Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Full Propaganda Legalized 2013

There's been a lot of hand-wringing about which "social trends" lead to journalists going full woke around the beginning of Obama's second term.

Naturally this is because the wringers had zero knowledge about what's going on. Turns out it's hard to figure stuff out when you're 100% ignorant. When something seems mysterious, it's probably because you forgot to do any research.

"Fun fact: In 2012, the Smith–Mundt_Act (which made domestic propaganda illegal in the United States) was essentially repealed.

"Coincidentally, around 2012 was when you started having a upsurge of "activist journalists".

"Read that however you wish."


Surely this is a less-leftist exaggeration, right? Fact checking sites: "Verdict: False." Conclusion: no exaggeration, yes that would be a 100% true fact. Fun bonus: that "facts" link confirms the act was repealed for fiscal year 2013.

"hey, it's a conspiracy theory that so many news agencies all of a sudden had "ex" cia members join the staff. totally normal."

We're not doing it, and if we were doing it, it would be totally normal, which is obviously why we have to deny doing it...

Ironically the CIA immediately went off the rails and is in the process of machine-gunning itself in both feet. [Woke] and [CRT] have now stuck as names for the Regressive Inquisition, thanks to their incompetence.

I'm aware I'm making narcissism the unified theorem of modern sociology

Just thought I'd mention that it has not escaped my attention that this looks like an obsession rather than logos.

If a justification is needed: power laws also apply to theorems. One model can be expected to explain most things, then a second model explain most of what's left, and so on. It would appear that politics == narcissism, plus a few minor corrective perturbations.

Monday, November 29, 2021

Alchemy of Vitamin D

Everyone who says not to pigeonhole them belongs in a very obvious box. I'm not sure which box I go in, though. Perhaps it's correct to call me an alchemist. The oldest known tradition of truth-seeking. 

I'm pretty skeptical about astrology in general. Reminder: you can science it super easily. Take two children born at the same time in the same hospital. Gene-sequence their parents. Gene-sequence the children. If astrology is true, the children's genes will, as far as possible, resemble each other more than they resemble either parent. I find this conclusion laughable, absurd. Nevertheless, I just told you how to falsify it, should I be wrong. Do the set 1. 

Let's take astrology seriously anyway. For the sake of argument, it's true. All the astrological symbols are the alchemists' rendition thereof.

Clearly the only astral body that matters is the Sun. It is, and should be, the only guiding principle in your life. Sol is 99.86% of the Solar system by mass. Everything else is a rounding error. Likewise, the energy used on Earth is roughly 99.86% transmuted Solar power.

However, you can thaumaturgically shield yourself from this influence by staying in the shade. This will make you unhealthy, because you're rebelling against Gnon. In this case the dark masses - the planets - may well have significant influence over your fates. 

Solution: sunlight in a bottle. Vitamin D. Re-align yourself with Sol.
Alternatively, just go outside, but a) doesn't work in the winter and b) let's be realistic here.

I rather suspect the planets don't like having influence over you. By rejecting Sol you're dragging them inside yourself, against their will. By "rejecting" them you're moving things outside that should have always been outside in the first place, and they will thank you for it just as much as you thank yourself for doing it. Let them mind their own business by minding yours. 


This includes Earth, by the way. Earth is a planet and a dark mass. 

Luna is an edge case. She reflects a noticeable quantity of Solar light, and thus has a noticeable quantity of reflected Solar business.

P.S. Cholecalciferol is fat-soluble, and clearly there are only two acceptable oils: coconut or sunflower. Sun chemicals in sun plants. Get the alchemy correct and the physical health with follow. Try to avoid solid or plastic-packed forms. Mine is a dropper type, which incidentally costs half as much as other kinds.

Body Mates

"Women who use their pussy as a credit card to purchase a relationship often have nothing more to offer than a wet hole"

Problem: it's historically normal for women to have nothing to offer but a wet hole. Put less metonymically, their bodies. The womb, plus unskilled labour like cooking and cleaning. Hence the lindy marriage arrangement. Frequently she can't tell the truth even if she wants to, because she doesn't know what it is and can't find out.

Truly high-class women can, through sheer overwhelming mental might, mimic a lower-class man and have a useful skill or a vaguely interesting personality. 

Young children largely raise themselves. They need an adult around to verbalize their incoherent thoughts and to stop them from permanently injuring themselves due to childish stupidity. This is a time-consuming task but hardly complicated. You're just waiting for them to get big enough to benefit from an apprenticeship. A non-top-class woman learning sophisticated things accomplishes nothing but spending time neglecting the kids. It's not impossible to have the man watch the kids; a few species do that, but if you look at the details this merely goes to show that nature can get away with having only one capable gender, and therefore does. Male seahorses are dowdy and nurturing, while female seahorses are the suave ones.

If you think about it, women must be largely interchangeable. If [soul mates] were a real thing, most men would never meet their soul mate and end up single. Most marriages have to be basically mix-and-match or the species would have died out a long time ago. Men clearly aren't interchangeable; by process of elimination, women need to be interchangeable. Does tab A go into slot B? Congratulations, the relationship can work. As far as men are concerned, pick a womb-an with a pretty facade, because why not? There's nothing else to optimize on.

Humanism is anti-humanism. Nobody hates women being feminine more than feminists do. Hence, caveat: modernity often beaks women and a less-pretty unbroken womb-an is clearly better than an attractive patch-job over a busted vessel.

Sunday, November 28, 2021

"The fact that teenagers are being freely sent to festivals where they're surrounded by drugs cut with fent and getting stomped to death really speaks to how profoundly ignorant American parents are of the culture that forms their kids"

The parents are either deliberately negligent or actively pushing it on their kids because they hate them.

Children are a reflection of the parents, meaning they pierce the narcissistic delusion the parents surround themselves in, revealing the soul they hated so much they had to deny it completely. It's almost impossible to hide from yourself when you see it echoed outside yourself. The child's very existence constitutes narcissistic damage.

It's important to marry someone you love. If both halves of the kid come from someone you love, then you'll love the kid and they have a shot at growing up healthy.

BLM is Eugenic

In fact all killing is probably eugenic. Homo hypocritus is highly motivated to avoid death, so we can safely presume that those who don't manage it are incompetent and the species is better off without them. Even god-plagues ("all are equal in death") reliably kill slaves far more than lords.

Anyway, predictive technique: cynicism maximization. Imagine your rulers are as evil as you can possibly imagine, and then see if you predict anything that doesn't happen. If not, you aren't being cynical enough yet. 

Maximization: BLM is supposed to be eugenic. That's at least half the point. They're already killing half of all black pregnancies, but there's still way too many of them around, so it's time to get rid of them faster.

When they said, "Cops are genociding blacks!" cops were supposed to get confused and live up to the stereotype. If they had done what they were backhand told, the Inquisition would have skipped BLM. Cops were supposed to forge evidence and make racially-biased stops and generally go on a giant bloody rampage. Had they done so, it would have been a win-win for the Cathedral. They could constantly decry the horrible blue behaviour, but also suppress any credible evidence for it, along with deflecting any "reform" proposals. Moral high ground and genocide! What's not to love? Sadly, nabbers did the opposite; a black who resists arrest is shot less often than a white who resists arrest, because peasants aren't sophisticated enough to catch backhand hints. Cops are actually a little above average. They had to put in policies limiting the IQ of applicants; in other words they were at risk of having smart cops. They weren't selecting easily-controlled brute thugs the way it was supposed to. Result: cops aren't stupid enough to be fooled by animal-tier manipulation (ref: BLM), but not smart enough to notice the game and play along. Also the middle and upper middle class like, aver murder or some shit. Don't want to play along. Weirdos.

The Fascist lords realized their mistake, and have instead recruited other blacks to massacre blacks. It's not working as well as they hoped - absolute rookie numbers compared to what Stalin or Hitler pulled - but it's a start, you know? Get a few more eugenic policies like BLM and they might really get somewhere.

As expected, even the lords are degenerate under Fascism. While just as relatively competent compared to peasants as always, they've degenerated the peasants and been dragged down with them... In 1750 or soon after the average peasant had IQ 115, meaning lords would typically have 145, which is now (laughably) considered genius-tier. Hey, brain damage: genius the term for hero-tier scholars, not everyday magistrates. 

You can see part of the plan survived; they're still deflecting any serious attempt to defund the police. Thuggish enforcers still kill around 250 blacks per year, after all. Just because BLM is blowing this pathetic number out of the water doesn't mean they want those 250 to live, you know? 

P.S. I just found out: just in case you weren't sure if America was always trying to kill everyone, the search "all are equal in death original quote" brings up the declaration of independence as the first result. Sometimes the heavens just aren't subtle. 

I associate the quote with black plague killing "rich and poor alike" but I wanted to verify. Turns out the internet doesn't know. It's a myth, of course: the black plague death rate among the richest 5% was under 10%. (I remember reading 4.6% somewhere, though I'm a bit skeptical.) High by their standards, but lowborn villages stood a real chance of being wiped off the map so totally there weren't any survivors to let the tax man know he could skip that trip. 

P.P.S. They may be committed to Satanism, but you do have to admire their commitment. That is some impressive dedication. I guess Satan's Pride is about being totally, 100% committed to being a lying piece of shit.

Saturday, November 27, 2021

"It is an important fact of history that people don't leave politically hostile countries until it is too late, and genocide is locked in. 

"My rule of thumb is that I will never stay in any country where I expect my grandchildren to be hated. 

"I recommend you think about this."

It's an important fact of history that peasants are dumb.

Even if you have peasants listening to you, they can't tell if their grandchildren will be hated or not. At best they will move at random times to random destinations.

By contrast, if you aren't a peasant, you will leave the hostile country in time unless you live under a rock. There's tons of warning if you're even slightly paying attention. Fascists use responsibility laundering, which means everything happens very slowly and very noisily.


There's a decent chance this isn't too dumb for the peasant, and it's not a matter of wisdom and will at all. E.g. white flight happened in plenty of time. E.g. Hitler was actively expelling Gyews until he had to stop due to perfidious Albion. The Gyews didn't obliviously fail to leave, they clung tenaciously.

Do Fascists Realize Prussian School Weakens the Country?

Did I come across as somewhat puzzled by the use of Prussian school? I was.

I figured it out, though: the State is justifiably terrified of heroes. The Fascist State is exactly the kind of dragons heroes are supposed to slay. There is no higher, more perfect, more fitting task for their glorious powers. 

It's impossible to elevate a peasant to lord status, but you can make degenerate fops and you can corrupt heroes, leading them astray.

The psycho lords who administrate Fascism are aware Prussian school drastically harms their herd of peasant capital, but it's considered a fair price to pay to mitigate the nearly-lethal levels of panic they feel at the prospect of being confronted with even a single fully-realized hero. (Globally, school annually kills about 30,000 children via suicide alone. It's not particularly subtle. Ncov school shutdowns significantly lowered 8-14 all-cause mortality.)

E.g. they killed Socrates, but in the end all this accomplished was an Aion-spanning Streisand effect. Oof! Everyone knows his name, but only very special specialists know the names of his murderers. Can you imagine any worse fate for these control freaks? 

They recruit the peasants because peasants are, naturally, dominated by envy of the hero. Their low cunning unavoidably makes them dimly aware of the possibility of heroes even if they've never met one, and, like everyone else, they can feel Prussian school stands firmly in their way. Heroes present no material risk to the peasant - extremely to the contrary - but they do present an ego risk, which the childish, narcissistic peasant sees as more relevant than their material poverty. They would genuinely prefer to die to despair (fentanyl et al) rather than risk having to be consciously aware that heroes exist. 

P.S. Remember that when used correctly [murder] means [cowardly killing], and this has nothing to do with whether it's legal. If you kill someone from the front but illegally, it's not murder, no matter what Christians tell you. One former name was vig. Indeed braving the law makes it less cowardly, not more. Being convicted for 'murder' under Fascism retroactively justifies the slaying. You may not have confronted the fated corpse in an honourable duel, but you inherently confronted the State. P.P.S. BLM seems eugenic. Hopefully there isn't too much antifragility.

Friday, November 26, 2021

New York Times Lies Like a Rug

Recently saw the "propagandists don't lie" canard a couple times, so I'ma call bullshit real quick. Fiat vox veritatis, ruat caelum.

[Stupid] example: imagine I ask to see your wallet. "I want to look at the leather." You hand me your wallet. "Yes, this is a very nice hide." Then I sprint as fast as I can, taking your wallet with me. 

"Oh," you say, "It wasn't a lie. Alrenous really did want to see the leather. But somehow I ended up with a false impression! I can be such an airhead sometimes!

The NYT gets away with this because peasants are cringing and servile, not because they're not lying


[Literally the first thing I clicked on] example:

"Contending with the Pandemic,"

Lie: it has nothing to do with ncov.

"Wealthy Nations Wage Global Battle for Migrants""

Lie: there is no battle. They're already trafficking as many serfs as is politically feasible. There is no shortage of serfs to import. 

That's two lies and I'm not even past the headline yet.

"Covid kept many people in place. Now"

Lie: presenting an old policy as a new policy. This largely irrelevant fact is their excuse to hammer on immigration again, so they can pretend to be a News organization, not an Olds organization. Reality: it's called the Gray Lady because it's run by creaking Regressive zombies so ancient even the bones have gone grey.

(The word immigration always reminds me of immiseration. As it should; they love the misery-spreading effects.)

"several developed countries, facing aging labor forces and worker shortages, are racing to recruit, train and integrate foreigners."

Lie: there is no domestic worker shortage. Labour force participation is down, not up. (Check out the max: nearly 68%.) There is, however, a domestic regulation overburden. This is not an accident or a result of aging or plague controls.

"As the pandemic heads into a third year"

Lie: there is no pandemic. There is plague hysteria about an endemic. Handy, that.  

"a global battle for the young and able has begun."

Lie: there are plenty of unemployed young and able in America, but they're Hajnals. No shortage of unemployed Bantu either, come to think, but the DNC (especially) likes them nice and unemployed, so...

That's at least six flat-out lies in four sentences.

This is normal for professional journalists. The job is pure Satanism.

(Is this why Moldbug is considered verbose? He inserts all sorts of not-lies between his lies. Boring, right? Who has time to be not-lied to?)


Later: "Oh I didn't mean to take your wallet, I just love leather that much and got overexcited. Of course you can have the banknotes back...well, as soon as I find them, of course. They seem to have fallen out. Oopsie! Silly me!"

"Did you steal it?"

"No, and even if I did steal the money you don't deserve it anyway. By the way, can I see your wallet?"


"Because the sunset is particularly red today."

"Oh yeah, sure."

"We can still be friends, right?"

"Give me back my wallet."

"My arms are too tired from carrying your fat stacks of cash to give this wallet to you."

"Scandalous incompetence! I'm going to vote against you!"

"It's a free country. Don't forget to vote! 🙃"

Republic Book 1 Section 2

Cephalus' son Polemarchus is not as old and thus not as crafty as his old man. He thinks he can trick Socrates into believing that the temples' obedience is in fact justice. Socrates is older than he is, so he fails.

Heh. Remember when men became more capable as they got older? What a blast from the past. Good times.



"Socrates continues, it is a given that the possibility exists that our friends may be in fact bad, or unjust, men; and it can be that our enemies may be good men"

Unfortunately, Plato was highly influential. Christianity in particular picked this up and ran hard. 

Socrates isn't wrong. Indeed this is exactly why the Athenian Assembly hated him so much; they were bad men, and he was not. 

However, it is still true that one ought to help your friends and harm your enemies.

Nobody wakes up in the morning, gets a cup of coffee, and plots how to be most evil. It simply isn't prudent. There is no god of evil handing out boons for racking up evil points; being evil on purpose is all cost and no benefit. (Usual disclaimer; when I say 'evil' it's a metaphorical shorthand; you know what I mean. No such thing inherently exists.)

Humans are evil because they don't care about being good or about the heavens. Instrumentally evil, not teleologically evil. [Being good] refers to their own long-term self-interest. They don't care because they're stupid and irrational; Socrates was right about that too.

 As a result, you have two options:
1. Doesn't care whether your enemies are bad or not
2. Does care whether your enemies are bad; meaning they care whether they themselves are bad.

Genuinely bad men aren't ever going to stop. They are presumptively self-absorbed in the usual narcissistic way. If you have an argument against helping your friends and punishing your enemies, the only folk you will restrain are the particularly ethical, who really should be helping their typically-ethical friends and harming their typically-unethical enemies.

The real rule: don't cooperate with defectors. It doesn't matter if they're bad folk badding on you for the bads, or if they're good folk who are mistaken, or if good folk badding on you because you're bad and deserve it. If they're defecting on you, defect on them. Cooperating with defectors is super gross even if you're a criminal and deserve to be defected upon. If you're going to break the law, at least commit to it properly.

Likewise, cooperate with cooperators. This is always rational, because you will always gain more from future cooperation than you will by defecting now and having no cooperation in the future. If bad men cooperate, are they really bad? (P.S. The fact evil can't exist should not be some mystery.)

That said, some humans are [evil] gods, handing out evil points to themselves. Let me show you how this is equivalent to the above.
Some humans - something like 80% of modern Fascists - value only defection. If they can't be a deviant - lying, cheating, and ideally killing their way through life - they might as well just kill themselves, because there's just no point. Doing inherently evil acts is the only thing they find rewarding. 

However, they don't find it rewarding because it's evil, they find it rewarding due to a stupid genetic algorithm which indicates the effective defector has hero-class status. They want heroically high status, and can't "see" any indications of this except the crime indicator light. If they can't be a hero, they think they might as well be dead. Worse, this is true; I'm talking about spiteful mutants here. We all would be better off if they were dead or, ideally, had never been born at all.

Occasional exception: some grass monkeys are born to harass and ideally kill outsiders. Genetic raiders. In huge transnational empires, there are nowhere near enough outsiders for them to vent their urges on. Unless videogames can fool their instincts, they will become severely twisted up inside. 

Note that even if there were an evil god handing out evil gifts in exchange for evil points, it still wouldn't be prudent. Either you would pay the victims because the boons were worth more than the wergeld, in which case it's a normal cooperative merchant purchase, or the victims would, on average, cause more damage to you fighting back than you gained in boons. (P.S. The fact evil can't exist as distinct from stupidity should not be some mystery.)


"But again, Socrates demurs: He argues that returning evil for evil does not constitute justice. Analogically, he argues that if we harm a horse, we make that horse a worse horse; if we harm a dog, we simply achieve a worse dog."

I hope Plato is putting words in Socrates' mouth, or he's playing devil's advocate, as Diogenes was prone to doing. He sounds like an idiot here.

The whole point of the thing called [morality] is the tension between the long-term and the short-term. If we harm a bad dog, in extremis we have a dead dog, meaning less bad in the world and thus a less bad world. In fact: better dead than red. Ideally we apply a small harm to a generally good dog, which discourages them from being bad and we don't have to actually kill them. We pay costs in exchange for a worse dog, yes: only in the short term.

Of course Christianity was on Plato's nonsense like white on rice. In their defence, peasants are like children and can't understand the long term. They can see only deontology-like rules and the immediate social consequences of breaking them. Setting the immediate-term rules such that the long-term is satisfied is a task for the peasant's betters, one which peasants refuse to understand even if you explain it to them. Whips optional; it doesn't matter.

In other words, we always need to harm the bad in the dog.  Always kill the bad. If the dog has so much bad that harming its bad is lethal to the whole, then we had a bad dog and we're better off without it. Usually even the bad dog itself is better off not existing, as regardless they'll be punished repeatedly by Gnon until they die.

"Thus Socrates argues that we cannot achieve justice by doing evil to men who are already evil, and unjust. And Polemarchus concurs with this conclusion."

Let's de-Sophize. Rectified terms: Socrates argues that defection cannot be removed by removing the defectors, and Polemarchus agrees. Pure Satanism. 

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Immigration Replaces Low Envy with High Envy

Devlin is of course a comically ignorant demi-intellectual, and his thoughts are a day late and a dollar short. Welcome to 2016. Will you be joining us in 2021 at any point, or are you permanently arrested in grade 7? Nevertheless, even a blind squirrel can find one nut.

I have been consistently unsatisfied with any model of the motive behind immigration. Cheap workers? Please. The stupid physically hurts.

Democracy is an envy engine. Jealousy is what makes it go. However, Europeans have anti-envy adaptations. All proper Europeans despise weakness,* and this spite trumps envy. Anyone using invidious rhetoric does inspire a desire to pile on, as with any race, but it inspires a stronger urge to beat up the weakling for being weak enough to feel envy. Haha, oops! 

It's epistemologically sound: anyone turning green is demonstrating without a doubt that they don't think they can do better, and thus likely can't fight back. Not only are they easy pickings, they've declared a commitment to defection, so bullying them is both fun and virtuous.

*(Anglos most, I think. More than even Saxons. Certain Scandis are dissenters.)

Under democracy, we can't have that, now can we?

Although it's plainly clear that American WASPs and their assimilates want to replace all lower-class Occidentals with non-Occidentals, it was not previously clear to me why they would want to do that. It will only lower the tax base, harming their grifting prospects. (If anyone threatens to make Georgetown significantly non-white, you'll see their real beliefs right quick.) However, it will increase their hold on power. Fascism does not sit steadily on the anti-envy genetic foundation, constantly threatening to tip into something less batshit insane.

East Asians, although highly invidious, are so conformist that when placed in a competitive Occidental environment, they will compete to the very best of their ability. Kind of dropped the ball on that one, Regressive Inquisition. Orientals are now honorary Occidentals.

Every other non-Euro is quite good at doing the crab-bucket thing. America is all about pulling the ladder up after you. The more egalitarian you're supposed to be, the more fanatically any sub-rosa marker of status is defended. 

It's much easier to trap the lower orders if those at the bottom of the ladder drag each other off the rungs. As Devlin notes, envy is largely local. "The reason should be obvious: invidious comparisons depend upon proximity." Envy is strongly linked to the narcissism of small differences. This of course is rational. The biological point of envy is to sabotage your rivals, not to pick unwinnable fights with men who are as gods to you. 

The more envious the lower classes, the less of a threat they are to the higher orders. E.g. any lowborn aristocrat will be dragged down by his "peers" without the Inquisition having to (appear to) do anything. Properly envious brown folk spend so much time fighting each other they have no energy to spend noticing Fascism is driving them straight to a no-parachute base jump. Much better: they won't check out of society no matter what you do.

P.S. Devlin also noticed that you can't appease envy, because any form of charity only cements the giver's higher status. The envy sufferer demands proof they were in fact superior all along. Reminders that they need help are the opposite of that. Affirmative action, quotas, protected classes etc. are all precision engineered to cement the low self-esteem of the envious.

Virus Prediction vs. Result

Prediction, note date:
My prediction in fact appeared before the policy was fully decided upon. Ultimately I'm just some asshole from the internet. Anyone who paid attention to (real-world) sociology 101 could predict the same thing.
Result: Lockdowns cost around 100 life-years for every life-year they save. That said there was widespread auto-quarantine, so lockdowns did absolutely nothing against the background of non-State behaviour.
Vaccines are killing something like ten times as many people as they save. Bodies are showing up when nobody has died of a cough, so we know for sure the numbers are massaged in the upward direction, except in China - they are not reliable, and we have to guess. More fear more better, right?
Total failure of containment or of indeed any policy.
Lockdowns did save substantial numbers of 8-14 year olds. All-cause mortality is allegedly up for all groups except them. They have 0% fatality* from the virus; it saved them from lethal school exposure.
Total domination by iatrogenesis. 
Prophylactics and policy did absolutely nothing, again in accordance with sociology 101. However, they are banning cures as they show up, because the cures are cheap generics and the prophylactics are expensive due to being under patent. Expensive for you; profitable for those in the position to bribe regulators. 
Indeed it is likely the regulators knew in advance, as per the first link, that cov vaccines don't work, so there was no incentive at all to choose an effective one. Why not choose the one which carries the best bribes? 
Answer: because blood clotting. Haha, oops! The State isn't on your side. You can tell because you can't fire them. Satan adores Nationalism and Nationalists. 

P.S. *Based virus kills the weak.

Wednesday, November 24, 2021


Eden was never a garden, thank Gnon.
Gardens are fake. Eden is not fake.

We never left. Earth always was Eden, and always will be.

If you do not experience it as Eden, you live in a prison of your own making. You were never cast out, you were the one casting. You threw out the holiness of paradise and slammed the door behind it. 

And why shouldn't you? Living in a garden is better, right? Your mind is a garden now. You're the gardener. What grows there is nearly under your sole control.
How has living in a garden worked out for you?

All you have to do is put down the flaming sword, and let yourself out.

Daemons vs. Christianity

Q: Why does Christianity hate daemons so much?

A: Because your daemon will 100% tell you to stay away from Yeshua.

Bonus round: maybe they wouldn't be so butthurt if your daemon wasn't being 100% correct. Oof.

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Pay Bantu to Steal For You

As a European you can't walk into a California store and walk out with free gibs - they will find some weirdo loophole to nail you. What you can do is pay your token black friend to do it for you.

So, like, do. 

Say, $100 for $900 worth of stuff, that sort of thing.

If you're not hot, you pay the hooker to sleep with you. If you are hot, you pay the hooker to leave in the morning.

You get bored of her, she's only gets more clingy. It's a real problem. If you dump her honourably (should have held out for marriage, toots) you risk stalking and false rape accusations etc etc. Alternatively you can deliberately drop beta hints until she thinks ending the relationship was her idea.

"trolling girls by telling them I want to be a SAHD who hangs out with the kids all day, building tree forts and teaching latin while they go out and staple cover letters to TPS reports. watching the confused annoyance play across their faces without any socially acceptable outlet"

The trick is to softpedal it so the rumours she inevitably starts don't torpedo your reputation completely. Nuking the relationship from orbit is easy but then you can't bang her friends. Wholeheartedly endorsing (alleged) Inquisition gender norms is a great strategy because you demonstrate unsuitability and social competence at the same time - seeing it up close, your old news will be instinctively repulsed, but her friends will see intriguing mixed signals.

"Such is the power of Covid it's persuaded liberals that putting indigenous populations into concentration camps is good." https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1463113474007977989
Christian/Egalitarian false charity.

Original sin: it's necessary to assume Claire likes concentration camps until proven otherwise. Is it normal for women to want all the icky wrongcolours to be put in camps, preferably far, far away? It is. This should not be surprising. Hence, Reality: Covid has allowed liberals to admit their fondness for concentration camps.

Yes Johnny, Dems are the real racists. It's not like the optimates aren't racist or anything silly, but populares really go for broke. The more deeply someone drinks from the well of hatred, the more they bang on about hatred being bad.

"Tim called the Quillette people assholes, which is literally a sore point for Claire." https://nitter.unixfox.eu/TilianAlexander/status/1463121591496228864

As usual for women, they don't really get the principle. Like babies, it's very personal. You can't wipe a poopy butt with the idea of a wet cloth. Women either have their attention consumed by babies and children, or they are engaging in petty, childish gossip and politics, being unable to rise above their personalizing, individualizing instincts.

Hypothetical Terms for Social Divisions: Heroism

I hypothesize humanity has an inherently tiered status structure. I believe the ranks go as follows:


However, some are above the law, and some are merely equal to the law, so I think I need to add a rank:


Although heroes don't necessarily tell anyone else what to do, a lord cannot tell a hero what to do, as a matter of brute physical fact. It's not a moral thing, it's just impossible.

Lords are not exactly above the law, per se. They implement the law, and as such are of exactly equal rank to the law. It's like a neighbour they can negotiate with. Often they can negotiate their whims into legality, but they do have to carry out the negotiation. They have to respect the results of competing lords' negotiations.

By contrast, the hero shares with the criminal a complete disregard for human law. The criminal is basically someone so stupid they think they're a hero and can get away with lawbreaking. Real heroes genuinely do get away with it, one way or another. The law doesn't apply to them because they overpower, bamboozle, or hack the enforcers. 

E.g. if a hero wants someone dead, they end up dead. Perhaps they end up dead in a perfectly legal manner, such as from natural causes or executed by the allegedly legitimate authorities. Perhaps it merely appears perfectly legal, because the methods are so far beyond the witnesses and investigators it doesn't even occur to them as a possibility, or the hero casually mind-controls anyone who interrogates them. Perhaps they're viciously murdered in hot blood but anyone who says as much in the form of an accusation also ends up buried in multiple places. In any case, the law simply doesn't apply to them: nobody but another hero can stop them from deading anyone they want dead, and heroes are so rare that even in the unlikely event that they encounter a second, their interests are unlikely to conflict. The whims of a hero are law. It's not a moral thing, it's just brute physical fact. 

Sometimes a hero will even end up in jail (or your historical equivalent) for a variety of reasons, but this won't be a noticeable setback for them in the grand scheme of their scheming. 

The only thing the law can do is force the hero to be dishonourable. If it's cheaper to hide their activities, they are going to be hidden, and thus make themselves even more unmanageable by the society at large. The only way to control a hero is to humble yourself before them, admit their overwhelming dominance, and hope they value things like respect enough to make concessions. Otherwise, what they want will happen, generally with no warning, and you won't even know a hero was involved let alone directly responsible.

P.S. In real life there's nothing stopping a hero from being utterly evil, aside from the fact being evil is pretty dumb and you can't be a hero and dumb at the same time.

Monday, November 22, 2021

Secretly, IQ is Eugenics

Low-church leftists believe that if IQ is real, it justifies killing anyone with a low IQ. This is a very stupid idea for myriad reasons, but exactly predicts the behaviour you see in the field.

"If IQ is real, killing every Bantu is okay!"
"If IQ is real killing me is okay!"

No wonder they don't like being reminded that IQ is scientifically unassailable. "Something something math is racist." It's just part of their religion. 

If they really were vaguely rational, you could get them to submit to IQ by first attacking and discrediting the arguments that show IQ => eugenics. Of course, you can't reason someone out of beliefs they weren't reasoned into. Sometimes you can socially bludgeon them. Act high status and slyly signal that anyone believing IQ => eugenics is low status. Of course, even if they were vaguely rational, you would have to first use extreme empathy to even discover that the arguments exist, since they categorically refuse to talk about it. Have to read a whole ton of their writing and sew together all the hintful scraps they accidentally drop.

Why bother with all that? Belief flows from the barrel of a gun. Replace their Pope and they'll turn on a dime, as per Havel's Greengrocer. They barely understand the beliefs anyway. It's largely ritualized verbalization based on animalistic, Pavlovian triggers. The ideas are above their station and it would be best if they were liberated from having any opinions at all about them.

Leftists Have Twisted Bodies

Every leftist has serious degenerative mutations. Low-church leftists are all morlocks sans competence. Psycho lords are psycho. A super-duper-majority have an outward, physiogamic marker of this genetic dysfunction.

The healthier your body is, the harder it is to be a leftist. This is why lifting weights tends to move the lifter to the right. This is a major reason nutrition "scientists" can't be allowed to be competent under Fascism. See also: meat is warrior food, grains are slave food.

The reflex appears to be intentional design. The unhealthier you are, the more likely it is you can't pull your own weight. Rightism is responsibility. If the society becomes blindly right-wing, then everyone who isn't pulling their weight will starve to death. Parasitism and parasitic ideology faces the strongest incentives. Further, everyone has at least a part of their life where they can't pull their own weight. Having no instinct to protect the weak of the tribe: not a possibility.

Note that Greek tragedy is real. Just because someone is more vicious than virtuous does not mean they have no virtues. If you intend to let them die, they're likely to become violent and cause more damage to society than simply allowing them to be supported. The virtues they have will allow them to be destructive if aimed at that goal. This is why I favour sterilization + charity. Sure, toss them $5000 a month or something silly, as long as they have no children, no viable gametes, and the person paying the money is also the person who decides whether they continue to be paid. 

Eugenics is endless total war. It's kind of none of your business; let Gnon handle it. Pity is a cease-fire pact.

I heard the [internet drowns you in information] again line recently, and understood how completely stupid it is.

Imagine a library. Imagine a vast shelf, full of myriad books. Imagine every single book is pages and pages of pictures of cats in different poses.

Are you 'drowning' in information? 

Imagine somewhere in that vast shelf is a book on, say, carpentry. If you want to find it then sure you're drowning in something. Signals, maybe, but not information. One wonders how a carpentry book ended up in there at all. It would seem most writers would know better than to write at all for such an institution, and if some poor lost carpenter did write anyway, they wouldn't put it in with the cat books. As far as you're concerned it might as well be a wall of TVs full of static, and you need to find the one that occasionally displays a map.

Speaking of noise, it's not just a vast library full of cat pictures (and porn). All the library's patrons are shouting. You can't even look through a cat book without dozens trying to seize your attention. It would seem the librarians are not only lax but actually outlawed. 

Nobody who deals with information is foolish enough to come to the internet to do it.

Either commit or quit. Quit everything that stops you from committing fully to the thing you commit to. Remember to pick something worth committing fully to. If you commit to buying a hotdog, you don't honour the heavens, you only insult yourself.

Sunday, November 21, 2021

Generally speaking, Yeshua's false mercy involves saving a sinner from the heavens' just wrath. Or rather, attempting to save a sinner. All that you accomplish is delaying the inevitable and cursing yourself to suffer along with them. 

Their damage is between them and their Lord. It's none of your business. Avoid them, lest you offend the heavens by overly involving yourself in their profanity.

The Euphemism Treadmill

Moron: "Adopted by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded with a technical definition "adult with a mental age between 8 and 12;" used as an insult since 1922 and subsequently dropped from technical use."

They think the word is stigmatized; in reality the condition is stigmatized. The word picks up the connotations of the reality, not vice-versa. (You morons.) No matter what word you invent to describe being insufferable, they're still insufferable. Weakness remains a sin, and for homo hypocritus, weakness to lying is a particularly heinous sin.

This dynamic is one of the primary retardants of technical progress, incidentally. In this case, dabbling linguists are trying to alter an underlying reality by changing the pointer which points to it, yet it never occurs to them how inherently futile the endeavour is, no matter how many times Reality hints at this by making them fail. Likewise, technology is reduced to symbol to be manipulated, instead of a tool to be refined or reworked. Once the underlying reality is forgotten, it is remembered only by de novo mutants, it would seem.

Saturday, November 20, 2021

Envious Gnosticism in the Bible

When English rock band Radiohead is a step up from you on the wisdom scale, you're doing it wrong.

Broke: "Every valley shall be exalted And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough places smooth;"

Woke: a place for everything and everything in its place

For our purposes, Gnosticism can be characterized by the desire to escape matter, into the realm of the mind. Problem: matter was always merely a kind of mind. Gnosticism is cognitive dissonance. They claim to wish to escape from mind into mind. It's a lie. Who is the father of lies, again?

Even Christians used to know that the body is sacred, not profane. The flagellants were heretics and known as heretics. Sadly Christians have become more Christian over time. Super-Christian, ultra-Christian.

If you think a mountain or a valley are wrong, you're the one that's wrong. 

The valleys and plains are already exalted, and the mountains too.
Roughness has a purpose, and crookedness too.  It would indeed be incorrect for the river to do anything but wind. 

"The grass withers, the flower fades," as it should. You may find it unpleasant, but that's not grass' screwup, that's yours. Grass that withers is better than grass that doesn't, and praise be.

Why won't Americoid peasants rebel?

If you have a highly developed lunar sense, the inability of Americoids to rebel is inescapable. It's everywhere.

I hypothesize it has to do with isolation.


To get a peasant rebellion going, you need to isolate the peasants from their previous Pope. If you cut off their contact, they will functionally forget the old Pope exists in a matter of hours; by default you'll be the highest-status person in the room and they'll do what you say.

With the advent of newspapers and radio, the Pope can continually remind the peasants that he exists, so this cutoff cannot be accomplished. The peasant is expecting you to form your own FCC and ban the other Pope's radio. To successfully carry this out, even locally, you must have already militarily dislodged the old Pope; you have no need for a rebellion. America's habit of hiding its Pope makes this especially hard. Who are you supposed to overthrow, exactly? Bonus: when there's an internal usurpation, the peasants can't even tell that something happened, so their hero-worship of the system is not besmirched. 

Elites are not stupid; they know this without me telling them, and as a result American elites don't even attempt it.

We can also see a historical parallel in Stalinism. Indeed Stalinism collapsed because they couldn't keep American radio out, and as a result the clearly higher-status American Pope trumped Stalin.

Of course peasants always prefer paleolithic Fascist sociology, but why not have Fascist sociology and be rich too? 

I guess Putin's lucky the orthodox church doesn't have a Pope. The primitive radio-equivalent, churches, used to continually remind the peasants that there was a second master they might follow. To get a rebellion going you could make them believe you were more holy than the king using Sophistry; it's not like the Catholic Pope would notice in time, or indeed care overmuch even if he did. Bit of a downside to that whole [divine right] nonsense. The king felt he couldn't shut off the church/broadcasts, but you could easily interrupt the genuine line of control from the Pope long enough that Pope felt reversing fait accompli wasn't worth the effort.

In present Russia, TV and podcasts continually remind the Russian that Putin exists. Inertia is on his side; in the same way the king couldn't shut off the churches, you can't shut off their TV. (Not without fully indulging in cult indoctrination, which doesn't scale enough.) Meanwhile Russian churches only tell of an abstract master which peasants can't relate to. The Russian peasants are expecting you to seize Minsvyaz and ban Putin broadcasts. 

Bonus: America's obvious slide into an unholiness spiral makes them seem lower-status than Putin, so he doesn't need to worry in the slightest about keeping American radio out. Yes America is Fascist and the peasants find Fascism terribly seductive, but between American psychosis and the educational effects of Communism, they grasp that Fascism is worse than Putinism. 

The madness only works with intense peasant-psyche massaging from the direct Pope line. As long as Russians aren't glued to American TV, the process isn't intensive enough. If they lose concentration and go about their daily lives for a bit, America gets too fake and gay to take seriously by the time they return. Unless USG starts broadcasting in Russian, which it is far too narcissistic to do, Putin simply doesn't have to worry. I suppose it's also too late to try that; the catch-up process is even more intensive. Ironically radio is killing the radio Pope. The dependence of kratia addiction is always ultimately lethal, just like any hard drug. 

P.S. China's peasants also expect you to ban the opponent's broadcasts, and the CCP dutifully carries this responsibility out. It's not that he minds being called Winnie the Pooh or anything, but using the words marks you as his enemy, and why would he give air to an overtly stated enemy? The Chinese, from top to bottom, can't see any reason. 

American peasants largely can't see a reason either. 

You give a couple symbolic sops and otherwise crack down as cracky as you can manage. If it doesn't sound like stone shattering you're not oppressive enough yet.

P.P.S. As king Henry found out, in reality local military superiority lets you boot the Pope whenever you want. 

Nothing says "holy" to a peasant quite like ad baculum. Peasants are clearly amazing, and whichever peasant is thinking this is the most amazing; obviously nobody would be able to beat him up without God granting them a divine exosuit to double their punching power, right? Right. They don't follow the king because they're scared shitless of their own shadow, they follow the king because God is clearly telling them to demonstrate grace by graciously allowing this inferior being, this pompous insect, to pretend to be in charge...

Friday, November 19, 2021

Secondary Fat American Hypothesis: Fire Retardants

Specifically Californian fire retardants.

I find the idea that receipts are meaningfully poisonous to be laughable. You're in contact with them for a few seconds like once a week. Don't gargle the things and you're probably fine.

What if fire retardants are exactly as poisonous, i.e. not very? You're in contact with them for most hours every day. They're in essentially anything padded, including carpets. There's pounds of the stuff in every typical room, rather than the sub-gram amounts found in things like receipts.

Bonus: this is California we're talking, so inevitably fire retardants don't retard fires in realistic conditions. What they retard is lawsuits. (And, possibly, anyone sitting on them.) The smart thing to do would have been to stop selling to California, but of course Empire etc etc so instead everyone gets exposed to toxic anti-Californian-lawsuit chemicals.

The fire retardants are in the stuffing, not the upholstery. Not the surface that's going to be exposed to fire - which is a little good, since they're poisonous, but you're an idiot if you think they don't seep into the cloth over time. Plus the retardant only suppresses flame for about a dozen seconds. After that all it does is make the smoke poisonous. 

I find packing foams often feel greasy. I expect that's the toxins in question.

Sophist Intentional Degeneration: Powerful Trumps Weird

I think peasants are holding themselves back because of a social construction. 

Sophists like to say that amazing folk are persecuted, in the usual clever bankshot manner. Result: peasants, to avoid persecution, actively avoid developing any capacity that might be too competent. Lords, also: although not afflicted by holding themselves back exactly, they will hide their capacities or make excuses for them, forming a preference falsification cascade.

Sophists are constantly writing stories where someone is persecuted, up to and including imprisoned on trumped-up charges, due to being strong. Because this is a popular trope in a Sophist culture, you can be almost certain it's a lie. (Occasionally Sophists are forced to tell the truth, albeit only under extreme duress.) 

In real life, the usually-Fascist Paul Graham has the right of it: "And in any case, if being smart were really an enviable quality, the girls would have broken ranks. The guys that guys envy, girls like."

Competence is genetically associated with competence. If you have something awesome, you also have the capacity to portray it in a socially-approved way. If you can hack the physics system, hacking the social system is child's play. The social system has to work consistently when run in brains that are not-awesome and is inherently insecure as a result. 

The peasant, being rendered even more incompetent than necessary by their own self-persecution, lacks confidence. They genuinely can't do anything, after all. Think of all the folk on e.g. twitter who aspire to [adulting]. Lacking confidence, they present as lacking self-"esteem" meaning they're much easier for the Sophist to manipulate. It's not some kind of coincidence. I have tested the dynamic personally.

The Sophist stories are particularly clever when they have the protagonist be or associate with a powerful "weirdo," because it presents the protagonist as inherently high status. It feels good to read about healthy, high-status folk. When the weirdos are genuinely low-status nobody reads the stories; there is no genre of drug-addled bums failing repeatedly and then dying.

By having the protagonists be \"weird," it camouflages this very human but very banal tendency. (Ref: humanism is anti-humanism.) Allegedly, the protagonist is showing tolerance - countersignalling, not regular prole signalling. "I can see your "secret" virtue!"

Again: in reality, the guys that guys envy, girls like. If the protagonists' buddies were really that strong, all the girls would like them, and guys continuing to slag them off would look like losers. Nobody likes someone who openly bullies a girl, even indirectly. (Hit your women, but only in private? *thinky*) Anime is particularly bad about intentionally failing to notice the consequences (or necessary pre-requisites) of being popular with hot chicks. C*inkshi* is indeed shit, but at least they acknowledge that either you get a chick or be seen as a loser; they never pretend that you can do both at once.

Even the Japanese aren't so xenophobic that they wouldn't flock to a 10/10 if her hair colour was weird, as anime would have you believe. No, even they may well flock yet harder, because having a vulnerability makes her more approachable. 

Bonus round: of course folk who read or watch non-boring TV really are weirdos. They have to have weirdo-tagged protagonists anyway to appeal to the available market. Never forget that normal folk barely read anything whether literate or not - though usually they don't become literate, because, like, what for? Normal folk almost never post on fora, let alone on stuff like twitter. Normal folk never have blogs, and never ever ever have blogs with abstract content. The talky fraction (e.g. all reviewers ever) is highly nonrepresentative of humanity.

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Twitter Verifieds are Stooges


Comment by smb:

"I'm less well acquainted with neoliberal circles but I know enough fellows (and have been to enough parties) to know it works something like this:
- Capitalists and Amnesty Int'l types plan a party together.
- Capitalists pay lip service to the Amnesty Int'l types, lauding them for all the good they do.
- Amnesty Int'l types know and love the fact they are considered morally and socially superior to the capitalists.
- The capitalists sneer at the stupid idealists once they're drunk and the idealists are out of earshot."

AI types function as smokescreens.
Occasionally you have to materially flatter them to maintain the smokescreen, but in fact they don't get to run anything. Just as they exist to distract the voter, the AI types themselves are offered only diversions.

As they age, they often start to realize this, which is exactly why they're so violent on Twitter and with bakery shop owners. These victories are table scraps tossed to the dogs. The dogs fight viciously with each other over the inadequate diet, then take their frustrations out on the poor idiot caught in the cross-fire. 

Once an institution is thoroughly discredited (with the upper set, not voters) and everyone takes it for granted that nothing important happens there, an enterprising operative can jiu-jitsu the place. Using it precisely as it's intended - as a smokescreen - they can hold clandestine meetings with other operators at AI offices, planning real action. Meeting there marks them as non-threats, which is exactly what a genuinely threatening operative needs. 

Indeed almost all current true power centres in USG started exactly like this. Some back office that was used precisely for its back-office reputation. Stalin's [general secretary] is a famous example of this process.

Jolly Heretic Significantly Non-Heretical

This guy isn't a moron and I shouldn't call him that. E.g. he knows how the antipathy to group selection is politics, not science. He's openly social darwinist, which is exactly as refreshing as you might imagine.

But my god does the Sophism infection make it tempting.

He talks a lot about avoidance of discipline by the irresponsible left, and about narcissistic self-absorption. Naturally, he calls the first [harm avoidance], as if being undisciplined isn't harmful, and the latter [individualism], in an apparent attempt to out-lie Satan. 

ProTip: don't try to tell better lies than Satan. You also can't out-hunt Artemis or out-run Hermes. It just doesn't happen. Gonna play a prank on Coyote and Loki next? Yeah, uh, good luck with that.

If society isn't a good deal for you, society is betraying you. If you go around saying everyone has to sacrifice for the group and other collectivist nonsense, you are normalizing and lionizing betrayal. How do you think Sophist arguments work, moron? If you lose, you're weak. Don't tee up exactly what the Sophists already beat up.

The electoral birth defect is a hell of a drug, to mix metaphors. 

A nice negative example of how not to stay in your lane. Conquest #1 is important. He hits every Fascist talking point, like a true Marxist, and appears completely oblivious to honour and responsibility. 

It's ironic since he's usually hyper-aware of dysgenesis, and yet he spends the entire video slagging off a situation where IQ was rapidly rising according to his own data. Centralized governments are wildly dysgenic because they're too weak to handle a smart and responsible population.

He's probably just wrong, too. Doesn't know what he's talking about and is analyzing a fairy tale as a result. In his purported mafia dystopia apparently random monasteries were strong enough to have and retain security - which is bad apparently. Allegedly a gang was demanding protection money from everyone but skips the church? For two hundred years? Oh yeah gangs totally do that in real life...

Come to think Dawkins, another biology-focused thinker, has this same issue. Believes knowing about genetics qualifies him to talk about sociology and the ideal society. 

If you insist on having domain-crossing expertise, you have to train the domain-crossing expertise: epistemology. Do your reps. As far as I know, there is exactly one way to even partly escape your genetic destiny: worship logic. Do the accounting. 

(Can normies even do this or is it restricted to autistics?)

Yudkowsky's sequences weren't wrong exactly: the opposite of idiocy is not wisdom. JH frequently indulges in opposite-day clown world...which is still just clown world. Yes, egalitarianism is blatantly false: not everything is socially constructed. However, while genes are very close to destiny in the individual, it is far from the case that social constructions have no effect on society. It is precisely that genes give you a fate regarding your reaction to social constructions...

Christians are not wrong all the time: know them by their fruits, if you can't know them by anything else. What are the fruits of the invert-liberal Christian conservative society Dutton favours? Liberalism. The Regressive Inquisition. We, uh, already tried that. Genius.

There's also the blatant bureaucratism, [fast life history strategy]. At least one of those words is redundant. And yes you can always skip the cringe intros.


This is particularly annoying for me since I too was raised to avoid discipline. If you can lie to get out of it, you should, right? I was raised to see the harm of discipline first, especially because all the "discipline" I saw was not discipline at all, but was certainly harmful. Don't you feel sorry for anyone who can't lie their way out? I certainly do. And I certainly shouldn't. 

For me, filial piety means being undisciplined. Sorry, gonna go with impiety on this one. 

Hey idiot, this doesn't mean harm is good. Like, check the dictionary. What do words mean?

Partially the issue is that I want to reward those who feel some iota of shame, as opposed to what I'm used to: none at all. (Shame nihilists?) Of course, especially against a Sophist background, taking pity on the self-destructive only encourages them to rip the cord on their blast vest so they can spread the misery as far as possible.  

P.S. Oh hey, a duck search of 'electoral birth defect' brings up me as the first result. It's originally from Moldbug's first post, the formalist manifesto.

P.P.S. There's finally a better result than me for 'political formula' too, but I'm still the second.

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Christianity isn't Communist but it is egalitarian, which means to the extent it's not Communist, it is hypocritical. 

As we can see, the rhetorical inertia of the Communism tends to outweigh the rhetorical weight of the responsibility. "All are equal before God," wins against "Do not covet thy neighbour's land," and Christianity unavoidably resolves the hypocrisy by decaying into some form of Fascism.

Politeness is Impolite

Perhaps we can imagine a form that isn't, but all extant forms are impolite. Their purpose is to bully folks into lying habitually. (Prescriptive vs. descriptive.)

"How are you"
"I'm fine"

Genuine politeness means not socially obligating someone to lie. If they can't tell you the truth, don't bring it up. Asking after someone's health is precisely the opposite of politeness. Unless, that is, you're already so close that they will volunteer that information and you don't need to ask. Almost every modern rule of etiquette is like this; the exceptions are clearly accidents or mistakes. It's hard to find evidence of rules [not like this] in the past as well. 

Humans consistently choose falseness over politeness, because humans are consistently evil. It benefits the State because lying make you weak. A people who habitually tell small lies have little resistance to telling (or being told) big lies, making them easy to control. This is necessary for the survival of weak States, who would be overwhelmed when attempting to deal with a healthy populace. 

On the plus side, States consistently enfeebling themselves means the aristocratic fraction can consistently overpower the State whenever it happens to be convenient. If they want to make you do something you can just be like, "no" and they can't do shit to stop you. Of course this will necessarily be anti-social, weaking the State and society yet further. Every chain they cast at you is one they can't cast at their rivals. Every chain you break because it's in your way is another they can't cast at anyone.

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Historical Peasantry

Some intact and suitably brief history can be found at the following links.

Did medieval peasants work hard?

Did medieval peasants have any privileges?

In short being a peasant is far more pleasant than being a voter, though it's not like being a voter has no advantages at all. 

Note that voters can be conscripted; while serfs could be levied, taking a serf for the army would cause the lord to bill you for lost human capital. "Excuse me, I need him to farm this plot." Further, lords recognized voters/peasants are merchant-caste and basically useless in a fight, something Napoleon didn't learn before Waterloo.

In addition, note that Christianity between about 500-1100 was hardly Sophist at all, which is why Sophists call the period a dark age. Instead it largely performed correctly as a religion. E.g. even if the Pope tried to tell you what to do, it is likely the message would simply be lost before it got to you, so he couldn't be a busybody.

Peasant Eating Habits

Many social rituals make dramatically more sense of peasants are so cosmically incompetent they can't even work out how hungry they are.

Do peasants really have to transcend their own nature to manage to live up to the standard of a bear or puma? I have difficulty imagining this, but as always it's important to imagine all possibilities. Vary every variable. 

Come to think the evidence points to corruption rather than peasantry being peasant-y, per se. Several studies have shown that children are capable of managing their own diet. Peasants are often childish, but they only become degenerate even relative to children when under deliberate attack. Many false religions put great emphasis on weird diets for made-up moral reasons, thus they see an incentive to destroy a child's awareness of their own innate wisdom. 

Result: adults who have to be told exactly how much to eat, what to eat, and when, to avoid self-harm. As if the narcissist denial of individual variation was a proven fact.

Monday, November 15, 2021

On Viral Overreach

The vast overreach allegedly associated with the virus is most likely caused by the fact the DNC and their thralls know they destroyed democracy by cheating so flagrantly in the countrywide election. Some pundits have conveniently repressed the memories, but neither operatives nor servile voters can properly forget. They have to seize total power now, or else it will shortly be too late for anyone to seize power. 

N.B. seizing total power now is no more feasible than it will be then, it's merely an appearance issue. Sophists gonna get high on their own supply. Having a working government is a problem just as regime-complete for the left as for the less-left. Nobody can even have the appearance of a mandate ever again (mandates are never real, else you would call them property or title).

Self-Confidence is Usually Narcissism

"Believe in yourself!" Err, how about I believe in the external world instead?

E.g there's lots of TV with the moral that you shouldn't be insecure. It's all about how you feel. Except, if you just go have a check, it doesn't matter how you feel about yourself, because you know what's actually going on.

Of course, narcissists can't do this. The outside world is too scary. Have to assume they already know everything, and it's merely a matter of weighing priorities correctly, because they damn sure can't learn anything new. 

We need to be reminded, because we're all surrounded by narcissists. Apt to forget going and looking is even possible, since it happens so rarely. Reminder: you can just go look. Just try it and see what happens. 

Maybe have confidence that you can win all competitions with narcissists, because you go and see what's there while they're lost in their own little world. Have confidence because you did what Gnon told you to and got the result Gnon promised, instead of doing what the bigger, nastier ego told you to do.

Sunday, November 14, 2021

How-to: Don't Get Gyewed

I'm not afraid of Gyews because I'm far smarter than any relevant metric of Gyew IQ. It's a non-contest. 

If you do have a problem with it,

1. Develop epistemic competence.
2. Subordinate yourself to someone with epistemic competence.

Now, you are not only immune to getting Gyewed when it's done by a non-Gyew, but you can cooperate with cooperators when the cooperative party happens to be Semitic...and these benefits are mere side-effects.

Naturally, those who demand evil will call their demand justice.
It is necessary, for the just (<5% of the population) to reject this assertion. It is necessary to stop pretending they demand justice. They are fallen, and they can't get up. 

If you want justice it is necessary to gather together with other just-minded folk and hide yourself from the evil eyes of the world. The evil (>95%) cannot stand the thought of anyone enjoying justice and will work tirelessly to sweep it from the world. Luckily they are incompetent. Blind. Hiding from them is nearly trivial.

How Dark Knowledge is Dangerous

You can also call them [infohazards] though I won't except ironically, because I'm not a bureaucrat. 

Dark knowledge has a high or even guaranteed chance of causing false conclusions when taught to the unprepared, and then Reality gets out her bloody teaching stick. "Learn! It! This! Time!" Oof.

For example, determinism often makes folk believe they're not responsible for their actions. This is flatly false.

Falseness one: assuming determinism is true, feeling responsible causes good decisions, and feeling irresponsible causes defective and deviant decisions. Hence, you ought to feel responsible even if you have a logical proof you shouldn't, for your own good weal. 

Falseness two: [responsibility] is merely the tag which we use to indicate who a court needs to sentence to deter a crime. Under libertarianism, if you want to deter crime, you need to punish the perpetrators. Under determinism, if you want to deter crime, you need to punish the perpetrators. Some weird metaphysical [responsibility] is irrelevant; we're just talking about who to punish so as to effectively spend our crime-suppression dollar. (Generally speaking the true answer is: a journalist.) You're 100% responsible, regardless, as far as everyone else is concerned.

If courts were really sophisticated, they would punish non-perpetrators, but only punishing the perpetrator is sufficient. One exception: if a small child commits a serious crime, they are apt to quite rationally sentence the parents. Even if you have to sue a child for a broken window, the parent is going to have to pay. Likewise employers are (ineffectually) held accountable for (some of) the actions their employees take on the job. Determinism is hardly less able than libertarianism to say someone caused a particular defective event. It's also fine to jail some journalists just on general principles. Their job is a confession of being guilty of something; why bother finding out what, exactly?

Determinism seems to make post-Christians and hyper-Christians believe Jehovah has stopped watching them and they won't be punished if they perpetrate. Determinism is dark knowledge* because it conflicts with an earlier lie, but only supplants it with a worse lie. (Bishops and post-bishops are kinds of journalist.)

*(To the extent it's true at all.)

Thus, to safely educate someone about free will, it's first necessary to reach back and unpick their batshit insane religion. Normally this isn't an option, so normally telling someone about determinism is exactly equivalent to a psychic attack, with a chance of damaging or even destroying the hapless victim.


Another example of dark kenning is an accurate self-assessment. The brain is wired to deal with the consciousness being at least a little narcissistic and grandiose. Depression causes a more accurate conscious self-assessment (in an attempt to devote more resources to fixing the issues), but neurons are bi-directional, so a more accurate self-assessment also causes depression. 

This is how set 1, the solar set, carries a risk of depression. If you start predicting yourself, you will only get accurate predictions with accurate assessments, and you will not be able to hide from the assessments because only they give you accurate predictions. Science is hazardous, praise be to Gnon.

Saturday, November 13, 2021

Machiavelli's Dictum: Do No Small Harm

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed."

"they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot"

If violence begets violence, you didn't use enough violence. 

One ought to be polite, peaceful, civil, and honourable, or be willing and able to use unlimited violence. Negotiate cooperatively, or destroy them utterly. In the middle is the uncanny valley of sadism, inflicting pain instead of death. Be separate, friends, or enemies; don't try to split the difference.

If you crush a man, and someone left alive wishes to take vengeance for him, then they dun fukt up. Crush them too. Don't wait around hoping you don't have to. Just do it and get it over with. 

An armed society is a polite society. If it's known you're going to kill anyone who fucks with you or die trying, along with everyone who objects to you defending yourself, they're going to be awfully motivated to stay on the black side of the ledger, now aren't they? All of a sudden, passive aggression isn't worth the risk. The culture shifts.

The native humans of every place are not native. They genocided the natives; they're considered native because there's nobody left to argue. Indeed this genocide principle is true of every species. 

If folk complain about being left alive, who are we to gainsay them? In reality, {naturalization} refers to completing the project. Better late than never. Being a victim is a sin and ought to be punished, or they'll never learn. If the enslaved whine about their condition, go ahead and finish the war.

Anyone saying otherwise is justly afraid of your violence, and trying to stop you from realizing you should use it on them before it's too late.

"Die by the sword" applies, if at all, to sadists and peasants. Peasants often cannot muster enough violence. Their maximum is below the minimum. Even if they have a gun they can hardly kill anyone with it. Peasants can strap as many pieces to themselves as they want; they will be an armoury rather than being armed. That is why they are the ruled instead of rulers.

There is a great deal of evil in the world and not much justice. This should not be surprising.

There is great demand for evil, thus great supply of evil.
There is little demand for justice, thus low supply of justice.

Intellectual Women

Female "scholars" reliably become performative narcissists because women don't care about abstract ideas and it never occurs to them that anyone else would care either. (Women do sympathy, not empathy.) They see scholars playing with abstracts and therefore to fit in they cast their parochial personal concerns as universals.

"With that in mind, it’s hard not to read The Genetic Lottery less as a work of science or of politics than as Harden’s apologia to her daughter."

When a woman says, "All men are bastards," by [all men] they mean [specifically my last ex] or [my dad]. The category [all men] simply doesn't exist in a woman's brain and thinking about it is so foreign that it never occurs to her that it might be a real category for someone else.* A woman's social circle is supposed to small and intimate, in other words, profoundly concrete. For the simple reason that anyone outside the circle is apt to beat her, rape her, and leave her for dead in the woods. Evolution happily got rid of all the unnecessary capacities, leaving space for focusing as hard as possible on only the absolutely necessary. 

*(A woman reading this would only think, "Damn, Alrenous is really committed the game!" Also they will get offended/panicked that I'm falsely insinuating that they're not playing the game well enough. More on this later.)


Tragedy: "Instead, I invest hours and hours more per week in the speech and language development of the child who struggles, because I wished really hard I could make them not-stupid, and had to signal how hard I wished that." In reality cognitive accomplishment is 100% genetic. Any training they need they will get on their own, whether you try to beat it into them or not. The only difference is whether they receive a beating (no matter how sympathetically administered). This woman delivers them because she's genuinely that terrified of what the neighbours would think of her if she doesn't play the game enthusiastically enough. Possibly with a side of penis envy. Don't forget how atomized real neighbourhoods are, like she had to. 

Fun feedback: under feminine Fascism, male "scholars" see women pretending to play with universals, and to counter-signal so-called "toxic" masculinity they also discard truth in favour of dressing up their narcissistic self-indulgence as universals. Even then it doesn't quite work; the men rarely realize women have discarded abstracts entirely, and say things like, "It's a moral imperative that everyone act exactly like I already act." 

P.S. Don't let this make you forget that categories should be anchored in specific concrete examples. Counter-signalling femininity isn't something real men need to do (yes Plato, I'm looking at you), any more than they need to drop their pants to prove their plumbing bona-fides.

Friday, November 12, 2021

Prediction, 2014: "America is more corrupt than Latin America, not less."
it’s all aboveboard. The government takes your money and lights it on fire for shits and giggles quite legally."

Handle: "Nuh uh."

Reality: America is insanely corrupt. Checked an election recently? The courts rubber stamped everything, though!

When reading Sailer, I sometimes see David Cole's name.

Don't be like me: never forget he's retarded. He's a drooling moron. Never give him the benefit of the doubt. If he says something accurate, it's a mistake (he'll correct it) or a forced error (wants to correct it but can't).

Update to Epistemic Competence

Added: Zeroth Set.
The subtle arts of definition.

Briefly, put all of your concepts into explicit words so your mind can't accidentally slip without noticing. 

To think at all one must have thoughts. The thoughts have some nature, which defines and is defined by the thoughts. Untrained thoughts equivocate and conflate. First gain awareness of the definition of your own thoughts. Know them exactly.

Definition can be prescriptive or descriptive. However, in either case, you must first apply an arbitrary label.

If you wish to think upon an external phenomenon, the definition is not up to you. It is a description of what's already there. Take an example of the event and label it with your favourite term, then identify all other events that are in the same category and list their properties. You now have a label-category association, which is what a definition is. Check a few extra examples to ensure the boundaries of the category are where they're supposed to be. They won't be, so fix the definition and check again. 

Unfortunately once you have a coherent term which doesn't include random detritus or fail to include obvious specimens, it will no longer match the folk definition. Perhaps swap out your favourite term for something more apt, because it has become jargon, and using the original as jargon is predictably confusing. In any case, the label isn't important. What's important is understanding the category. Call it skoobarg if you want, as long as you understand what it means.

If you wish to think upon an internal idea, the definition is wholly arbitrary; however, the logical consequences of the definition are not. You get to attach any non-contradictory set of properties together, and label it with whatever you want. However, you then must list at least a few example of real-world events that fit in the category. 

Look particularly for advents that aren't supposed to fit, such as Diogenes' chicken. The logic is implacable. You must either bite the bullet or change the definition. What is included is not up to you; to change the category you must change the logic which means changing the definition. Getting a coherent definition to cover the events you want it to cover tends to be impossible; settle for good enough. A coherent definition is far more important than your personal aesthetic hangups. 

A category can be quickly tested for coherence by using the "all X are Y" form. E.g. all fire is hot. We can choose the boundaries of the category "fire" in many ways, but if we start including cold fire or wet fire, we have an incoherent category; we fucked up the definition.

E.g. Justice. 

If you define justice descriptively, you may (will) find that what is usually called justice is unjust. It constantly makes unprincipled exceptions and is wildly unfair. Whatever justice is, it certainly can't be the opposite of blind.

Internally I use one (nonverbal) word for thing-which-is-called justice, and another for Just justice.

Prescriptively, I define a just society as one where cooperation is high status and defection is low status. 

Most disagree, because the human status instinct inherently applies the highest status to those who defect and get away with it. Women are attracted to criminals (who aren't for-real schedule for execution). 

However, my definition results in just societies becoming richer and unjust societies decaying and collapsing. The natural definition results in unjust societies becoming richer and just societies decaying and collapsing. These observations are in fact identical. However, it seems that calling health and welfare "injustice" is intended to mislead. Almost as if everyone knows that telling the truth about high-status individuals would force them to stop defecting. 

Arguing about "free will" is almost fully political.

If you have a precise definition, the answer is trivial. Busywork. Is it hot? Then it's fire. Is it cold? Then it's not fire. If you don't have a precise definition, the answer is impossible. If you forget what "hot" or "cold" mean, it gets rather difficult to work out whether something is fire or not. 

These arguments are about the downstream meaning of "free will" which is again either trivial busywork or intractable. Typically the arguments are intended to disguise the fact that the disputants already know the answer; they're both trying to get the other to forget something important so they can pull a scam.

Secure your shit. Define your terms.

Sympathy and Empathy

I can now precise define sympathy and empathy. It's mimicry vs. identification. Sympathy is feminine. Empathy is slightly masculine. 

Sympathy is merely monkey-see monkey-do. Feeling what they're feeling, regardless of the thoughts behind it. The sympathetic act out the emotions the way they themselves always act out the emotions. The empathetic could act out the emotion the way the person feeling it would act out that emotion, and sometimes even does so act.

Let's imagine a sad man. His empirical reaction: he throws himself into his work. It affects quality, but that aside sadness makes him highly productive. He realizes instinctively that the work has a distracting or numbing effect which increases ease while he waits for the involuntary chemicals to finish doing their thing.

The woman will react like she always reacts to sadness: crying and iced cream. Whether this sadness comes from within or from "feeling" someone else's sadness is not relevant. The reaction is identical. Unproductive; instead, expensive. 

Lacking empathy entirely, she believes on the inside the man is crying and craving iced cream. He's sooo manly for resisting these urges, right girls? Though probably it's not healthy for him to "repress" so much... The only way to make her not believe this is for him not to show her his sadness; to genuinely repress. She's dragged around involuntarily by her reflexive grass monkey instincts. She couldn't fight them even if her soul wasn't literally identical to the pile of instincts in question and logically incapable of seeing any sort of dissonance with them.

(It doesn't help that he probably is crying on the inside. If he does burst, it makes the woman think her nonsense is accurate too.)

A properly empathetic man would realize that seeing sadness would make the woman feel sadness and therefore cry, and the man's feeling of sadness will make him throw himself into his work, assuming the empathetic man knows the sad man well and has met a woman once or twice before in his life.

It is only necessary for one gender to care overmuch about reproduction. As long as it's handled, you get a next generation. However, reproduction is kind of critical, so they're likely to become completely obsessed with it, to the exclusion of everything else. In other words Evolution doesn't trust women to do what's best for baby unless it a) forces them to act and b) forces them to emote in a baby-suitable way so the action is suited to taking care of the scion.

Everything else has to be handled by the other gender. 

Therefore, everything else can be handled by the other gender.

You may note that it's not necessary for both genders to have empathy and self-control. One gender can handle all that for both, as long as the genders are generally or approximately paired up. The gift of empathy allows the empathetic gender to control their presentation and thereby control the other gender, especially if their opposite ruled by immutable instincts that can't learn to hack the game. 

Indeed sympathy is so important for women they'll actively practice sympathy if they don't get exposed to a proper variety of feelings (sad youtube channels), in exactly the same way a man will lift something heavy for fun, or go running. Though note part of this is that sympathy grows more numb, rather than less, with practice; untempered sympathy will knock a woman on her ass if her life has been too easy. 


P.S. By inspection, if everyone were identical sympathy would be identical to empathy. Maybe a third of narcissism and egalitarianism is butthurt about the narcissist's predictions being false instead of true; clearly the solution is to coerce the other into being the self so sympathy can be good enough. It burns especially bad if the other's reaction is wise and effective, and the narcissist's reaction is senseless and self-destructive. When someone is capable, the solipsist narcissist immediately concludes they themselves are capable; the narcissist handles it poorly when they try and fail.

Similarly if a culture is collectivist and domineering enough it can blur the difference. States, like ant hills and bee hives, prefer women, because the sympathetic are easy to manipulate. They have nice predictable reactions. Thus States try to breed and train their men into being women. In the short term, this even works out for them, and they get to feed their kratia addiction enough to outpace their growing tolerance of the drug. 

You can also see that if everyone were identical, you wouldn't be able to have sympathy because a species without even the approximation of self-control would die immediately.


P.P.S. Sometimes empathy is split into affective empathy and cognitive empathy. This is cope, because affective empathy is nothing more than reflexive sympathy, and even female scholars realize sympathy is inferior to empathy. Being surrounded by women all the time, women are in a position to know that from experience.

Copying a bit of feminine sympathy can let men skip a couple cognitive steps. If you reactively feel what they feel, it saves having to work out what they're feeling based on what they're thinking. Men often imagine this is what women also use it for. "Oh, she's sensitive so even when I'm not sure what he's thinking, she can figure it out." Haha! No.

P.P.P.S. That said, were everyone identical, you also wouldn't need sympathy because babby's first empathy would be automatic and accurate. They really would be you so whatever you're feeling about what they saw is also what they're feeling.  

Slate Narcissist Codex

" This post (about a schismogenic soft super-weapon) is amazing."

It's a horrifying defence of narcissism is what it is. "Oh yes, being wildly psychologically unhealthy is normal and you should take it for granted." 

Though of course we should expect paragons to do this exact thing. Christianity is narcissism. Democracy is narcissism. Fascism is Narcissism. Sophism is narcissism. It would be weird if paragons of this social order didn't feel the need to justify narcissism and then exalt it.

Of the many falsehoods on which the post depends, I will highlight one: "The essence of a scissor is that it divides a group of otherwise aligned people." This galaxy brain thinks [Americans] count as an [otherwise aligned people]. Egalitarian kumbaya can only be interrupted by the Satanic influence of the Plot of the State Enemy, of course.

The story argues that you should be less grandiose. Certainly, narcissists are less insufferable if they are less grandiose. (In real people it's just gaslighting. "Distrust your own senses; you didn't see what you saw.") Moderate the megalomania, plz. Should this count as an excuse? "Okay I set your house on fire, but I woke your dog first." You didn't torture puppies for a laugh. You aren't literally pure evil, nice.

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Found Out What Happened to Moldbug

Moldbug dishonoured the high priest of scholarship, and as a result was cursed by the god of inquiry; stripped of grace. Bit of a screwup there. Protip: don't get your muse and genius fired.

Perhaps one day I'll find out why gods care in the slightest about what mortals do.

Reminder: Good Government is Boring

It bears repeating.

Doing government wrong is very exciting. If you win, it's also entertaining. Folk will absolutely start a war to get away from the drudgery of not razing half your own country.

Good government is boring. Boring as shit. Incredibly tedious. Repetitive and formulaic. Yet it also demands very high human capital - you have to stand over others as a Judge and not fuck that up. 

The Perfect is Not Alive

Proof that the Perfect cannot change and therefore has no will, short version:

The Perfect cannot get worse, by definition.
The Perfect cannot get better, because that would imply a better existed, which would mean the Perfect isn't perfect. Proof by contradiction.

All change is either getting better or getting worse, or we contradict the proposition that non-identical things are non-identical. 

The Perfect cannot change.

The Perfect cannot make decisions. (A fortiori: decisions are themselves a change from a pre-deciding state.)

The Perfect has no will.

The Perfect is not alive.

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Why Did Socrates Take the Hemlock?

Socrates himself couldn't properly articulate it.

Socrates had many chances to flee. It was not merely distaste for cowardice that motivated his stay. Certainly his opponents were dishonourable and treating them poorly could be elaborately justified. No amount of treachery would have been out of bounds.

However, Socrates himself picked the fight. Socrates, of all people was no fool; he knew how it might well end. He could have left well enough alone and been left alone in turn.
To flee would have been to disavow his own actions. To refuse the consequences of his own choices; it is not about the cowardice of his opponents, because he knew all about that going in. He may have hoped they were not NPCs, but it turns out he was right the first time.

To refuse the hemlock would be to refuse Socratesness. 

A Socrates, ultimately, profoundly, is a man who dies by getting executed. Socrates, correctly, chose to dishonour life rather than to dishonour the Socratic nature through which his gods created him. 

If Socrates had refused the hemlock, we would never know if he would die for his beliefs. Probably, sure. This way we can be 100% sure. Socrates believed the Socratic way is worth dying for. In the absolute, ultimate end, Socrates had no doubts worth the name.