger. Even in the unlikely event that the ignorant peasants start adopting this sort of thing, you'll have plenty of warning and be able to change before it becomes a problem. However, your Benedict sect should never seem "cool," primarily because it means you're doing it wrong, but also to prevent exactly this sort of inconvenience. 

Strategically being anti-cool is one of the things which destructively blows the minds of even the staunchest anti-conformist.

Realistic Cynicism on Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, the Regressive Inquisition was a hostile occupying force.

In America, the Regressive Inquisition is a hostile occupying force.

In Afghanistan, the Regressives pretended they weren't a hostile occupying force. They pretending that things like 'legitimacy' mattered and that they had to win [hearts and minds]. Just like they pretend not to be a spiteful foreign tyrant in America. The problem is that Afghans aren't nearly as gullible and gaslit as Americans, so Afghans continued to see the Regressive Inquisition as a hostile occupying force. 

Afghans aren't Fascist. They haven't suffered centuries of Christian and Fascist madrassah. The Regressives couldn't just tell them what they like and expect them to start liking it. They had (Gasp, Shock) their own preferences. Regressives failed to appreciate this.

Largely because the Regressives were only doing it out of habit. For any individual Regressive, the point of Afghanistan was graft. Foreign occupation means lots of money flying around, which means abundant opportunities to skim some off the top. Being far from the Imperial centre means oversight is weak. Or rather, competition is weak. In America if you try to demand protection money you'll find someone is already running a protection racket and less than pleased at someone horning in on their territory. Hence, in Afghanistan it was less skimming off the top and more hectic ladling off the top.

Secondarily, had the Inquisition openly acted like the brutal tyrants they in fact are, it would have lead to more order. Stuff would have been done.
If everyone is failing their putative initiatives, then your flagrant corruption isn't particularly embarrassing. Nobody is inspiring envy by doing it better. If every initiative is a boondoggle, then nobody is a boondoggler. Even if someone calls you on one of your graft schemes, you were never planning to do that scheme a second time in any case. If Afghanistan starts working as intended, then you'll have to repeat yourself  and pile up evidence that's it's intentional graft.

P.S. Most new government programs in America are attempts to open up virgin protection rackets to give to someone as a bribe. Regressives aren't serious about global warming; they're drooling about how many supporters they could pay off by offering to let them embezzle the carbon tax. 

P.P.S. Normally there would be a small possibility that the Afghan "war" was ended due to finally starting to cost the Blue Empire more than it was worth, but the timing doesn't work out.
Nobody with real power did not know calling the withdrawal a [clusterfuck] would be a kind euphemism for how it would play out. They would have preferred this to happen under Trump. Trump didn't know and wouldn't even have opposed it. 

P.P.P.S. Oil? Lol. Iran's oil is relevant because it's the reason they have a rivalry with the Sauds. Maybe there was some oil-related posturing in Afghanistan, but unless they were successfully disrupting Iranian oil operations, it's a puppet show for the ignorant peasants.

Siding with Government

"A government that consciously degrades itself is telling you you're on your own"

Correction: if you have a government, you're on your own.
And this is correct.

If the government starts telling you you're not on your own (unless you buy into government interests) then it means they're going more communist and you will not like the result. 

To get the government on your side you first have to demonstrate productive loyalty to the government program. The government has to see a significant loss as a result of leaving you out in the cold.
As opposed to giving you stuff for free because they're all secretly Yeshua. Nobody gives out things for free, and the government is no exception. Every "free" government program is structured to buy something they care about, and [being seen as generous] is not high on the list.  

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Refresher: Afghanistan Was About Iran

Iran has a real army, and America is a giant pussy, so they won't fuck with Iran. They want to fuck with Iran, though, because the Saudis spend lots of money on America's behalf.

If you look at a map, you can see Afghanistan in on the right of Iran, and Iraq on the left. Encirclement is always a good strategic choice. It's a convenient place to stage operatives from, at least. You can do things like 'encourage' some terrorists to pay them a visit. With bases on both sides, you can try to bluff Iran. "I'ma find my balls! Any day now!" 

The actual 9/11 terrorists - assuming the FBI didn't just lie outright - were Saudi. The "war" in the middle East never had anything to do with terrorism, except American terrorism of Iran. Imagine American terrorists blew up something in Russia, and Russia responded by staffing bases in North Korea and Mongolia. Be quite the WTF moment, eh? Indians blow up something in China, so CCP invades Pakistan...

You would think Afghanistan was a Red Empire action, but it rapidly became Blue Empire, with Foggy Bottom apparently calling all the shots. Martial law via lawyer rules didn't work out. Everyone was shocked, shocked. Red Empire was still paying for it, though, just in case you weren't sure if the Republicans were the Democrat's fuck holes.

It is possible they withdrew now just to piss off Trump.

Wait I have a plausible theory: they had to pay off certain Red Empire operatives to pull off the election fraud, and ending the buggering in Afghanistan was part of the deal. If the "war" there was in any way bad for Blue Empire, it would have been ended under Obama II at the latest.

Fanaticism and Narcissism

Part of the reason fanatics are so fervent is precisely because they don't believe. Their lack of faith is so obvious to them that they become paranoid. Surely you will notice? It's almost impossible not to notice... They try to flood the channel. Drown out the real signal with fake signals. The real signals keep coming at them, being real and all, which triggers them to flood the channel all the more vigorously...

Fanaticism is a cluster B personality disorder, possibly a proper subtype of narcissism. Like the narcissist, the fanatic is convinced their true self is unlovable and they must pretend to be someone else, or they will be cast into the fatal darkness beyond the fire. 

What about the idea of accepting the evidence of their senses and the judgment of their reason? Totally beyond consideration.

Fanatics are obsessed with heretics because the heretic demonstrates their insanity. In fact regular folk tend not to mind heretics, or at least happily put up with them most of the time. This means the fanatic never had to oppress themselves so tyrannically. Better burn that fucker at the stake, rather than admit they screwed up. If reality conflicts with your insanity, so much the worse for reality.
Since fanatics reliably offer unjustified extreme violence, they are inherently criminal. Execution is likely a mercy in their case, and everyone else can only benefit from their removal. Being a fanatic is a very serious crime. All the stake-burnings were projection of what they accurately believe they themselves deserve.

Key to Diogenes

Athenians philosophers in particular need to be read in context. Diogenes doesn't say you should masturbate in public

Athenians thought of themselves as supremely Rational. Diogenes pointed out the buggers were so fake they couldn't even coherently explain why you shouldn't masturbate in public.
It is of course expected that a Fascist polity becomes extremely fake. 

Americans don't really get Socrates. "He asked about virtue? That's cool I guess." Imagine a modern-day Socrates walked up to everyone and asked them exactly what [racism] means. Bastard won't shut up about it. Even Americans would realize it's not just sort of annoying when they can't answer his questions.

Although as always I would take a Buddhist/Aristotlean middle way with Diogenes, should I meet him in person. Okay, you have demonstrated you can live without houses and cups. Now demonstrate you can live with houses and cups. Is this genuine conviction, or cope? 

P.P.S. Incidentally:

Courage is taking risks with good expected return even when they're scary.

Laziness is failing to take risks with good expected return when the cost is effort.

You shouldn't masturbate in public because the owner of the public square has asked you not to. He can, because his property is his property. He has secured his shit. He has asked so because he doesn't like ugliness. 

Almost anyone trying to make this stuff profound is trying to steal your wallet, and should probably have his tongue/hands amputated. The exception being when they don't try to 'update' or 'elaborate' these simple truths. 

P.P.P.S. Remember [good expected return] includes the Kelly criterion. It's simple but it's not American simple.

Deism vs. Christianity

Insofar as Christian heavenly theology is divine, it is not very Christian. To the extent it is particularly Christian, it is not divine. 

E.g. you come up with deism. A personal god who has no personal interactions with individual persons. Uh, whoops. 

Jehovah allegedly made every living thing, but, coincidentally, demonstrates a knowledge of biology no more sophisticated than what a bright desert goatherd could figure out. His non-creative "miracles" are all things we could carry out with already-existing technology, never mind the natural explanations for these events. The only thing divine about them is the when and where. For centuries, Christians believed that witches could do all the things Jehovah did, but chose not to because witches were Always Chaotic Evil. (Grassmonkey gonna monke.) 

Like, there's some good stuff in Aquinas. It's hardly a pure ore, though. He gets to truth despite his religion, not because of it.

Jesus is Reverse Trap?

"A person I do not follow sent me a picture of Jesus Christ crucified this morning, shortly after my 333rd post. Wat mean?"

The Dark Enlightenment is that god really did allow himself to get killed. 

I just noticed Jesus is the feminine triad, but in reverse drag. Maiden, mother, crone. Son, father, ghost. They found the idea evocative, so they stole it. In other words apparently Jesus was a reverse trap all along. Well, until he/she got herself killed, anyway.

The West has always aspired to make everyone Jesus. This continues, but moreso. 

Suggestion: try to have a conception of the divine that's better than a suicidal head case, in some fashion.

Property and American Property

Property is always owned by exactly one owner. 

"The Marxists I knew always said, “There’s no one in charge; to say so is conspiracy theory”. Ergo, someone is in charge. I think there are people in charge, perhaps they overlap and contradict each other; but someone makes decisions somewhere, even if clunkily."

At some point any property with multiple putative owners will see a conflict among the owners. There will be a dispute. One of the owners will win, who was the real owner all along. 

Although it is true the American system is designed to obfuscate ownership as much as possible. To make many feel [included], especially when they're not. No system, no matter how sophisticated, can abrogate basic logical laws.

It does succeed in finely dividing property that should be united. As I like to say, I estimate that America is in fact roughly 500 kingdoms. Not geographical ones either. There's a king of roads. There's a king of judges, who is different from the king of cops and the king of attorneys. There may even be one or two queens, though it's far from guaranteed. Wanna bet the EPA covers at least two kingdoms? 

It also succeeds in making title comically insecure. Any king who admits to kinghood will immediately see his kingdom get jacked. Another king will conquer it using catspaws, but won't be able to consolidate precisely because it's so easy to take. 

However, for the most part, kings finely control who is in the line of succession. Even though ownership is unstable, there's a consistent ideology. Plans, more or less, get carried out. On average. Also I rather suspect there's a Pope who is rather more secure and helps keep everyone else in line.
Secondarily the new king has the exact same interests as the old king and will think of pursuing them the same ways.

"But I haven't heard of any of their names in the news." Anyone who shows up in the news immediately gets jacked. Everyone at these institutions is ferociously selected for keeping secrets. Remember, America is in fact a banana republic. Any journalists who leaks without permission will likely end up actually dead, never mind fired. The public doesn't want to know, anyway. No demand. Real rulership is super boring. The best rulers do absolutely nothing at all. The public wants to hear about drama and incest and corruption and intrigue. America keeps a bunch of gay politicians around to provide these things.

P.S. Occasionally it's revealed that a thing was not property at all. There's lots of asteroids that are worth trillions or quadrillions of dollars, but in fact they're worth nothing because nobody owns them. This hasn't stopped e.g. some firms selling real estate on the Moon. 

You can sometimes witness big politicized fights over things nobody controls at all, which is revealed when someone wins and they complain there's a terrible conspiracy to stop them doing what they want with the thing.  

P.P.S. Cancel culture - more precisely, the modern Inquisition - is perhaps rooted in envy. The swamp creatures know they all have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head. They have to walk right and speak right, or they may actually die. Someone will tell Hillary they have information that could lead to her arrest, and then that's it.
Yet all these proles can say whatever they want? Fuck that. Fuck them. Have to make sure the corporations are as terrorized as the swamp is.
How can you have a communist terror regime if there's someone who doesn't live in constant fear?

Lysenkoist Game Theory

Game theorists can't work out that cooperation is always rational because it also implies that the stupid differ from the smart; that reality is counter-revolutionary and privileges the competent over the incompetent. 

One of the simplifying assumptions in the finite iterated prisoner's dilemma is that both players are perfectly rational. They can reliably figure out the optimal strategy and not only that, but can see the other side is also rational and realize they can also figure out the optimal strategy. That is, they have IQs north of 145 or 160.

In other words if we overstrain this assumption, if we assume instead the players aren't all that smart, we conclude they will use suboptimal strategies. Either because they make a mistake or because they run out of mental RAM before they work out what the other guy is thinking. 

If we assume cooperation is the suboptimal strategy, then we're being nice to stupid people.
If we assume defection is the suboptimal strategy, then we're being mean to stupid people, and that's counter-revolutionary. 

Game theorists tend to have distant inferential horizons, and can indeed at least feel these consequences, even if they don't acknowledge them consciously. Being a proper revolutionary is more important than not promoting treachery and isolation, of course.

Monday, August 16, 2021

Since Christianity is actually Satanism, their Satanology tends to be very accurate, even down to small details. The Christ was (also) Antichrist all along.


Although ironically worshipping Satan with insulation or at one remove seems to be much less unhealthy than worshipping Satan honourably. Anyone who actually calls himself a Satanist develops Palpatine face at a very early age. 

Further on Fascism Diagnostics

We can call Fascism Inquisitorial government. Mythological Inquisition, not historical. Salem witch hunts, not Spanish Catholicism. It's about obsessing over sinners 24/7.

The dogmatism and xenophobia results because We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident, and thus everyone must have already heard the Good News of human genetic identicality. Anyone who suggests individuals differ is just a liar and a troll. Anyone rejecting human uniformity must be a vicious heretic bent on destruction of the Inquisition. (Egalitarianism wasn't narcissistic enough, so we made it more narcissistic.)

Utopianism is about attributing all flaws to malicious sin. Usually a specific human sinner, with an address and a family and so on. There's no such thing as an accident, an unfortunate (ugly) truth, or even simple ignorance. Something Must be Done, because everything bad is itself being Done.

The third point is about organized sinners. Obviously, the only way our organized Inquisitorial government could fail to wipe out imperfection is if there was an organized cabal of sinners who evilly sin against us for evulz. The Inquisition, of course, is totally pure and can do no wrong. 

I could probably condense those two points into one. 

Fanatics are of course no stranger to hypocrisy, so they consistently notice that one sex is less capable of upholding uniformity (to their twisted ideal) than another. A sane person would perhaps start wondering if perhaps the genders differ, but of course these fanatics are largely aware their beliefs are bullshit anyway. Can't wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep. Thus one gender gets assigned to [sinner] status.

Obviously, while sin is sin, opposing the Inquisition is always a greater sin. Do you want sin to run rampant? Thus whenever a vote or even a law runs contrary to Inquisition interests, it is found to be sinning and rejected, no matter how consistent with its overt principles. 

Although non-Inquisition ideas are always sinful (see point 1) sometimes they're also correct, which means they have to be disguised as Inquisition ideas. Humanism means worship of humans, which means worship of homo hypocritus, which means worship of having no integrity. On the obverse, occasionally Inquisition tenets are discredited, and become totally untenable. Obviously reality can't be allowed to sin like that, and the ideas must be re-created by having them wear a skinsuit.


More generally, the purpose of Inquisitorial government is to find an punish sinners. If none can be found, they will be freely invented. 


P.S. Point six is reinforced by the revolutionary nature of theocratic egalitarianism, as described by Plato. The old shall revere the young, for the old are wise and the young are foolish. Everything old must be made new, else it be discredited for suggesting that old folks might differ from the young. 

Sunday, August 15, 2021

All government intervention is counterproductive. Public choice theory is just right all the time.

The only exception is cap-and-trade for acid rain. I wonder if maybe the government sees itself as genuinely owning those forests, so for once it was responsible action, instead of irresponsible action?

The Chinese aren't very communist, but they're communist enough that their ncov numbers were 100% fake from day one. We have no idea what actually happened. Was it contained? Not contained? It's hard to tell even in the G8. The hysteria was certainly real, but I don't know anyone who died of it - or even got sick, except myself - and you probably don't either. 

However, since government intervention is guaranteed to be counterproductive, even if they managed to contain the Wuhan outbreak, in the long term they will fail to contain the outbreak. It will be all costs and no benefits. Hence the recent problems with an airport. Fact is the rest of the world didn't contain it (as most likely China didn't, really) and will continually re-introduce it.
Most likely containment will fail on its own, but worst-case they will get tired of shutting down commerce every month or two and surrender to the infection.

P.S. Biological weapons of mass destruction aren't real because even the densest midwit in a leadership position is sharp enough to understand that you will infect your own country 100% of the time. 

Chemical weapons aren't real because they don't work. Just use a gun. It's easier, cheaper, and far more reliable.

Nuclear weapons are real, though they're not nearly as destructive to physical infrastructure as to psychological infrastructure. They're the apotheosis of shock and awe. Nuclear winter is almost certainly not real. Nuclear contamination is beneficial instead of harmful after about two years at most. 

The hydrogen bomb is the solar bomb, and the uranium bomb is the nova bomb. Turns out stars are life-giving, not life-ending. Sunlight and starlight is also purifying, which is why Regressives hate the technology so much.

All three do make properly hysterical ad copy. Uh I mean newspaper copy.

Physicalism is Counter-Empircal

If you create a model of the world that uses a fundament of objectivity, you reliably conclude that consciousness doesn't exist. Consciousness does exist, which means the philosophy is empirically unsound.

This amuses me greatly. Though of course it shouldn't. Naturally Empiricists would betray empiricism. Why should it ever be otherwise? 

By contrast, a model using the subjective as primary has no trouble re-deriving physics from solipsism. The objective world is merely the thoughts that are shared as opposed to the thoughts which are private.

If the thoughts were not logically consistent across minds, they would not be shared, as a matter of logical necessity. We do in fact observe other minds (regardless of how reliable that observation is) and therefore absent strong evidence to the contrary, should assume some thoughts are shared. 

Since thoughts are shared and logically consistent, they must be consistent across observers - in other words, to reiterate the properties of objectivity. 

To see this another way, notice how the shared-thoughts paradigm causes Newton's Third Law. If I perceive your thought touching my thought, likewise you must perceive my thought touching yours. (Kindly leave the gutter thoughts to adolescents. They have that covered.) Else there's a logical inconsistency, and the thoughts are not in fact shared, and you'll be able to observe them rapidly diverging even if they appear coincident at first glance.  

Perhaps one form of death is losing track of the shared thoughts. If you forget all other minds, it is like they don't exist, and likewise, to them, like you don't exist. You may still exist, but it doesn't matter.

Saturday, August 14, 2021

Musings on Religion, Lies, Agreeability

"for the Marxist, religion can only be seen as a tool to exploit and delude the masses and this contention is supported by the notion that there is only matter, the Marxist philosophical method is dialectical materialism."https://www.xenopolitix.com/post/lenin-s-philosophy

More precisely, Marxism is a religion.
The more religious a religion is, the weaker it is, and Marxism is very, very religious, and thus very, very weak. It must ferociously attack anything with the tiniest whiff of competition, lest that thing accidentally crush Marxism by rolling over during an afternoon nap.

This feature of religions isn't inherent to religion, but rather inherent to humans. Homo hypocritus vastly prefers false religions, and thus the more a human likes a religion, the more false you can be assured it is. Gnon, the true god, rather dislikes falsehood and punishes these religions with pain and failure. Homo hypocritus takes this as an opportunity to show they really, really believe. Look how much damage they're willing to take on behalf of the religion! Very loyal. (As if loyalty was not a sin.) 


In homo hypocritus, agreeability means not disputing lies. The agreeable person essentially agrees to be exploited by anyone even vaguely psychopathic. 

We can see the State strongly selects against disagreeability, resulting in "civilized" populations which are fundamentally gullible. 

"In a sense, they are correct: why torpedo your own career and social prospects to become a social pariah? Are you mad? Few people think there is a Heaven or eternal reward if you do so; and so to spite the system seems like self-harm—only a stupid person would do it. "

At least, fundamentally committed to acting gullible, so much so that you can extract wealth from them by holding their career hostage. 

Indeed they become so agreeable that the State finds itself unable to fend off its own psychopathic elements. The lies it feeds to its host population are used against it, progressively more intensely, until the State fails. The system tried to hold midwit's careers hostage, and is in turn held hostage to its system of hostage-taking.

The correct thing to do is always to sacrifice the hostage and kill the hostage-taker, but an agreeable person can and will never do this, which is exactly why the State frantically suppresses anyone disagreeable. 

Sadly, I can only say the disagreeable deserve this fate. They, too, are human. They consistently believe God will save them as a result of mouthing pious platitudes - in other words, they don't need to organize or figure out how to get along with other disagreeable people. Set aside their differences due to a common threat? Nonsense, Providence will provide.

"I believe in hierarchy!"
The disagreeable isn't capable of disputing orthodoxy, they are obligated to dispute orthodoxy, exactly the way the agreeable person is obligated to uphold orthodoxy.
"I believe in hierachy - as long as I don't have to join one, of course!" This is why democracy is even vaguely stable. It recruits its own enemies to its cause. The agreeable: "I'm an individual, I think for myself!" they chant, repeatedly, in unison. The disagreeable man cannot, fundamentally, oppose this idea. They think for themselves even, or perhaps especially, when they shouldn't. Naturally, telling the truth would piss off even someone who wasn't shackled to the agreeable-disagreeable axis. "Having thought for myself, I have determined you shouldn't think for yourself." Not exactly rhetorical brilliance here. 

Indeed, perhaps a fortiori. The disagreeable prefer living under a full liar/tyrant regime, because if the State says anything true, the disagreeable will perforce say a falsehood. Much more comfortable, on balance, if they never have to lie because the State never tells the truth.
Naturally the agreeable are likewise pleased with full liar/tyrant regimes, because they get to demonstrate their cuckold bona-fides so intensely. "You wanna slave? I'm the most supine slave to ever prostrate!" Cool, yeah that's exactly what I wanted...

Try Not To Freak Out About Furriner Pregnancies

Shouldn't there be someone fundamentally non-ignorant writing for the internet? Somewhere?

"Now it has completely reversed course, realizing that Africa's high fertility will give it global dominance in the end."

Africa can have as many votes as it wants, but it doesn't matter, because it will still be Africa. Fun fact: democracy isn't real.
"If Scotland breeds too many sheep, the sheep will rise up and kill us all!"

This happens because grassland apes have an app for that. If the next tribe over has children and yours doesn't, that's a real problem. As a result, you get chimpouts regarding other folks having children from time to time. Monkey see, monkey screech.

However, if you think about it, you may notice we live in an industrial society, not a grassland hunter tribe. The British already demonstrated the effects of this using the Maxim gun on Zulus. If that's too long ago for you, remember what happened when America briefly let its military off the leash so they could frolic in Afghanistan. The simple fact is that Africa still has humans in it because the West has mercifully decided not to simply remove them all. It wouldn't even count as a war; more like tidying up. That will not change, regardless of how many humans happen to be there.

Though certainly low fertility under modernism is something of a problem, that's a symptom, not a cause. Folks aren't fucking because the civilization is already fucked. If you unbuggered the economy the symptoms would solve themselves, but of course buggering the economy for fun and profit is the core purpose of the western Regime. 

In reality if the Regime uses Africans as domestic saboteurs too effectively, the net result will be a loss of foreign "aid" and thus extremely deadly famines across Africa. I suspect even African leaders aren't stupid enough to fail to appreciate this dependence. Whoever is in charge of Rwanda, in particular, knows exactly what's up.

Sunday, August 8, 2021

Classrooms with teachers, the lecture format, last made sense before the printing press.

At university, the lecturer would stand in front of the class and read a book. The students would copy the book down, because it was cheaper than paying a scribe to copy it for you, and those were the only two ways you would get your own copy of the book. The only limit to this process was how many could hear the lecturer accurately, though in practice even this distinctly drudgerous task was fairly expensive, even when split 30 ways or whatever. 

Now it's far faster, easier, and cheaper to print a copy of the lecture notes and have the students read the notes themselves. However, in the meantime lecturers had accrued social status, so we can't have that, now can we...

When not merely lecturing, but teaching, the maximum effective class size is about 4. Any bigger than that and a trained monkey with a 4-man class can do better than the top expert in the field. 

Further, hostile environments shut down the learning process. The alleged student is focusing on their enemies, not on new information, especially information that's reflexively coded as 'toy' to the savannah-issue brain. 

Or, reminder: schools are not for education. Nobody with sense tries to learn anything at school, or builds a school with the intent to teach. A tiny amount of historical literacy, or just thinking about it, scuttles the plan immediately.

Saturday, August 7, 2021

A Metaphor for Countries

Imagine a vast dark field, with a handful of harsh spotlights being shone into it.

The government is behind the spotlights. "We're watching you! We're watching you!" they scream.
The peasants are cringing under the light, jammed together with everyone trying to fit into the circle. "We have nothing to hide! We have nothing to hide!" they plead. Occasionally shots ring out and kill some of the peasants. 

Government agents can't be modelled as rational, thinking animals. When they decide to punish someone, they're like criminals. Criminals victimize their neighbours because they're too lazy to go farther out. Likewise when government feels the need to punish someone, they snipe those under the spotlights because they're handy. The rifle is already pointed in that direction and everything. "Justice was done!" Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.

Secondarily, if you really want to pop some poor peasant's cranium, where better to stand than behind the spotlight? Quis custodiet. The government will never look there. Step 1 is always to climb the watchtowers. 

Anyone with sense can just not stand in the light. Governments have more blind spots than sight spots, and the spotlights are impossible to miss.
In theory you have to worry about dark-loving bloodsuckers, but almost all of them are attracted to standing behind the spotlights anyway. Only a few lost stragglers out here. That's handy.

Anyone with sense avoids standing in the towers too, because government agents have really bad BO. Absolutely reeks up there. It might be mainly the parasitic infiltrators, but they never get rid of the parasites, and get super mad if you try to do it, so six of one half a dozen etc. Secondarily, competing governments occasionally come and fire (or fire on) everyone in the towers so they can stand there instead. Typically these events will jostle the spotlight, so be careful of them if you're skirting around one.

Friday, August 6, 2021

Complaining about Complaining 2

When life throws women a curveball, complaining is a valid strategy. "You can't expect me to hit a curveball! That's unreasonable!" This will probably work for her. "Poor girl. You're right. We'll make some grownup handle it. Not us, of course. Someone else."

When life throws men a curveball, complaining is not a valid strategy. What, you want your mommy to hit the ball for you? You are the grownup. Buck stops here. Outside games and gardens, "reasonable" has no meaning. If Reality's curveball is too curvy, then you die, and that's all there is to it. If you can't hit it, then get out of the way so you're not beaned.

It's important to mention these things, because under feminine Fascism you're constantly being told that masculinity is toxic and you should be a woman instead, and all the "men" you see around you will typically obey this command. The Regime doesn't like it when its livestock acts like adult humans. If they start thinking like grownups they might start thinking they don't need the government, and we can't have that, now can we?

Counterpoint: it's particularly fine for children to complain. They're almost always locked inside a garden. The least the gardener can do is make the garden fair.

Thursday, August 5, 2021

Dilemma of No Aristocratic Should

The noble does not concern himself with "shoulds" or "oughts," only with can and can't. If you can do what you want, then do it; what do you have to complain about? If you can't, then give up and quit complaining, because complaining isn't going to magically make the impossible into the possible. Either way, whining is slave behaviour.

Trying to train myself to follow this principle more reliably.

Problem: doing so more or less evaporates my blog. Have little to write that isn't about how modern governance is fucked up and you shouldn't do it that way. E.g. complaining that peasants whine too much is not an effective tactic for making then whine less. For some reason.


Complaining is mainly about social games. About asserting dominance because you could have done it better. This post was inspired by someone complaining about video games; but look, either you can win the fight and it's fine, or you can't and it's time to stop playing. Are you here for video games or social games? Did you want to play for fun or did you want to assert dominance over the development studio?

Hanging around peasants can make you habitually play social games; especially playing them ineffectually like peasants do. (We were all forced to hang around peasants in school. Also on Twitter etc.) Best to scratch that habit. Either play the social game like you mean it (full Machiavellianism) or play the video game.  

When you're playing a social game (esp. ineffectually) you're not playing the video game (or whatever else) like you mean it. You're distracted. As is hardly unusual for peasant habits, it sabotages both activities. Sure we can argue about whether you have a "right" to have your video games a certain way, or if developers are "obligated" to have done it differently than they did. I mean, if you're bored, I suppose. However, that already didn't happen. If there's something in-game to counter the problem, use it. If there isn't, then evaluate whether the game is still fun. If it is, be grateful. If it isn't, stop playing.

None of this (should be) rocket surgery, but apparently it's well beyond peasant capacities. Like, quit complaining? Just fix it? No, these are genius-tier choices, apparently. If you can do this you're practically a god, at least compared to a standard 100 IQ. 

I would like to think there's someone even smarter than me such that they don't find it surprising that such capacities have such a high DC score.

Heh. "DC six." Bedding this "woman" - I use the term loosely - is not exactly a heroic feat.
Hat tip mori.

Dumbass Peasantry Guarantees Bad Governance

If you see the peasantry complaining about the quality of their leadership, is it because their leadership is bad? Typically, it is not. It is because they're upset they're not the leader. (Everyone can be the leader, right? At the same time, even? That's why democracy works and is a good idea.) Roughly 98% of the time, it's due to resenting their lot in life, and 0% of the time it's because they could do better. 

This creates a rather perverse incentive. If the lead are going to complain about the leaders regardless, what incentive do the leaders have to lead well? If you're gonna do the time, might as well do the crime. 

Indeed the incentive is even more perverse. Peasants will complain even harder about a competent, effective leader. I think it makes them feel even more inferior by comparison. It is thus easier to band together an anti-leader mob if the leader is especially useful. Libtards hated Trump because he was more presidential, not because he was less.
"If he can do that, what excuse do I have?"
"Well... I think your mutant, tainted genome is a decent excuse, personally."
*incoherent monkey noises*
"Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Glad you understand. It's not like you had the option of having good genes but turned them down. It's not your fault."
(For some reason they get more upset rather than less. How curious.)

Overall, peasants demand bad leadership. There is no demand for good leadership. As a result, there is no supply of good leadership, unless you supply it yourself. 

Although certainly the lord shortage even further guarantees this... it is not some weird injustice or unfortunate accident that good leadership is basically absent. Human society actively selects against good leaders at all times and in all places, except possibly the savannah where there's a group selection pressure which eliminates the tribes of the worst leaders.

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Example of Dumbass Peasantry: Shrinkflation

"Instead of raising the price of bread my local grocery store is just now selling a half a loaf of sourdough and charging the same price that used to get you a full loaf"

They do it because peasants are dumb enough to fall for it. Or, worse, they detect it and then submit to it. Either way, it means you're spending more on packaging than you were before because you have the misfortune to be connected to the mass market. Why not make inflation worse when you can make it worse, right guys?

Presumably there are stores that cater to non-dumbasses, which honourably present inflation as inflation, but unfortunately I don't know much about them. On the plus side I buy mainly produce which isn't affected by this. E.g. meat is sold by the pound regardless & regardless. 

The problem is that a democratic or egalitarian or nurture-fundamentalist regime lets the peasants poison nearly the entire retail economy with their dumbassery, and it takes enormous amounts of money to escape the cesspool. Not to mention etiquette, ethics, etc etc. It all has to either cater to crippled peasant cognition, or is about exploiting crippled peasant cognition. 

For shrinkflation in particular, the peasant gets stuck on a "fair" price, because using real money instead of banknotes, prices more or less remain stable. For centuries there was indeed a stable "fair" price for most goods. Quite possibly before agriculture there were millennia of stable prices.
If you pull the price up they go bananas. Full chimpout. You can make things smaller and they'll doubt themselves, though. They don't fixate on weights and measures, aside from prices.* Precise scales didn't exist on the savannah. Do you smell an exploit? Creators sure do. 

*(Some peasants keep receipts, but none of them keep records of weights and stuff, so...)


99.9% of marketing is about tricking peasants by exploiting their lack of education and self-control. If you actually need a product you will buy it even if it isn't marketed. The ads just need to say, "You can buy it here," so you can find a supplier. Non-useless products hardly need ads at all, which reveals that only useless products need ads. Goodhart's law also applies. Epistemically, an advertisement is prima facie evidence that you should not buy a product. E.g. I remember seeing many Alienware ads, which makes me believe they are overpriced or downright shoddy machines. I'm confident enough that I haven't bothered to check. Peasants, of course, can only dream of building their own machine or otherwise running around the end of this phenomenon. 

I almost said milk ads were an exception, but I remembered in time that milk is basically very expensive water. It has a trace of residual cream in it; buy cream instead. Demand is low so the price is low. See also: regular (non-lean) beef. Thanks, food pyramid. Who wants the peasants bidding up my food? I sure don't. (Real AAA/prime lords, of course, have so much money it doesn't matter, which raises the question of why they're driving down my food prices for me. I'm just lucky I guess.)

Realize almost all modern wealth is based on capital investment. Either in machines or R&D, which make labour more productive. Imagine all the money spent on useless trinkets and signalling was instead spent on more R&D. Imagine a HOA except advertising is banned instead of not putting out your garbage just so. Or at least imagine it spent on patronizing worthwhile artists instead of on patronizing "art" that your nine-year-old could produce by fiddling with a random drawing program for an afternoon. 

P.S. My city has a prominent anticommunism memorial, but ironically it was obviously designed by a communist and looks like shit. You would think it's a bit of random scrap if it didn't have an inscription.

P.P.S. Milk is in fact adulterated expensive water. Some folks are sensitive to the adulterations, so it triggers allergies and carries ~no nutrients. More precisely, the thing called "milk" in the grocery store isn't milk at all, but instead some bizarre industrial by-product of milk "processing," but still has the historical cachet of milk because the peasants really are that slow.

Government Capable, But Unwilling

"The fact that the biggest criminal fine in US history is < 2.3 billion, when companies are worth trillions (Apple market cap is 2.3T), should tell you a lot about the actual regulatory power of the government against big players."

This is graft.

The actual story runs something like this: in the back room players agree on a bribe in return for whatever service, and the judge is subsequently informed that they need to rule guilty.

Perhaps they get a little clever and fudge the evidence instead of informing the judge, but either way the trial is rigged. 

The money is then funneled to the agreed-upon recipients, typically by manipulating procedural outcomes. It's very easy to guarantee because the recipients and system massages are planned beforehand. 

Some of these fines are routine. (Probably not this one.) Essentially they're the firm paying off the regulator for not writing any genuinely restrictive rules. The government can most certainly shut down these players, but where would they get their bribes if they shut down all the billionaires? 

Perhaps this one in particular is the payment for approving Pfizer's vaccine. If the regulator ran out of graft sources, they would promote vitamin D instead. You can tell because they're not drooling morons who can't even tie their own shoes. Vitamin D is not only effective against one coronavirus variant, but all viruses, and bacteria, and even body odour, being as body odour is largely bacterial. The side effect is (largely) better health, rather than shakes and aches and occasional death. However, vital amine delta is a cheap commodity, and Pfizer can't make billions off selling a few extra doses, and thus can't/won't bribe a regulator to promote it. 

On the plus side this means the peasants are made even more sickly, and aristocrats, who don't need to be told how to manage their own health, look even better by comparison. Although less able to breed due to the disease, peasants still breed too much, but in the long term that's a problem that fixes itself.

Regressivism is the assertion that industrial society is rich enough to afford stone-age sociology.

"Absolutely life-changing when I realized that the poor Yoruba, the poor in Yemen, the poor in rural India, etc. all had common suspicions of poisoning, witchcraft, and "stealing luck" aimed at the successful. 

That "limited blessing" #mindset defines poverty."

A theocracy of envy.

A recent Stonetoss is about the same. Naturally the sickly leftist voter envies the healthy, who are, by the leftist spite, driven to voting right even if they weren't that way naturally. However, it's just a bit too clear they're anti-health if they come right out and call lifting a right-wing dog-whistle. Also it's true, and as per usual they react to truth like vampires to garlic.


P.S. Instead of making the sign of the cross, you can drive off leftists by chanting "0 = 0!" and suchlike. 

"Men differ from women!"
"Noooo, not that, anything but that!"
"It's okay to be white!"
*melts like the wicked witch*

Monday, August 2, 2021

Finest Pro-American Declares America Moribund

Let's talk about set 4.
Set 4 is the meta set, it is about placing your other sets in juxtaposition, to find out what you yourself really believe; a task far less trivial than commonly appreciated. 

Prediction 1:

"This process [...] will require not just the powers of a general defending against an enemy invasion, but the powers of the enemy general." 

Revenge is Sour: if you can kill someone, there is no need to. The obverse: to get certain things done, there is a need to be able to kill anyone you want. In other words, to have proper military capacity. Arbitrary ability to declare and wage war. Even down to the individual, because they will certainly stonewall you, up to but not including trying to kill you back.

Prediction 2:

"Americans [are] completely harmless, apathetic and atomized" Prussian school is a hell of a drug. 

When we put these predictions next to each other, we find a problem. Generals aren't harmless; Americans are harmless. The enemy general with the capacity to reform the system cannot be American. The powers are not like an enemy general, the wielder must literally be a foreign invading general.

He cannot be a foreign invading general. As far as he knows, American nuclear weapons still work. Anyone who credibly declares war will be assassinated with solar hellfire. (Although the term "assassination" implies a certain surgical neatness which tritium ICBMs do not even attempt.) Knowing this, no foreigner will declare war, being as no drooling retard can gain the necessary authority to do so.

The Regime is dead. Nothing can or even seriously wants to fix this. 

The Regime is dead. As a zombie, it shambles on. As a corpse, it stinks sometimes. A buildup of necrotic gasses ruptures a boil, and this postmortem fart presents itself as "defending" the Regime.
Broke: refute the stench.
Woke: close your windows.

The Clintons and whoever Epstein pissed off clearly have the ability to wage war on individuals - provided the individuals are peasants, not in the protected aristocratic classes. Should anyone attempt a bloodless coup, they will find that certain residents of the jurisdictions called America are not harmless. (I wouldn't call them Americans, since they think of themselves as separate from the bulk of Americans, and act accordingly as a foreign occupying force. If it doesn't quack like a duck, has no feathers, can't swim, etc...) 

Bonus round: the CCP is deliberately imitating the American Regime and will slaughter China for meat exactly like America slaughtered itself, unless it stops trying to conform in this way.

Sunday, August 1, 2021

9/11: they know exactly who the terrorists are within days, apparently reconstructing the evidence from the pulverized ash of their remains.

Paddock: motive? What's that? Is it tasty?