POTUS ages extremely rapidly and Putin doesn't. 

Does Putin have a much less stressful job than POTUS?

Better fit: POTUS doesn't have time to cook for himself, so he's on a strict diet. The diet is American, though, so it's horrible for you. They're not exactly poisoning him on purpose by they might as well be.

Games Suck Because Gamers Don't Like Games

If you can't lose it's not sportsmanlike, and it's boring. Winning a rigged game is a chore, not playtime. When you first throw the cheats on in a game, yeah sure it's fun, but ultimately if you can win a game by standing there and waiting, it gets old fast. 

You can tell gamers don't like games from things like the Darkest Dungeon mod classes. They're all, without exception, overpowered. You have a choice of mildly overpowered and wildly overpowered. You get gamers to like your class mod by making them win without effort. Then they say things like, "Modded DD is so much fun," which makes it sound like they just added a few unusual mechanics. In reality they're trying to make you think they like unmodded nontrivialized DD when they plain don't.

They don't like games, they like the social effect of games. Want to be a gamer without having to be a player. They want the cachet of the "hard" game, but don't want to actually play a hard game. In many cases, don't want to play at all. If you've ever run a book club you know getting them to actually read the book can be like pulling teeth. Without special circumstances, getting three people to all play a game is the same way.

In fact even Red Hook gets in on it; the plague doctor is a wildly OP mod class, except she comes standard in the base game. 

The problem game companies face is that gamers don't like games but don't want the rigging to be obvious, for obvious reasons. They want the cheats to be default but to not feel like the cheats are default. "Wow you almost lost there!" Without actually ever losing. No matter how objectively bad you are at the game. It's a smoke-and-mirrors industry. 

Don't ask me what's going on with "RP"G players who say they're in it for the story. Really? You wanted a story and you turned to a video game of all things? Shakespeare isn't good. You have to search hard to find a dedicated novelist who is barely passable. (Single-author stories are bad nearly by definition.) "RP"G player: "Those assholes have it too easy. I want a story explained by text boxes in scenes of under two minutes." 

You know, when the NPCs repeat themselves verbatim every time they're poked, it really pulls me into the game. How about you? I especially like how in non-Chrono Trigger you have to sit there and listen to their entire word-for-word repetition, like a good little boy.

Maybe ""RP"G players are easily distracted and it never occurs to them to use a story format that isn't designed for 10-year-old attention spans. Maybe they're really arrested at 10 years old. Very puzzling. 

Exception: puzzle gamers seem to like puzzles they're actually bad at. I'm not 100% sure though, since I'm not a huge fan of puzzle games (too restrictive and artificial) so I don't play them, so I can't tell if the puzzles are hard because they're hard, or the puzzles seem hard because I'm a rank amateur and the folk I watch playing them are idiots. 

My pet peeve is object permanence. There's hardly any game that doesn't play like a fever dream. You drop a thing and it ceases to exist. You blow up a mountain, but if you scroll it off-screen it magically re-appears. Alternatively you fire a nuclear bunker-buster at a wall and it makes a 'dink' noise and pastes a scuff mark on it. You beat the boss and they join your party, but lose every single one of their boss abilities, with no explanation. 

There are no normie games. (Maybe peggle and other barely-games.) There's crazy-folk games and hardcore games. Mostly crazies. Luckily for the games industry, America has no shortage of cracked minds.

"God definitely agrees with all of my moral positions and God's relationship with other people is entirely my business."

"No I'm not prideful why would you even say that."

https://nitter.42l.fr/terrorising_a/status/1531279738723090434

 

Hint: this person intentionally named themselves terrorizing, and misspelled it. I think in their heart of hearts they might think of themselves as a terrorist. Criminal scum who attacks worthless civilians for no good reason. I might take them at their word on this one. They should know, shouldn't they? 

In other pointless news, redditors want an island and it went even more reddit than you might expect. https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/meme-insider/a-year-after-getting-scammed-reddit-island-users-are-putting-their-faith-into-a-crypto-libertarian-who-just-got-out-of-a-honduras-prison

I cannot stop laughing about this. Reddit: even more reddit than you can possibly imagine. 

Hey, uh, imagine how someone who can legitimately afford an island would react to losing $500.

Mummies are Not Cursed

The kind of person who buys a mummy is cursed.

"You know what? My house doesn't have enough dead bodies. I need more corpses in my house."

God: "Okay. Body = body ++. Prayer granted."

Know Them By Their Fruits: The 30 Years War

The fruits of Christianity: "The Thirty Years' War^[l] took place largely within the Holy Roman Empire from 1618 to 1648. One of the most destructive wars in European history, it caused an estimated 4.5 to 8 million deaths, while some areas of Germany experienced population declines of over 50%."

Though recall it's not some horrible exogenous devil inflicting itself on hapless peasants. The peoples of these lands could have rejected the obviously evil and insane cult at any time, but didn't. Instead, they seem to rather like it, much the way the sovoks miss Stalinist repression. I'm on record saying Communism is highly educational, however, it seems only the upper classes get the joke. Putin clearly gets it, but Russians, by and large, do not.

Christianity could have come to an accord with itself, instead of immediately launching itself into a frothing rage. Christianity could have followed its own "feed your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" doctrines.

Christianity could have restrained the Hapsburgs and Bourbons.

Christianity could have shut down Sophist Luther before he narcissist'd all over Germany. 

Christianity could have at least disavowed the war and minded its own business.

Didn't.

 

On the plus side, it was very educational. If you're a bit slow and can't tell Christianity is basically Satanism by reading the book, you can tell when Christians reveal they don't believe in the words coming out of their own mouths. Show them no more respect than they show themselves. Has there ever been a Pope who wasn't a mafia don? I've never seen an account of one.

It's kind of a bad sign when your religious patriarch is always an atheist.

I particularly like this bit: "The agreement was undermined by the expansion of Protestantism beyond its 1555 boundaries, into areas previously dominated by Catholicism."

Catholics are bad. Protestants are worse. But don't worry, now we have Wokism, which blows them both out of the water. Christianity is inherently heretical and can't suppress heretics-relative-to-Christianity without undermining itself.

Speaking of Communism...

 

It plain makes sense, if you think about it in reverse. If Man is Fallen, what kind of religion is likely to succeed among Men? A forsaken one. It would be weird if it wasn't inherently heretical. Christianity, like all narcissists, tells you all about itself. "We're sinners." Christianity is the religion for humans who want to sin. Catholicism means universal sin for everyone.

"In the pagan Greco-Roman world, it was taken for granted that men had the right to expose a newborn baby for any reason, or even no reason."
https://www.unz.com/isteve/does-this-pyramid-make-me-look-fat/#comment-5363607

Like today, women were mute, incapable of speaking. They couldn't argue against infanticide or in any way petition their husband.

They were also, like today, incapable of asking a man not to infanticide before they married him. Because, as above, women are mute.

Non-fluent.

Incapable of speaking.

Restricted to animal grunts, like beasts. Worse than beasts.

It's perfectly logical, see?
America respects women. It gets it from Christianity. 

P.S. The man pays for the baby and therefore the baby is the man's property, end of story. Anything else is irresponsible.

Rationalism Post-Mortem

I just realized Rationalism was a bunch of Communists who were dead sure they could Rationally demonstrate the validity of Communism. It turns out the opposite of that obtains, so they dropped rationalism.

Well, again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

You can safely look at the "Enlightenment" two ways. 1) a bunch of Communists. 2) a bunch of Sophists who want everyone else to believe in Communism because rich people are smart and won't put up with any of their guff. A not-fool and his money are not-soon to part, unless you part everyone with their money. 

 

Economics tells us that cooperation is good for the economy, and Communism isn't cooperative. Economics is very logical, which made Rationalists break out in hives. They desperately tried to Communize economics, but ultimately you can't do that without unmistakably betraying logic.

The truly effective way to be altruistic is not to be altruistic at all. Altruism is irresponsible. Reckless and destructive. If you want to help someone, buy them. If you want to save a forest, buy it. If you want to shut down a pipeline, buy it. Purchase the responsibility. Everything else is terrorism, and the joke is I'm perfectly serious.

And so on and so forth.  

It really gets me that charities are in fact terrorist organizations. I don't quite chuckle, but I almost chuckle infinitely. "Unfortunately, he would have been fine, except that you just severed his spinal cord. How do you feel? Is your reaction: “Oh well, at least I tried?”" The founder of MADD couldn't possibly have stayed in charge of MADD, because personnel is policy and she's not a terrorist. Her choices were to shut it down or get ousted; there was no other possible outcome.

Selling your soul for power is to be applauded. Most sell it for a nickel and some pocket lint. They yell, "Take my money!" to the Devil, in the hopes of appearing to be a good person. Don't even wait for a contract and assurances. Selling your soul for power is a massive step up from the normal baseline. Wanting to rule in hell instead of serving in heaven makes you upper class; most will get mad if you don't offer to let them serve in hell.

Recalling that Fascists are fallen Communists, a post-rat is a somewhat less fallen Communist. They like to signal affinity for "woo" and occultism and stuff, because that signals opposition to the tainted, heretical Rationalism. They really believe social status can be equally re-distributed, if you just...something...somethingly. They'll figure it out, I'm sure.

There's two classes who can have this kind of faith in Communism; forsaken idiots, and psychopaths. And the second don't count. It seemed Yudkowsky was cynically running a cult (for narcissists, as with all cults) because he was cynically running a cult. He doesn't genuinely believe what he says - not at the "meta" level, as they say. 

Naturally all their social arrangements rapidly became abusive. What do you suppose is going to happen when you gather a bunch of narcissists in the room and promise they're going to change the world?

Naturally nobody will in fact become particularly rational. That wasn't the intent. 

 

Truth is a jealous bitch. She won't tolerate the slightest bit of cheating. Not only must she be your top priority, she has to be your only priority. Flirt with her frivolously only if you're a pure masochist.

As you should be able to work out on your own, for religious nutjobs, social ties are the top priority. Truth won't touch a Communist with a ten-foot pole. They could only aspire to a snowball's chance in hell.

Hospital Food Condemns Hospitals

You only feed hospital food to someone you hate. It's not even fit for dogs. It tastes that bad because it's actively poisonous. 

"You need to eat!" Starving is healthier. It's industrial diarrhea and should be flatly refused.

At best, hospitals immediately reveal that they have no interest in your health. Addressing the miniscule possibility that they want to make you healthy, they are wholly incapable of pursuing this aim. 

Evil, or shockingly incompetent? Whatever you choose, the rational reaction is: stay the fuck away. 

Usually, if you're not paying, you're the product, not the customer. Americans get the enviable position of being the product instead of the customer but having to pay anyway.

I guess they call their medicine system the best in the world because they genuinely love being oppressed that much. "Come to America and get victimized harder than anywhere else!" They love it; don't try to take away their sadistic torture industry. 

Just, you know, acknowledge it's a sadistic torture industry, not medicine. If you want actual medicine, don't go anywhere near it.

Coffee Reminds Me the Peasants are Stupid

I failed to question everything. I can trivially make a better cup of coffee at home than I can get in the shop, and I simply assumed everyone else can do the same.

Seriously, who can't make a better pot of coffee than Starbucks?

Well, Einstein, guess what...

Problem 1: every American is a temporarily embarrassed genius, because egalitarianism.
Problem 2: in school, Americans learn never to learn.
Problem 2.5: they don't teach you how to make coffee in school; it's not Official Americanism. 

Result: Americans try to make a pot of coffee once, typically without so much as reading the instructions. As they are a genius, obviously they can figure out how to make coffee without being told, right? Well, no, actually. You do, at least, need to calibrate. Even if you really are a genius. Their coffee sucks. They weren't told in school, and they can't learn now, because they learned not to learn. Result: they decide to buy coffee at the shop instead. Ironically, as the not-learning thing is indeed a fixed point, they're not even wrong. 

Starbucks is an idiot tax. Sorry, you're too stupid not to pay $5 for 10c of coffee.
Also too stupid to work out coffee isn't a worthwhile trade at $5.
Can't trade up for a better brain, though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 

A fool and his money are soon to part, and praise be.

That's not to say Starbucks et al are good places. Parasites are still parasites. Mosquito shops with mosquito employees.  

It kinda looks at first like Americans are getting jacked on wages. They're paid peanuts. This is not the case though; they're still being paid too much. They can afford to waste large amounts of money on useless crud that's not even good for them. They're not responsible enough to safely handle the money they already have, let alone having more. Basically the Eccles Building would like to steepen the Cantillon gradient, so their inflation-theft doesn't leak to regular Americans so much, but can't figure out how, because they're kinda dumb. If they were genuinely smart they would make money without using rents, so...

P.S. Re:(2), geniuses don't have to learn, right? They already know things. How can you be a genius if you're not already smart? Hence, you can't be a good American if you have to learn anything. In extremis, you absolutely can't get caught learning anything. Best to avoid the risk if at all possible.

P.P.S. At very high IQ everyday performance decouples. Real geniuses are particularly bad at stuff like driving and making coffee. Not that we could expect a Temporarily Embarrassed Genius™ to know such factoids.

Socialists Have Mommy Issues

They want a nanny state because they are tiny, whiny babies who need their nanna. 

Generally this is the result of their biological mother catastrophically failing to be a parent. Socialists are developmentally arrested in infanthood due to failure to form attachment or whatever.

Musing on Simulacrum

Rhetoric is used because it is more plausible than logic. On the margin, logic is unbelievable and rhetoric is believable. 2 + 2 doesn't stop being 4 if that happens to make you mad. Logic cannot be adjusted to be easier to understand or more socially acceptable. Rhetoric can be, and therefore is. 

A simulacrum is a term used when rhetoric has replaced all logic. The simulacrum is "hyper"-real because it seems more real, more relevant, than the actual Reality that it has, in appearance, replaced. The superstimulus reaches the level of hyperstimulus. It is pure Satanism and pure Gnosticism; when social reality has wholly subsumed any peak or crest of physical reality.

Naturally, when the rubber hits the road, the car keeps going and the simulacrum falls to pieces. Purveyors of simulacra know this and assiduously avoid any concrete application. Equally naturally, customers of simulacra who are prone to touching grass quickly stop being customers, leaving only those who, by instinct or inclination, know never to poke their simulacrum with a stick.

E.g. a narcissist's displayed personality is a simulacrum. It's easier to believe than their real personality, by design, but completely fake. When push comes to shove, their mask falls to pieces and dissolves. They cannot walk their talk. 

That said I must remind myself that appearances are themselves a kind of reality. Form is a function. Belief is itself an object. When someone completely misapprehends physical reality for social reasons, it is physically true that they completely misapprehend physical reality. The lies have existential validity qua lies.

To be blunt, if you love your kids you don't feed them formula.

Americans don't love their kids, so it is unsurprising that a formula shortage is a big deal. 

Formula tastes terrible and it's bad for you. Who deliberately feeds this to babies? People who hate babies. 

See also: cheerios. It has a long shelf-life because even the bacteria don't want to eat it; it's not fit for microbe consumption, let alone human consumption.

The fact Americans don't love their kids is exactly why they have to firmly signal, especially online, about how much they love their kids. This is why they go full [please somebody think of the children].

Same way every American who has ever looked twice at a 16-year-old has to go ballistic at any mention of jailbait. "Only a monster would be attracted to a girl without checking her driver's license first. I am of course a healthy male who is only interested in things the government has first given me permission to be interested in." Biology is bureaucracy, right? Animals in the wild find a mate without having to fill out form c-16; amazing, isn't it? A wonder of nature; how do they do it?

The fact [think of the children] initiatives immediately die to Conquest #3 is a reinforcing dynamic. Cause more pain to children while forcing everyone to agree that you care for them more? What's not to love?

"Maybe they don't know it's bad and bad for you." Did they check? Do they care so little about their kids they don't even bother to look? This is not rocket surgery.

Americans largely hate their pets too, by the way. I see them obviously causing pain to their pets more often than not. "See, he likes it!" He obviously doesn't. Then I look it up and guess what it's a known form of abuse.
I expect they get pets so they have something to legally torment, and they get mad at you for being mean to their pets half because they're terrified you'll notice they enjoy seeing you be mean to them, and half because they see you satisfying your sadism without paying for dog food. 

They rack up huge vet bills precisely because the animal hates the vet so much. Seeing the animal limp around and whine in pain makes them feel all fuzzy inside, which is why euthanasia is supposed to be bad. A few get confused and think the animal will really hate getting killed, but they regret it later because they can't torment it anymore. 

When you tell an American parent that cheerios are ruining their child's health, they don't get mad because you're questioning their parenting skills and need to mind your own business. They're not mad because parenting that badly obviously demonstrates they're a bad person and deserve to feel bad, and this is intolerable. "Hey, consider feeding your kid human food instead of cardboard." "Delete yourself." Since when are Americans meddling-negative? They get mad because they like giving their kid metabolic syndrome by feeding them industrial waste and you're making them feel a responsibility to stop.

I do say outlawing marriage is a primary driver of low birth rates.

However, there is a more important one: Americans hate kids. If your intuition complains about this, likely that's because it's normal to hate other people's kids. Nothing is more annoying than unrelated children.
Hating your own kids may be normal in the sense of being accordance with local norms, but it is very far from healthy.
On the plus side USG wants you to hate your own kids, so doing so is very Obedient and Conformist. Don't worry, Big Sister loves you. 

 

You can tell for certain because American parents do jack when there's a genuine threat to their kids. Their perceptions don't lead to action. They won't let them kids outside unsupervised due to the 0.0001% chance of being kidnapped by a stranger. Or - no joke, saw this in person - won't let them outside in the rain because they might get hit by lightning. (Instead, going out in the rain is an excuse to give the kid a healthy spanking. For their own good, naturally.) Then a school shooting happens and they won't even give them the day off school, never mind link school and danger. 

They will credulously repeat the ""statistic"" about 1 in 4 co-eds getting brutally ambush-raped by strangers, but never for a moment consider, you know, not sending their daughter to college. "Yes it's entirely credible that Jackie Coakley was ground into broken glass by a train run on her, but don't you dare drop out, young lady!" 

American parents obsess about car safety seats and motorcycles and then deliberately live in NYC. Americans are, of course, extra xenophobic and the "good schools" thing is a great excuse to live far away from Bantu-Americans. The kid's experience at school is irrelevant unless it can be used to change the parent's environment.

The American government lies all the time because the American people are massive liars. Demand => supply. 

There is a small minority of exceptions. Some Utah families have like 9 kids, because, "The first one was great! Let's do it again!" The "homeschooling" pull-your-kids-out-of-school reaction is indeed growing. However, slowly. Significantly less than 5% of all students are outside the Prussian system.
Prima facie, no more than 5% of American parents feel non-sadism toward their own kids. 

This is why population decline is wonderful. It will automatically stop once the 95% of parenting-negative parents gracefully exit the gene pool. Viva the pill. Viva abortion. All hail high cost of living. Outlaw marriage harder, daddy.

P.S. Ironically, stuff like cheerios kind of doesn't have a long shelf-life. They have to pack it in Communist plastic and fill it with Communist "preservatives" because otherwise it goes stale if you look at it funny. It's barely platable even at peak condition, but soon reverts to its natural "yeah, don't eat this" state. The term "preservative" refers to to sugar, vinegar, alcohol, and salt. The package-list term is a euphemism for [pesticide]. Hey, hot tip: don't deliberately add pesticides to your food, especially not broad-spectrum pesticides.

If You Meet Satan on the Road, Kill Him

Are you going to meet Buddha on the road? Bloody unlikely. You meet Satan all the fuckin' time.

Kill the shit out of him. 

We all have a bit of the Satan egregore following us around. Your job: commit unlimited violence upon it. 

 

If you meet Satan on the road, take the war crimes list as suggestions. Blind him with lasers, pelt him with flechettes, and then shove him onto land mines. Stab him fifty times, rip out his guts, and take a shit in the resulting cavity. Blast the area with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Salt the earth. If there's anything left of the body, bust out the napalm.

The rack? Iron maiden? Apple of anguish? All things Satan richly earned, and more. Twisted desires are not twisted as applied to Satan, with the exception that he should be considered a biohazard and never touched directly. Use gloves. A mask wouldn't go amiss. 

If he surrenders, shoot him again. Twice. It's fine to start at the feet and work your way up.

 

If you have violent urges, hunt down a Satanist and beat the shit out of him. The violent urges exist for a reason; your job is merely to allow them to find their proper place. It is your privilege and your duty; feel not guilt for being violent, but feel guilt for suffering a Satanist to live.

Of course, take care of yourself first. It's much harder to ruin a Satanist's day if you're in jail, so don't get caught. Always seem to be obeying your local laws. (They're dumb, it's not hard.)

 

American: has and defends rules against bringing your own food to lunch. 

American: is surprised this regime evolves into a school-shooter regime. 

"We raised our kids in literal prisons with 'papers please' type regulations, but they grew up to be criminals! Weird, how did that happen!"

Truly, the world is a mysterious place.

In Praise of Falsehood

& against ivory-tower theorizing. 

If you look at a specific false belief that a normie holds, it basically works for them. If you ask them what it "means" referring to the actual decisions it drives, those decisions more or less fit what the normie actually wants. It's hard to improve on what they're already doing without demanding they display skills and talents they don't have.

Normie falsehoods come in sets. For the most part the falsehoods cancel out. "Tolerance is a virtue; we should integrate the races." "Gentrification is bad; I shouldn't move to a poor neighbourhood." Stuff like that, but it gets complicated because it's fractal. Beliefs mainly come in cancelling pairs, but their leakage is stoppered by other false beliefs, which also need a stoppering pair, which also leaks...

Overall, these belief sets are much smaller than a set of truths that would lead the normie to behave in the same way. 

The sets come from belief-packagers. The normies themselves are capable of logic, but also inarticulately know that coming up with pairs of false beliefs that fit with the rest of their existing belief-package is not something that amateurs can do. Every time they tried logic, naturally it falsified one of their beliefs, unstoppering the falsehoods of its mirror, which didn't work out for them. They correctly linked "try logic" with the failure, and got more and more shy about thinking for themselves. 

At best they can patch a few uncapped false beliefs with individualized weirdo superstitions. (Think of your own example because I can't remember mine.) The fact they're dumb protects them from the knock-on effects of their own superstitions.  They can't see what they mean beyond the immediate applications, and thus don't apply them to places where they don't work.

If you "enlighten" a normie on one point or another, having observed a distinctly fitness-lowering habit, what will actually happen is you'll unleash a bunch of uncapped lies into their psyche. One step forward, three steps back. They will not thank you for this, nor should they.

 

Because of these mechanics, it is not surprising that non-identical propaganda-plexes have difficulty getting along or even meaningfully talking to each other. Without the stoppering/supporting lies, the normies can look at the competing propaganda in isolation, and see how stupid it is. They can think about it logically. 

To convert from one propaganda-plex to another would mean replacing nearly every belief. 

All of them seem to include some basic stuff like, "The State is Daddy! Love him!" so it's not a complete overhaul, but you do basically have to reset to age 1 and grow up again from scratch, unless you stick to closely-related propaganda-plexes, like the Abrahamic monotheisms. Unless your original crib lies are absolutely catastrophically dysfunctional, swapping them out for a different set is not worth doing. What's the amortization period? 30 years? 50? Fuck that with a rake.

 

It is likewise unsurprising that they view the truth as simply another competing propaganda-plex. Except it doesn't even share the basic stuff like State=Good. And it's unforgiving about the complexity. Oh and it's totally uninterested in flattering your ego.

"I'm a good person because I go to Church every week." Nope! Not even close!
Remove this, and you also have to remove the lies which are telling them they're a bad person, or all you've done is created a new narcissist. Oh but wait, what if they're not lies? Or what if it's "okay" they're a bad person because everyone else at Church is too? What if going to Church does diddly morally speaking (because morality isn't real) but you should go anyway? 

Having removed the supporting lies, what else have you uncapped? Probably dozens of beliefs. They all have to go too. Uncapping hundreds of beliefs...

Transitioning from one propaganda-plex to another is extremely labour-intensive and uncomfortable, what with having to admit you believed lies your entire life.

Transitioning from a propaganda-plex to the truth is a lot like undergoing transition surgery without anaesthetic. A lot of those lies are ego-protective lies, and you get to strip them all off. This will almost certainly cause depression. Not to mention having to admit, over and over, that you were tricked, that you were scammed, and that your parents can safely be described as betraying you. "Yeah, uh, Socrates? Turns out [I know nothing], would have been an extreme improvement compared to where I started. [I know nothing] is softballing it immensely. Painfully optimistic there, Socrates."

Luckily I went to public school so this rated only like a 5 on my personal pain scale. Something of a problem, but I could spend as long recovering between sessions as I wanted, so ultimately it's merely my own personal proof that I'm a tough motherfucker. 

On the plus side, unlike surgery, you emerge from the operation both powerful and beautiful. Sadly, doing it to yourself definitely leaves scars, just like surgery. Not entirely optimal.

P.S. everyone who doesn't do it is ngmi. They survive the material world just fine, it is true, but their existence is necessarily limited and truncated.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To show the normie doesn't have a sense of humour. You can get him to laugh at anything as long as everyone else is laughing at it. 

And yes, you can't get him to laugh at anything, no matter how funny, if nobody else is laughing it. Same for music: they like music when it's popular. With music there's a bit of a floor, at least. Absolute dogshit can't get popular...but the floor is not high. The NYT bestseller list doesn't reflect sales, but the normie just wants to buy the books everyone else is buying, which the NYT list causes, so is it really a scam?

The primary point of audiences at comic night is so the few with humour can start laughing and let all the normies know they should laugh too. 

Humour is inegalitarian. Being funny makes many very envious. Thus, as Fascism progresses, fewer and fewer comedians will be funny, either because the funny ones get fired or because they learn better than to try in the first place.

Disregard Trade Tariffs; Acquire Speech Tariffs

Free speech is so bad I'm arguing for the opposite: especially-taxed speech. "You must be this rich to ride." 

All speech should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Anyone who wishes to speak in the public square should be assumed to be talking out their ass; face-shitting in the common well. As a result they should be charged a cleanup and waste disposal fee.

The wider the audience the speech can reach and the longer it will likely be recorded, the higher the correct exogenous fee. Advertisers especially should be charged out the nose if they want to vandalize the public facades so badly; it's socially harmful and ads look like ass.

Likewise all government broadcasts should come with a tax rebate. If you have to hear it, in any sense of "have" to, they should have to pay you for the privilege of your time. Double minimum wage at the very least. (The joke is there should be no minimum wage, but 2X common minimums is still a good start.)

If your speech really is important then you should be prepared to pay the cost, in literal cash, of speaking it. Maybe you'll get donations from grateful listeners to offset your obligatory fees.

Expensive speech is responsible speech.

How to BTFO Mercantilists, E.g. Grapes

Let's say France heavily subsidizes her grape producers. She uses tax money so they can afford to sell all the way down at half price. If you let her export to England, it will wipe out all English grape production.

Step 1: tariffs to put French grapes at exactly English prices at the English docks, effectively anti-subsidizing them. Throw all this money into the treasury. "Thanks for giving us your tax money, France. We appreciate it!" 

Step 2: release the tariffs entirely. When your own domestic vineyards threaten to go out of business, use the tariff money to buy them out so they personally suffer ~0 losses. Functionally, forcing France to buy all your vineyards out with her own tax money. "You can put them out of business if you like, but only if you pay for it."

Step 3: France is paying for England to eat grapes. Thanks France! What a nice country. So generous. The more French grapes they sell in England, the more French tax dollars effectively end up in England.

Maybe you keep a small tariff so as to pay for the mothballed vineyards? Grapes aren't a terribly critical good, so maybe the government just re-sells the land and lets the chips fall where they may; the land was paid for by France, so anything you can get for it is pure profit. With something more important, like meat or steel, you would want to preserve them against the inevitable time when the "protectionist" economy falls to its own inept policies. Mothballing isn't free, so a small tariff could be used to cover that - again, making France pay for it. "Steel supply shock, huh? Oh yeah we have those strategic steel mill reserves."

Grammarly Solecism Example

"The luck of a main character was often, unbelievably good."

I didn't know luck could be often. I wonder what often luck is?

I guess it's a synonym for 'good' in context. Quick reversal: "The luck of a main character was good. Unbelievably often." Hardly superb diction, but it works.

This is exactly the kind of mistake that computer-based grammar is likely to make. It will have trouble identifying sub-phrases, because (like the author using it and the readers reading it) it doesn't actually know what words mean. It has to identify a phrase based on how it's spelled. The author doesn't know what commas are for, they have to figure out which commas go where by imitation, which is inflexible &c.

As I said earlier, this may be an accent. Maybe in their native language putting a comma there doesn't make you sound like a stuttering idiot child. However, at best, it's a grammar mistake that Grammarly doesn't fix. 

That, said, there's this, one guy who, puts so, many unnecessary, commas that while, I'm exaggerating a lot it, rapidly, becomes, unreadable. This is the kind of problem that's caused when an insecure writer trusts a tool that's dumber than they are. 

Language Evolution & Professional Tools

Background: it's normal for peasants not to be fluent in their mother tongue. They're like a search engine: if you say "explosion" you get one set of results, and if you say, "rapidly expanding volume of gas as a result of a runaway chemical reaction moving faster than the speed of sound in the local medium" you get a different set of results, because the search engines don't know what words mean. They instead have a sort of historical, Pavlovian association.  Use words in the "wrong" context and they get confused and lost.

We say the language becomes "corrupted" over time because the later version is inherently less fluent than the previous version. E.g. what are social conditions? They are livingish livingranks. Livingranks are livingish? You don't fuckin' say. Come up with that on your own, did you. Using "livingranks" for "things-which-we-call-conditions" is also plain wrong. I wonder what word the Old English had for worldstate? Don't forget worldstate is two syllables, conditions three. 

In a corrupt language you take longer to redundantly say words that are being used wrong. It's unquestionably decline (down-sloping).

You know how I have to say "you" because English has no second-person singular? It used to, ye prat. Almost exactly this occurred: because egalitarianism, everyone started using the royal We to signal that nobody was less valuable than anyone else and especially not less valuable than royalty, to the point where the singular "I" was completely forgotten. Peasants don't know their own tongue (trying to make them pick up a second tongue is plain mean). Then ye got some troubled peasants distinguishing between we and we-all, or we and wees, to try to remember the word I. You fuckin' dolts.

Why do Americans say "entree" entering-dish, when they refer to the main course? Because Americans are not fluent and don't know what words mean.

Over time, languages (especially lingua franca and attempted imperial lingua franca) forget their own words. If they do remember the words, they forget what they mean. That's corruption. 

P.S. English peasants in particular seem proud of being non-fluent in English. If they can speak their own tongue like a broken pidgin, they're as happy as a pig in shit. French peasants, at least, seem to strive (uselessly, but with feeling) to be more fluent. Japanese peasants give face to those who are more fluent than they are, rather than mocking them like English peasants do. 

Then, the English peasant, speaking an improverished pidgin, keeps accidentally absorbing pretentious (stretch-ish) bureaucratese which serves the linguistic need they suddenly find themselves with. Which bureaucratisms are then used wrong, in case you weren't sure they were foreign implants.

This is why it was very correct when for centuries scholars wrote exclusively in Latin. 

Should have used Greek instead, tho. Using Latin revealed they were doing it for social reasons, not logical or scholastic ones. Exactly as accused, they did it to sound fancy and for no other reason. They were correct (co-rect; with-the_line) by accident.

Scholars need their own language. Restricting a tongue to scholars means it's restricted to high-IQ users who put real demands on the tongue, which means it corrupts very slowly if at all. Even if it does get corrupt, the professionals can fix it, unlike hapless peasants. 

(You don't want to know what "professional" actually means. Save yourself the headache.) 

I see no reason wealthy scholars have to use a natural language. Construct a purpose-built one and use that. Maybe some kind of lojban except un-sodomized by cross-pollination with Greek.

You want "in" on the scholarly clique? Don't make scholars write in the vulgate. Merchant-tongue simply isn't good enough. Make the scholar-tongue your native language if you want it so bad, villeins. 

Scholars deserve the frustration they suffer for taking the merchant whining more seriously than the merchants themselves do. Why should we do all this work if they're not willing to do any work? They were just bitching. Should have assumed bad faith and demanded proof of good faith.

Monopoly vs. Ykk

Having a monopoly is not necessarily a death sentence for your firm.

Ykk basically has a monopoly and they're fine. You can tell they're fine because you've never really thought about your zipper before. They just work. When zippers have issues it's because Americans are cheapskates, not because Ykk can't make a good zipper. 

I would be interested in investigating what they do differently. 

I accidentally investigated a bit just now. They're not a public company. That's 100% relevant. Incorporated and joint-stock, but not publicly traded. Don't have to make the Dow Jones happy. Result: this is the first time I've seen a corporate wiki page that has both revenue and profits with the green triangle. Not coincidentally the latest data is 8 years old - uh, actually, how much money they make is none of your business. They make enough. Just buy your zipper and piss off.

4chan means narcissist when they say autistic

In most contexts.

Recall Ghost in the Shell. Autistic mode is when they turn off their bluetooth network, aka airplane mode. This is a correct use of the Latin. Narcissists necessarily function in this kind of autistic mode all the time - narcissists have a version of closed shell syndrome. 

Regular autists merely have difficulty understanding others because we're so different. The Caino hypcriens brain functions by assuming the other brain works more or less like yours does, which is a problem when it doesn't. If the assumption doesn't hold, the function constitutes a bug. Unfortunately allists are actually incapable of debugging the function, so they're just kinda boned when it comes to dealing with autists. Once we grow beyond the larval stage it's up to us whether we want to make the allist comfortable or exploit them or troll them, and they can't do shit about it except go full shrieking monkey mob and lynch us. Even then, it's not hard to spot the line.

For a narcissist it's actually impossible to understand others, because they're entirely invisible. They can't see anything except their own reflection. (Reminder: which, unlike Narcissus, they hate. If it were consistent and not self-destructive we wouldn't call it crazy.)

 

Excepted context: autistic map makers or autistic flag-finders are genuinely autistic. Or more probably spergs. Spegs have in fact a heightened capacity for empathy, but it tends to be object-directed instead of person-directed. Still, as the global capture-the-flag incident showed, spergy empathy will in fact reveal more about the person than allist empathy, in the end. 

This is part of the reason allists hate spergs so much. This is the reason narcissists immediately go into an incandescent berzerk fury on contact with spergs: their illusionary fake persona will be casually pierced. Autists will straight-up fail to notice the narcissist demanding they play along, whereas the allist can be fooled into playing along even if they resist.

Morality Isn't Real: Inner Peace

Did anyone tell you inner peace makes you comically powerful?

When you don't fight yourself every step of the way, getting anything done is about fifty times easier. 

Don't do it to try to win Afterlife Points™ or whatever your so-called religion tries to pawn off on you. Do inner peace because it's the difference between a pedalled tricycle and a rocket engine. 

Also it feels good. Shockingly, health feels good. Puritans BTFO. 

Oh but you might get Afterlife Points™ anyway. Why do yourself right twice over when you can do it thrice?

BTC Ideal For Backing Banknotes

BTC has high transaction costs, so you want your transactions bundled into batches. Using a bank for this is ideal. BTC-backed banknotes and bank balances allow fast and easy low-key transactions, but you can withdraw your BTC balance at any time.

Turns out "digital gold" was an even more apt moniker than you thought. 

Meanwhile, BTC does most of the fractional-reserve auditing for you. The correct fractional reserve is 1:1, because the risk of a bank run is 0 at this ratio. BTC balances are public: you can check how much BTC your bank holds at any time just by looking at their address on the blockchain. You can check yourself that you aren't issued more notes than is warranted by how much their BTC balance goes up. You can even give them special permission to invest your fraction of their BTC balance. Upside: higher interest rates for you; downside, risk of default.

Twitter is Fake

And probably gay. (I could figure it out, but why bother?) 

I'm concerned they told Musk he'll get Epstein'd if he buys twitter and he's using the fake-account thing to get out of it. 

That said, my twitter account has over 800 followers, which means I had a good sample size. How many were real? Most were inactive accounts. Someone would follow me and later forget twitter existed. The reason I approached 1000 followers can be found here: "Joined 2012."

Folk who don't sign in can't unfollow you for over-spiced tweets. The older your account, the more links will be dead.

You may note my account is itself inactive, because I was locked out. "Give us your phone number!" "No." That's 130 fundamentally-fake follows right there. Though probably most of those accounts are, in turn, inactive.

Also I never checked my main feed because I got tired of folk getting salty for getting unfollowed. Thus I followed promiscuously but instead used purely lists, so even when I was active, most of them were fake. (Bonus: the lists weren't {aren't?} algorithmically "managed." They displayed every tweet, in chronological order.)

There were certainly no shortage of bots and spammers either. I always remember the JBP tweet which was, "Depression and substance abuse: the facts" with a missing link. Got nearly 100 retweets, never mind the 800 dinks. Revealing that many of JBP's readers don't read his tweets (all about who says it, not what's said), nor does JBP himself have any idea what's on his own twitter feed.

Repair of Anatta

With permanence postscript.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: अनत्ता) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.^{[note 1]} While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.

The issue is Siddhartha wrote in Sanskrit, and I'm reading in English. I don't exactly trust La Wik to understand nuances. 

However, at least regarding Western interpretations of anatta, it's suicide for the squeamish. Too much of a pussy to drag a knife down your arm? That's cool: meditate on destroying your ego until you don't have a soul anymore and become a zombie. That's dumb, let's fix it.

1: no fixed essence.
Impermanence is very real (although it’s a blessing, not a curse). We have a nature, as do all other entities and events. Everything has a list of properties which describe it; the least-redundant form of such a list is its essence. E.g. maybe a rock is a collection of misaligned silica crystals, and likewise we can describe what silica is. However, it changes constantly. You can’t step into the same river twice, as they say – you can’t even be the same person who stepped in the river the first time, never mind the river itself.
More, I prefer to describe everything as an event. Stable "objects" are merely events that tend to cause themselves to re-occur. They are events that re-create themselves, which re-creation re-creates itself again. A door right now causes a door to be in the doorway in the next second, which causes a door to be there in the third second, and so on. By contrast a fire doesn't cause the same fire to re-appear.

Yet more: to write out the full list of an event's properties (even if you have the immortal capacity to not die before you finish) means writing out the list of properties of the entire universe. There are no hard boundaries; all is one (although the Dao looks like two everywhere). To fully describe an event means describing the things it is currently interacting with, which means describing what they, in turn, are interacting with, and then you end up having to describe literally everything, the alpha and the omega. Luckily full understanding is not necessary to get on with it; a distinctly impoverished list of properties can get you like 99% of the way there.

 

2: physics, as an objective, external world, is somewhat illusionary.
It is in fact not external – treating it as external is something like a shorthand or a compression. It’s close enough that it works, but if you truly want to understand, you have to realize the physical world you see is, to summarize for brevity, just you, but again. It’s me over here, and it’s me over there too. 

What we perceive as the "external" world are in fact our internal noumena which we don't have willful control over. The blue cube "out there" is in fact your thought/perception of a blue cube, and thoughts are inside. What makes the thought fixed is that it's [our] thought instead of purely [your] thought; you can't change my mind, just as I can't change yours, so if we both have a thing in mind at the same time, neither of us can change it. The "external" world isn't outside, it's merely shared. 

Note that this is more or less my repair of Descartes' proof of God. Minds actually can't share; that's the nature of subjectivity. Unless, that is, they are in fact both part of a greater mind. An overmind, if you will, which is imagining two minds that perceive themselves as separate. Also, imagining a world so vividly and consistently that we can't tell the difference between that consistency and lawful physics. 

3: even Easterners say they have no "real" ego any more than, say, Lara Croft has a "real" ego. I would say Lara Croft really does exist, rather than that I don’t exist, except that Lara Croft is distinctly less complicated than I am. 

Lara suffers* a lot more from impermanence. I can’t be switched off at the push of a button, and if I am switched off, I can’t be easily switched back on either. My complexity comes with inertia, you might say. As a result, stuff done to me (or by me) is much more lasting than stuff done to Croft. This, however, is a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.
*the joke is impermanence is not suffering 

Likewise, it's not that dreams aren't "real" exactly. Rather, dreams have bonus impermanence. The long term is truncated, 0) making the short term much more valuable by comparison and 1) meaning the total value of events in a dream much, much lower. We don't much care what happens in dreams because, ultimately, much less happens in dreams. It's not actually 0 events, though.

This is important, because sometimes physical-world events are also highly impermanent, and yet it's easy to treat them as "real" even though they have consequences exactly of the same magnitude as actions in a dream.

 

The issue is Siddhartha wrote in Sanskrit, and I'm reading in English. Maybe this is exactly what Gautama-sensei meant by anatta. Or maybe he would virulently disagree. Maybe I even missed the point. Hard to tell. It's easy to imagine he would know more about it than I do.

P.S. Mistakes cut off future possibility of virtue. If permanence were real, mistakes would accumulate until they choked out all existence. Impermanence forgives all your mistakes, sooner or later. The price of this forgiveness is having to re-up your good decisions periodically. 

Try to remember that if it feels bad to re-up a particular good decision, you need to start doing accounting. Most likely the event's impermanence is too high and it's not worth doing. The problem isn't impermanence, the problem is you want unprofitable things to be profitable, and Gnon says, "No." 

P.P.S. Sadly the modern world is highly anti-intellectual, so it's unlikely I will ever meet someone a) willing to explain on Siddhartha's behalf & b) not too couch potato to grasp the intended idea. Gotta do your reps unless you want to give me carte blanche to walk all over you, scholastically speaking.

More War => More Veterans

The more Putin fights in the Ukraine, the larger his blooded army becomes.

Grinding XP on his little mans. 

Strategy, or a happy accident?

How Velocity Doesn't Affect Prices

Edit: I will be offering a retraction of certain statements made in this post as of May 2 or so.

Americans Too Poor to Afford to be Mammalia

Naturally baby formula is Satanist. Of course is it. With Satan dead, nobody can get it.

I dunno if you've heard, there's this amazing product called "breast milk." Try it. Even without teeth, babies can eat the stuff. An astounding advance. I've heard this too - practically every mother has access. Very democratic. 

Practically every baby has a mother too, I think? What an amazing thing.

Also note that due to the finely-ground food issue, the Gerber stuff is basically also poison. It's persorption or something. I would recommend against even buying your own blender; the good ones really do blend like mad. That said, I have no hard evidence to indict blenders. Gerber has so many red flags it's hard to know where to start. 

But, like, if your child doesn't have teeth, try the breast milk. They seem to really go for that stuff. If they do have teeth, have you considered letting them chew their own food? The need for braces is caused by crowded teeth, which is caused by lack of jaw development, which is caused by not chewing enough. 

You can tell Tucker doesn't quite get anti-Fascism because he throws shade at breast milk.
It's a class thing. Even the proles can get access to breast milk. They can't afford to be sophisticated and artificial. You're not some prole, are you? 

For nearly ten thousand years, mothers could afford not to work outside the home. America is too poor for that, apparently.

Strategy Example: Exploit Back-Page-Effect

The trucker convoys were doomed when Putin invaded Ukraine, because they required news coverage but of course peaceful protests can't hold a candle to a hot war. 

But what if you want to do something that specifically relies on dodging journalist interest? You can make this dynamic work for you, instead of against you. Exploit the limited attention total. 

Build the thing, then sit on it until something big and flashy appears in the news, then release it under the cover of that thing. Accumulate some inertia while nobody is looking. 

Like releasing your game a a week before e.g. Skyrim is released, except that's a good thing because you're much closer to a mind-your-own-business sphere. 

Don't wait for an opportunity to show up, make your own. Alternatively: luck is a skill. Fortune favours the prepared.

Debt-Backed Currency & Corruption

How money in America works, neglecting the <1% or so of real currency:

Step 1: there is no money.

You take out a $100 loan from a bank. Now there's $100 and a $100 debt. I call this virtual currency, for reasons that will become obvious if they aren't already.

Bank charges $5 in interest.

That means there is $100 total, in the entire world, and you owe the bank $105. 

To pay this back, someone else has to take out another $100 loan, and pay you $5 of it. This means they owe the bank $105, have $95. When you pay back your loan, the $100 vanishes, and the bank keeps the other $5. There is $100 in the entire world, the dude owes $105, and the bank already has $5 of it.

Fiat banking is pure economic rent. Inherently a Ponzi scheme. On average the bank accumulates all the money. Or Goldman Sachs, who very cleverly somehow runs the same kind of scam, in turn, on the banks. 

To pay the bank back for the privilege of being allowed to have money to spend, you have to sell something to the bank. Banks accumulate all the goods.

This continues until someone defaults on their loan. Some of the money remains in circulation when the debt vanishes.

Fiat banks don't much care if someone defaults. The loan poofs out of existence again and they still keep whatever interest you paid. They only care in that they want to extract as much interest from you as possible before you default. Hence credit cards & other deadbeat-positive initiatives.

The Fed has to lower interest rates to stave off the loan-defaults, because the defaults cause deflation, which triggers the potential recession that accumulates under price-controlled interest rates. When you have to pay back as much of the loan as possible, that part poofs out of existence, and the defaultee isn't allowed to take out a new loan to replace the vanished cash supply. 

On the minor plus side, since defaulting does leave that residual, the system isn't inherently headed to a crash. This causes real currency inflation, however. When the reified cash is re-deposited with the bank to pay off interest, I believe the banks deposit this money with the Fed, in case the 1:100 fractional reserve is somehow not enough to supply every demanded loan.

Under a real-money regime, money is also a debt. If you hold a gold coin worth $100, it means society at large owes you a debt of $100. You can call in this debt at any time, from a variety of vendors offering to do exactly that, in exchange for giving the vendor the debt you held. 

Under a fiat regime, society owes you a debt, but you in turn owe that debt to the bank - either directly or via a debtor. Who charges you for the privilege of being indebted to it.

On Carlson, Spades, Impotence, and, Inevitably, Fascism

Carlson gets it, Carlson doesn't get it. Did you know you can get transcripts of Tucker's monologues? Much more palatable.

"It's pretty hard to argue with people who are passive-aggressive. You may have tried it before. "Why are you so angry?" they scream. "Stop being violent," they snarl as they punch you in the face. Passive-aggressive people are intent on dominating you, but they're too dishonest to admit it.  

Now, it's not an honorable style of attack, but it's very effective, mostly because it's so bewildering. The Democratic Party practices this. Democrats will never meet you on an open field of battle. Instead, they will sneak up behind you and knock you unconscious with a bag of sanctimony. This is the party of weak men and angry women, so passive aggression is their only mode of communication."

Naturally, this is narcissism, but Tucker is tactful and calls it "passive-aggressive" so he doesn't have to condemn them as harshly as they deserve. Americans don't like it if you're too harsh. "Everyone has some good in them," etc etc. Well, maybe, but at some point it's nowhere near enough good. At some point you have to put a stop to them with however much violence as it happens to take.

Not that this matters; America is well beyond the point where mere condemnation can make a difference. Could execute every narcissist tomorrow and it still wouldn't be enough.

I'm of course a huge fan of calling out dishonour and the cowardly tactics of the impotent. Good work, dude.

However, Carlson's not quite willing to call a spade a spade. You may consider this a red flag, and if so, you are correct. In the end, he's still a Fascist. Doesn't know any better.

"Christianity has been the single greatest force for human rights in history. In fact, the Western understanding of human rights, our understanding of human rights, all of us, atheists included, is based on Christianity. That's where it comes from. Christianity is the reason we don't have slavery and segregation"

Let's be blunt: the Bill of Rights (note date) is Communism. Tucker is just saying: Christianity has been the greatest force for Communism in history.

I fully agree. 

Now he's mad that hyper-Christianity is going all "fuck you dad" due to the narcissism of small differences. Maybe don't worship Satan, you dumb fucks. 

Christianity opposes slavery because it wants everyone to be a slave, as per Nietzsche. Having de jure slaves would make the lack of contrast too obvious.

Christianity opposes segregation because, in short, it's evil and it hates you.

Christianity forwards "human" rights because it opposes property rights. Because it's Communist. (More precisely, egalitarian.) "Christianity describes a universal brotherhood of man, every person created in God's image and therefore, for that reason, morally equal." Yup. Idiots. Reap what you sow, and know them by their fruits. Christianity either leads to exactly Wokeness, or is too weak to so much as slow it down.

Children working in factories is vastly healthier than children being chained to narcissist busywork at school, and in any case this is almost certainly a wealth thing. Christians jumping in front of a train that already left the station. China has these anti-child laws as well, revealing some serious parochial blindness. Never forget the most insular, narcissistic homebody is the one who calls themselves cosmopolitan.
If parents agree that child labour is bad, then if they can afford not to, they won't.
If parents think they have the right to enslave their children for profit, then these laws are tyranny.
Either unnecessary or inherently evil.
Don't worry about it; it's actually both.

Calling a spade a spade is logically isomorphic.
If calling a spade a spade is enough, then do it already.
If calling a spade a spade won't work for whatever reason, it's already too late. If you're tempted to shade the truth for optics, you've already lost; your instincts just told you the fight is already over. A population that has already abandoned the truth is forsaken. If you have to carefully "lead" someone out of Plato's cave, save yourself the effort. They won't follow.

Either call a spade a spade or shut up and stop wasting your time. 

 

The point of calling them weak is to point out you don't need to fight back. The Churches being burned are suffering Gnon's wrath; they have richly earned such things. If you don't do anything stupid, you have nothing to fear.

They are not forcing you to commit infanticide. Mind your own business. None of you or yours are under threat; why are you so activated? Because Fascism. As always.

Render under Kaisar what is Kaisar's, which is, in fact, nothing.
By giving a shit about Roe vs. Wade, Christians render unto Kaisar the right to determine whether infanticide is moral or not. Does that sound like something allegorical-Jehovah would approve of? You dumb fucks? You condemn yourselves, never mind anyone else's opinion.

"The Christian counseling center only talks to women who are pregnant and aren't sure what to do next." When a stranger sins that's none of your goddamn business. Maybe let them know it's a sin, and beyond that, put up a fence. (Not chicken wire - it won't stop the blood spatter. Choose something you can quickly hose down.) It's between them and the heavens. The heavens can take care of it without your...assistance...thank you very much. 

Unlike non-Amish Christians, the heavens are responsible and can take care of themselves.  

You, too, can be like the Amish and the heavens, and take care of yourself. The Regime is too weak to stop you. You can just not commit infanticide. How hard is this, really? It's all like this. (Turns out America really is a free country, it's the people who are the problem.)
When you try to change the Pope's mind all you do is reinforce the Pope's perceived moral authority. It's not dissidence, it's kowtowing. Just stop. Mind your own business.

For the record, both infanticide and Ukraine are Gnon's wrath. When Gnon wants a human dead, I approve. Good for me, since Gnon is going to kill them either way. My choice is to be upset about Reality or to not be upset about Reality. I also don't object to gravity, because I'm not a moron. 

If you don't want to die, get on Gnon's good side, you dumb fucks.

Olds From the Heavens: Corona-Chan Hates Narcissists

It's a godplague, specifically expressing heavenly wrath toward narcissism.

The actual virus itself was a nothingburger. However, it has exactly the correct appearance to make narcissists rip out their own guts in an attempt to deal with it.

The more narcissist you are, the more Corona-chan wrecked your shit.
For those of  us who aren't narcissist, it was a net gain. The heavens still make things like they used to. 

I'm starting to think most narcissists are literally p-zombies. Corona-chan may have a true body count in the dozens, all accidents, because nobody dies when you kill a narcissist. Nobody is home; you can't knock the lights out, and nobody leaves when the body perishes. It's not homicide, it's tidying.

How Christianity and Post-Christianity Causes Narcissism

The core symptom of narcissism is self-hatred. Something causes the patient to hate themselves, which is intolerable, which results in a death spiral, permanently distorting their cognition. 

Christianity says you are unworthy, and thus that you should hate yourself. For example, it doesn't merely say that you shouldn't masturbate; it says if you even think about masturbating, you are a wicked person. 

These impulses aren't even genuinely [you], because [you] can't control them. They're not your responsibility. As a result, you will be unable to stop thinking about masturbation. If you truly believe Christian preaching, you believe you deserve to be hated. Then you become a narcissist. 

This is entirely intentional. Christianity is a cult. Non-narcissists are, in the long term, resistant to manipulation. They have a tendency to falsify your brainwashing. Narcissists brainwash themselves daily, utterly destroying any resistance to brainwashing they might have. They are extremely vulnerable to anyone who gives them narcissistic supply. They love dogma that everyone has to believe. 

"You don't have to hate yourself if you come to Church every week." To a healthy person this is terribly off-putting. To a narcissist, this is catnip. "I will save you. I will redeem you." It's all narcissism-targeted. They save you from your own hatred. Redeem you from your own judgment...except that these are drugs. They only reinforce that the narcissist's original assessment was correct: they deserve to be hated for wanting to masturbate. Turns out biological drives don't go away. The narcissist is temporarily saved and permanently damned to the hellfire of their own wrath.

Wokism, American Fascism, works the same way. A racist is anyone who has less than complimentary thoughts about blacks. But Bantu are not, in fact, pure as driven snow. As with masturbation, these thoughts are not under your control; they are injected into your mind by outside events. You're simply acknowledging what you saw, the words which describe the event, and the feelings that naturally go with those words. 

Thus, everyone is racist. But racists deserve to hate themselves and have no friends; they are bad people. Thus, Wokism causes narcissism. Because it's a cult. Because Christianity is just Wokeness but for folk who are too poor to be completely batshit insane; Christianity is leavened with a bit of sense here and there.

Get Them Made Like They Used To

You can still buy a 1950s-style toaster that will have a 1950s-style toaster function and lifetime. 

It's just that $22 in 1950s dollars is $320 in 2022 dollars. Each 2022 dollar is worth nearly seven cents in 1950. 

I believe you can still get 1950s fridges as well, it's just that you're looking at around $6000. 

Almost all these "productivity" improvement have in fact been cutting corners. Wheat costs 11 pence a bushel, and a real toaster still costs $22. The price of money has changed, so this is less obvious than it should be.

The Narcissism Algorithm

There's a simple algorithm to convert thoughts to narcissism. Every pronoun is first person. "Do you like jam?" == "Do I like jam?" 

When the Woke narcissist accuses you of being racist, it's projection. They became a narcissist because of the fatal amount of lies they told to themselves about themselves, to hide from themselves the intolerable "racist" thoughts they keep having. 

Thus, "You have a racist thought," = "I have a racist thought," and hence, "I have a racist thought," = "You have a racist thought." Projection. Every time the Woke narcissist thinks something racist, they have to find a Drumpf voter to attribute it to. 

"I would never vote for Drumpf," = "You would never vote for Drumpf." Then they do this: "Why would I pretend I'm voting for Drumpf? When would that make sense for me?" Why would I say racist things? Why would I not virtue-signal about the poor?
Which is why they're constantly accusing others of lying. Obviously everyone thinks the same thing, because you = I. Thus they must have some sinister motives to cause them to falsify their own thoughts. 

If something happens that's unmistakably different, like watching someone pull the lever for Drumpf in person, they go crazy. "But...but, I would never vote for Drumpf! But I just voted for Drumpf...but I would never....WAT" That's when Othering happens. You're incomprehensible. You must not even be human.
There should be no Drumpf votes at all...unless there's Russian meddling of course. It makes far more sense that every vote was hacked in, rather than supposing the existence of humans who differ from the narcissist in any way except circumstances.

Same with the "Koch funding" line and similar. "I may say I'm voting for Drumpf if someone paid me, thus you are being paid."

Recification: the Unknown is Not Scary & Narcissism Some More

The unknowable is scary. 

If you see something you don't understand, it's not a big deal. I shouldn't even have to explain this. If you want to understand, you can go and learn about it. 

If you see something you can't understand, which is metaphysically immune to understanding, then yes that's a problem, now isn't it? If it's a threat, you can't defend yourself. You can't even tell if it is a threat or not. 

It's crazy-making, because Turing completeness is a thing. Nothing is impossible to understand, so if you see something impossible to understand, it's like a triangle with six sides. A logical contradiction.

If a thing can touch you, if you can interact with it, then you can learn about it. Touching is knowing; something that is unknowable is untouchable. In Reality you have no need to fear the unknowable, because it cannot possibly harm you. Even recognizing an allegedly unknowable thing as different from other, knowable things is to know something about it, contradicting the premise that it is unknowable. Having given it boundaries, you can simply list the effects of things inside those boundaries. Every time it touches you, you can record what happened and when it did so, and eventually this list will become a pattern. 

I shouldn't have to say but probably do: if it doesn't interact with you enough to form a pattern, then it doesn't matter if it's unknowable, because it approximately doesn't exist. Further, we can see that nothing with this sort of nature occurs in real life. While certain complex arrangements can be rare, the simple components which make them up always happen near-constantly. It's not like you can cast RPG wizard spells once every 3000 years, but not otherwise. To oversimplify, the elemental stuff happens daily or not at all. 

Further, experiencing something as unknowable is something that genuinely happens to you when you have a cognitive illness. Narcissists in particular. If you see something you inherently can't understand, it is evidence that you are insane. Your genes know; you don't need to be taught. If your genes know you're suffering from a probably-fatal fitness deficit, that's a problem, now isn't it? 

Moldbug's Autocracy is Leftist Part 2

 Continuing,

"At the top level of scholarship, these new red organs will be as serious and intellectually ambitious as the old blue organs that compete with them."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/autocracy-and-cultural-peace

Well, yes, and that's exactly why it will fail. Both of those are negative numbers. 

Look upon the internet, as I did, and despair. Nobody is even slightly serious. The culture is deeply, deeply anti-intellectual. Grass monke happy no think. Play in grass with spear, then hungry, then go chase and stab, then cook, then play again. No think gud liaf!

 

"Pillarization requires your cultural identity to be formalized and visible to the state—as visible as to any advertiser with two nickels to rub together. "

Pillarization is asking the Pope for permission. The peasant must do what they're told - at best they can beg daddy to be told to do something different. I can see no evidence they are even capable of disobeying. They can forget, misunderstand, or get confused about who the prime mover is. They can't actually disobey.

 

"There are many reasons to switch pillars—but this is never a trivial, or even easily reversible, process."

Yeah? Why not? You intending to let them keep voting? 

Why would someone want to keep flitting back and forth across a "cultural" divide? What, the Jew is going to join the neo-Nazis for a week because they're handing out cookies? "It's okay honey, I don't mean it. Back in a bit. Put my yarmulke in the wash for me." 

Don't take Moldbug's fungus rot any more seriously than Moldbug takes it.

"Unfortunately, since sovereignty is conserved, this balance implies a third party which is supreme over both others, and enforces the balance."

Today I learned sovereignty is not conserved.

Has Moldbug really been fully converted to narcissism? "There is no cooperation, only dominance or submission." 

Yeah imagine loving someone and wanting the best for them. What a loser, right? Who does that?

Moldbug of course admires China's anti-virus policies.
Moldbug clearly disdains China's anti-expansionist policies. 

 

"The cure for a culture war, or for any civil war cold or hot, is simple: [arch-busybody]."

"After Augustus, Rome was unified. It had lots of problems and developed more, but never under the Empire did it have class conflict—not until Christianity."

Who wants to bet this is a journalism?

"It is true that Caesar came to power as the candidate of one faction"

So yeah it turns out you can get this "monarchy" thing by just winning.

"the populares—roughly red-state Rome."

Populares are of course the blues. Party of irresponsible paupers, criminals, and fraud. Liberals, basically. Optimates are the rich haughty net-tax-payer party. Armies were made primarily of Optimates. Truckers vote against Caesar.

"In 60 BC, Caesar sought election as consul for 59 BC, along with two other candidates. The election was sordid—even Cato, with his reputation for incorruptibility, is said to have resorted to bribery in favour of one of Caesar's opponents."

Reminder that -returning to proper spelling- Kaisar had to cross the Rubicon because he had broken approximately every law during his stay as consul. The reason he wanted to be consul in the first place was exactly to get away with breaking the law - Roman consuls could not be persecuted for lawbreaking during their tenure. He was none too good at following it even without that protection.

Only there were term limits. Kaisar was not eligible for re-election. If he had crossed into Rome without declaring war, he would have ended up very, very arrested. Had to stage War of American Rebellion, alpha version 0.2 instead. 

Hey maybe don't hold up criminals as heroes. Unless you want me to rightly call you a criminal, of course. 

"In power he did treat his original supporters well. But he treated everyone well. "

More journalisms? 

I mean, that's who gets literally stabbed in the back, with a knife, right? Someone who treats everyone well? Reminder that Hungary's Orban can drive around his country without a secret service escort. 

Kaisar was known for his mercy. He would sometimes forgive those who antagonized him. Not those pirates that one time, but quite a few folk. Brutus, for example, was a beneficiary of Kaisar's mercy. 

"Oligarchies often contain little invisible emperors of their own fields—but they abhor any formal centralization of power."

The Alrenous Thousand Emperors hypothesis. In particular, the crypto-Pope. 

"[Kaisar] was also an aristocrat born and raised, which was no more an obstacle then than it is now."

He was a degenerate. He fatally wounded Rome, ensuring it was 100% destined for total destruction. He got the traitor's end he exactly deserved. Rome should have rejected him utterly, but instead joined the traitor's cause and likewise suffered the wrath of Nemesis. 

"When we compare Chinese politics today to Chinese politics 50 years ago, from the Red Guards to TikTok, we cannot ascribe the loss of mass political engagement to any genetic or cultural factor. We are still looking at Chinese people, in China, being Chinese."

Mao was a CIA agent - admitted on the CIA's own website - almost fully Anglified. When the CCP referred to a Communist party, it wasn't being Chinese in the slightest.

Maoist were immensely destructive towards traditional Chinese culture, a) because it was so offensively Chinese and b) because that's how Anglos behave toward traditional Anglo culture in their own home countries.

You can check out ESR, but the match between Yuri Bezmenov's account and Maoist tactics demonstrates the GAE isn't as innocent of demoralization operations as ESR supposes.

Indeed - who said it? - Communism is as American as apple pie. Stalin was Anglified. Anglos run demoralization on themselves and try to make everyone else do so too. 

"It is hard to imagine what blue Americans would look like if excluded from power"

They can't feed themselves, so they would look dead.

"While it is hard to answer this question, any one who is not a gamer would probably agree: without games, gamers would probably be better off than they are now."

Aspiring boomer. 

I mean yeah don't play Fortnite, sure. 

I guess I moralize about coffee, though. Pretty sure coffee's worse. Games don't have withdrawal.

"All we know is that this aristocracy is, like most aristocracies, made out of amazing human beings."

Allegedly knows all about Kaisar and hasn't even read the Republic.

Not like this guy:

"Plato! Gawker may not know Plato, but Plato knows Gawker:"

"I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either."

"In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young."

"In any case, from Plato’s dialogue we see how the witch-hunter can invert the reality of power and presents himself as the underdog, fighting back against the gigantic and all-encompassing conspiracy of witches."

That guy seemed to get it.

Moldbug's Autocracy is Leftist Part 1

"must be neutral in the American culture war."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/autocracy-and-cultural-peace

An actual rightist is in fact neutral - because it's none of his business. How many Amish even know that Woke is a thing? If you want to hold a culture war, be my guest. It has nothing to do with me. In this case it takes two to tango, and I refuse to dance; find someone else.

"has the formula which lets both sides win their wars: monarchy."

This. My god.

"We have the formula that lets Stalin and Hitler both win!" No, uh, you kind of need both of them to lose.
"We have the formula that lets smallpox and (mythological) covid both win!" Errr....you sure that's what you're going with?

As above, I don't. Both are weak and can't make me do shit. Stop following the Pope, bro.

ProTip: speaking of, stop trying to convert the Pope. Professionals don't try to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep!
The Pope is always an atheist. He knows he's not Catholic. Like, papal infallibility alone...he, above all, knows damn fine God doesn't have anything to say to him and he's not infallible. He's not in it for piety, he's a psychopath. The B-est of cluster B's. Sees nothing of value in this world except political power. Kratia uber alles. 

"The deep right is neutral in any culture war—sympathizing sincerely with both black plague and polio"

"because its mission is to anticipate being the [arch-meddler]" As leftist, as irresponsible, as possible, yes, that's how I always characterize rightists. 

"Such a [super-meddler] will peacefully impose a healthy, well-designed peace on both sides." It would be funny if this weren't replacing old Moldbug. I suppose it's still pretty funny. Bittersweet, though. 

Christianity obviously has some internal tensions. The Old Testament in particular has some pro-property statements. "Leave your neighbour's stuff with your neighbour, asshats." Then it has communism and other forms of pure masochism.

Old Moldbug took this lesson to heart. First, have some internal tensions. Next, resolve them by coming down firmly on Satan's side. "The way to defeat your enemies is to feed and clothe them."
Buddhism does this occasionally too. "Oh, you're stealing from me? Allow me to help. I keep my money over here!" Here in Reality that merely encourages crime. Ref: read a newspaper.

"Peace is possible because both sides sincerely believe they are fighting in self-defense."

Laughable. Moldbug believes peace is impossible. 

"A well-designed peace can relieve both sides of the feeling that they need to dominate the other side "

When you dominate both sides, it really discredits the idea that you win via domination...

It's true that democracy makes these tensions worse. That's by design. Divide and conquer. If no divisions exist, create them. 

Something a ""Monarchy"" can also do just fine.

If this solution was what it's trying to portray itself as, you don't actually need to win anything. Craft a peace proposal and start telling folk about it. If it's really a good idea, in their own self-interest, they will accept it. Don't have to "monarchy" a damn thing. 

Problem: democracy reveals they want a fight. They like having someone to punch. Reign in Hell vs. serve in Heaven. I do get tired of having to repeat cliches when it's clear someone doesn't know them yet. 

"In a culture war, it is very easy to see the difference between peace and victory: do you impose your culture on your enemy?"

Making gay marriage legal, for example. Making immigration and ""assimilation"" normal. Smearing responsibility with the "autocracy" brush. 

Easiest way to manufacture consent is fait accompli; everyone is mostly okay with gay marriage now. As a matter of fact something like 80% of America took at least one shot of the vax. Peasants do what they're told, think what they're told, and feel what they're told.

So yeah that's what happens. The only problem is Communism is Omnicide. Recalling that in America it's left vs. less-left...if the left wins, you all starve to death. The fact this is so obvious is the only reason it hasn't already happened, and it will continue to be the only reason it doesn't happen in the future.

"An aristocracy loves nothing so much as to kick around the commoners."

Disgusting democratic propaganda. In reality an aristocrat can't be arsed to even know what the commoners are up to, unless forced by events to pay attention. If you told Elon Musk your problems, would he even remember them ten seconds later? He has rockets to launch and you don't matter.

Of course this is exactly how narcissists and psychopaths behave, due to their intolerable self-loathing. These are sick people, not aristocrats. 

Lowborn narcissists in particular are consumed by envy. Musk "kicks them around" because his rockets give him social status, and social status is zero-sum. The more Musk has, the less the narcissist has. Like psychopaths, they see no point in this world but kratia, so this "damages" the only thing they care about.

"in such behavior the student of history can see no unnatural order of things."

Lie.

 

 "A king also has a motivation to protect the aristocracy, who are in general his most delicate, refined, talented and fragile citizens."

Weird version of democratic propaganda.

You think of someone delicate and fragile when you imagine a Kshatriya? Yeah, sure you do.

Totally, when I think of Cardinals, I think of total pushovers who need protection...

From these particularly egregious solecisms, we can work out what fantasy world Moldbug is trying to push. E.g. whose ego do these lies flatter. From the fantasy world you can work out the intended real-world effects. If you're into that sort of thing. 

 

"The blue mind may have more trouble abandoning its universal ambitions."

Yeah, weird how the parasite has trouble relinquishing the host. "May," kek.
The gross thing is how the host feels that parasitism is justified. Of the many reasons I call the "red" mind less-left, this is one of them.

"But the opinions of progressives will not matter at all to conservatives."

Don't need a monarchy. It already doesn't matter to the Amish, and it already doesn't matter to me.

Disavow the Pope already.

 

--

 

A healthy society can't tolerate crime. This really should be self-evident.

Present Americans think they can't live without crime, especially the left. Conquest #1: they're probably not wrong.  

Maybe their children could learn different. There's quite a few leftist urges that aren't inherently criminal, if properly contained in a system of strong property rights. It's not like they have to give up their openness to experiences. 

Anyway, concluding the other half tomorrow.

Twitter's Biowarfare Labs

Musk will discover Twitter is not a profitable company and requires regular infusions of "liquidity" with dubious provenance because it's actually laundered Fed money.

It is likely he will mention this in public. 

I am thus a bit puzzled: why aren't they fighting his purchase tooth and nail? Maybe, like 2016, they think the cutouts are secure - that the fix is already in? 

They are in fact secure. Musk could trumpet this stuff from the rooftops and it still wouldn't make a difference. The American voter is sufficiently subservient. The Regime habitually acts as if these things are relevant, though. Much the same way the weird thing isn't that 2020 was defrauded, but that like 2004 wasn't defrauded. 

Maybe they realize that, since Americans are so subservient, control of Twitter is an unnecessary expense? "Thanks Musk; now we don't have to pay off these useless yuppies anymore." However, that's drinking deeply from the 4D chess well.

The only thing you can be 100% sure about is that the real story isn't being told.

Hume's Guillotine, Final Form

Universal morality is a contradiction in terms. Good and evil are only approximately real.

If evil is unrewarding in the long term, you don't avoid it because of morality, you avoid it because it's imprudent. E.g. hard drugs. Costs are bad mmmkay.

If evil is rewarding in the long term, it's not evil. Even if it imposes costs on others, then you can pay off those affected out of the profits of evil. Everyone benefits. Nobody is harmed. Not evil. E.g. waste disposal.

Assuming evil exists, there is no such thing as evil. QED. 

There is no ought from is because there is no ought, period.

What exists is the tension between short and long term. Drugs: good high, long crash. Imprudent. But, worth talking about. The short term is easy to see and the long term more difficult; it's worth reminding yourself and others that the long term is bigger than the short term and thus worth more. 

In the case of short term costs and long term profits, but the costs are borne by others: they will fight back, making the costs higher and higher until you see no profit, and then you won't do it unless you're an idiot. There are in fact no long term profits. Indeed you will likely see this very obvious response and not even attempt it in the first place. Or you will pay them off to let you do it anyway, thus reviving the profits. Edge cases aside, they will charge you the market rate. 

Naturally some try to trick you into letting them impose costs on you, and this approximation of evil is a close approximation. 

It is important not to let them get away with it unless you want to die.

They will try to tell you costs are not costs. Remind them that costs are in fact costs, and any attempt to impose costs will be met with imposing costs right back. Violence, if you will. It is always the case that you can inflict enough damage on someone that their attempt to unilaterally extract value from you becomes unprofitable. The only real question is whether you're a coward or not. 

Even in the case they're too stupid to acknowledge deterrance, that means they are stupid and weak. As long as you're not totally pathetic you will be able to exploit their stupidity to get them killed or otherwise neutralized. 

In a sense there's a pseudo-ought. If you value a thing, there is some action that leads to you getting that thing, and some actions that don't. You ought to choose the actions that work, not the actions that don't. A rather degenerate [ought]. Again, merely a subset of prudence. Be wise, not foolish. If you were foolish and it worked out for you, it wasn't foolish; if you were wise and it didn't, it wasn't wise. Trying to be "moral" per se isn't wise.

Weapons of the Hand vs. Weapons of the Mind

Pre-script: this is a post about meta-thinking. Recognize a weapon by its purpose, not whether it's gun-shaped. 

Anything you can use to defeat your enemy is a weapon. The environment, social rules, the law, words or silence, their own friends, time itself - all weapons. At least, weapons as and when the opportunity to use them as such arises. 

A true warrior erases the distinction between warrior and scholar caste. All of Reality is a potential weapon, and wisdom & training is required to grasp things in such a wide scope. (P.S. As such, being a warrior is one way of training scholarship.) Truth is the deadliest.

Naturally artifacts specifically designed to be weapons are particularly good at defeating your enemies. However, even non-thinkers are aware of this. Even a mindless drone will work out that they need a bullet-proof vest if you shoot enough of their acquaintances. The attack draws forth the defence. The mind, then, becomes the ultimate weapon. If you can grasp more weapons in the mind than they can, then they are unable to defend themselves. You will always have an avenue of attack.  

Further, artifacts cost money whereas the environment happens by itself. If you allow the world to grant you weapons, you don't need to desperately seize or hold manmade weapons. If offence is needed, offence will be provided. Opportunity is as boundless as time.

P.P.S. Yet another reason honourable cooperation is important. Perfect security is impossible. Anything man can make, man can unmake. Allegorically, be tamper-evident, not tamper-proof. If someone wishes to tamper with your property, convince them it's more profitable not to - and catch them if they're trying to scam you. Likewise, the death sentence is critical. If someone refuses to abjure deviance, they must be deviated right off the mortal coil.

Because the mind is the greatest weapon, it behooves the highest warriors to attack the mind directly. Destroy their ability to want to attack you. Make them underestimate you. Make them think you're not a threat. Make them think you don't exist. The fate of a true warrior's enemy is to drown in delusion. 

They're stupid enough to want to be an enemy instead of a cooperator. Your mind is guaranteed to be superior to theirs. Accept this advantage, exploit it, and crush them when and however is convenient for you. 

If "God" is a metaphor for Reality in the widest possible view, then the Alpha and Omega of weapons is piety. A truly sacrosanct zone will not be attacked. The profanity from which the conflict arises makes them weak, unable to defend against it. In a material sense, the sacrosanct security will not be tested at all, because its enemies cannot conceive of it as an opponent. Security cannot be perfect, but perhaps meta-security can be.