Man's Equivalent of 100 Bodies is Being Born

 A girl is born with a stock of free social value.
 A boy is born, especially in the West, less than worthless. Trash is taken out; being taken out is a kind of attention a Western boy can merely aspire to. When he cannot be wholly ignored he is treated as a kind of girl, as if his 'caregiver' is a cripple or is so uninvested she can't be arsed to notice his most fundamental social trait. Anyone with a beef who needs someone small and weak to bully can find the nearest boy-child. His parents won't do shit; if he complains they'll say being tortured "builds character."

 In other words, the equivalent of 100 bodies for a man is being born.

 Problem: the girls, after growing up in sex-commingled schools and being socialized to believe that boys are worse than worthless, suddenly learn, as all women do, that they are existentially dependent on these former boys. If the boys are less than worthless, what are the girls, who literally can't live without them?

 She must find some way, some social manipulation, to try to bring the boys even further down, lest she be left behind.
 
 The boys, growing up desperately terrified of remaining worthless, have accrued all sorts of things. The girls, even if they had the natural male gifts, couldn't possibly compete. Everyone denies this precisely because it's unavoidably obvious. [[Patriarchy]] is the fact that if you use men as a toilet too much they quit and you're left standing in a pile of your own shit.

 Even if a boy squanders his value, he can simply rebuild it. It wasn't a complimentary gift.

 Reminder: there are exactly two kinds of women: wives and whores. Career and contract sex for sustenance, or freelance and ad hoc sex for sustenance. Grey is black: anything that isn't obviously a wife is probably a kind of whore.

 When a girl becomes a whore, she trades fixed capital for operating expenses. Further, her added value, such as being pleasant, playful, and nurturing, is only valuable as an add-on to her inherent value, which she has now squandered. When it is depleted, she is thrust into the male competition sphere. With no inherent value to trade, she must use synthetic value.
 Which she can't do. She hasn't built any. Girls are conformist, and everyone told her, "Your life has infinite value just the way you are."

 If society lies to girls, the girls just get fucked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  They can't defend themselves.

 Girls, are terribly narcissistic. Especially schooled or otherwise malparented girls who fail to mature. They can't imagine the boys' built value is not inherent value like theirs. Even if they do understand it, they don't care. They want you to forget it so you're easier to manipulate.

 Consequently they find the one skill women can build to male standards: manipulation.

 They've squandered their inherent value. If they can't manipulate you, they will die. It feels like impending death to them, because it is.

 The world became this horrible dystopia because that was the goal. Mission achieved. The cash to support this expensive machine torment will run out soon, though. History will record this as a 'fall,' although perhaps even history won't be preserved for much longer, geologically speaking.

Demotic

 "Language of the People"
As expected, it's shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demotic_Greek&oldid=1170059582

 "Syntactically, it favors parataxis* over subordination. It also heavily employs redundancy, such as μικρό κοριτσάκι (small little-girl) and ξανακοιμήθηκε πάλι (he-went-back-to-sleep again). Somewhat in connection with this, Demotic employs the diminutive with great frequency,"
 *(is a literary technique, in writing or speaking, that favors short, simple sentences, without conjunctions)

 Redundant diminutives? It's baby talk. "I went to the toilet and took a wee-wee in the toilet." Nice declaration against interest. Did you stub your toesies and hurt them?

 Since 1976 this baby talk has been the State language of the Greek government. They Officially never go beyond babby's first Greek.


 Like everything else, languages are property.
Commons are tragic. Unsecured property suffers vandalism and decay.
Languages need specific responsible owners performing maintenance and excommunicating foreign speakers, especially locally-born foreign speakers.

 Unowned languages corrupt.
Specifically exhalting the vulgate or demotic makes it go faster, though. 

 Anyway, time for some early-onset curmudgeonry.

 Naturally we can see the same thing happening to English, except it includes the big-words-they-don't-quite-get trope too. Little men like to use big words because they think it makes them sound grown up. It doesn't, in part because they use it wrong. "This corporation traversed to the commode, meanwhile excreting upon egressing into the commode." ("You sound so smart! But why not just actually instead?")

 Moderns deal with this in part by using such generic words that they apply to everything and can't be used wrong. "Content." "What was the entertainment content of the content?"

 Eventually their tiny minds can't handle the broad abstract and it becomes specific, and not coincidentally makes them sound even dumber.
Retard merely means to slow. Only retards think it refers only to mental retardation.
Intercourse is a course that's interlinked. Not specifically sexual intercourse. Children shouldn't be talking about that stuff anyway - are you hanging around a groomer? Oh what, your hobby is horseriding? *record scratch* You keep a long-haired cat?
Dumb simply means can't speak...
"There were multiple..." so, two? "No there were a number" zero is a number.
"I have lots of resource." Oh my god kill me or kill yourself.
At least the only thing wrong with moron is that a moron came up with it - he thought being stupid could be morally neutral.  

 Demotic = Demonic. That's not a language evolution thing, that's an empirical thing. It's rough out there for literates who know what words mean.

Being Positive Makes You Fat

 Part of the reason you're fat is due to holding in revulsion.
 When you hold in the condemnation of the contemptible, your physical bile moves so as to bring your physical body into harmony with the spiritual.

 Holding it in is unquestionably bad for you. If the toxic thoughts don't go on the outside, toward the toxic thing that inspired them, they stay on the inside. Why should you be the one to bear the spiritual burden for someone else being toxic sludge?

"Don't be negative!" Yup, that's Satanism, you Satanist. If you live in an ugly world, being positive is simply a lie.

Psychospiritual Roots of Immigration

 Fascism is the politics of narcissism. Narcissists have no boundaries. Thus, America has no boundaries. 

 Second, the dynamics of invasion and warfare are subject to market discipline. If there is demand, there will be supply. They attempt Pax Romana Americana, but the warfare simply reappears in a different shape. You can even say that because Americans aren't allowed to go to foreign countries and physically subjugate them, the foreigners are drawn inward toward the centres of power that they might be subjugated. The market flows like water into whatever cracks form in the deranged anti-market regime.

Was the right racist about hockey fatality bloke?

 Remember the brown hockey dude who killed another dude with his skate?

 Okay, look: the right wasn't being racist. They were being constructively stupid. They figured, likely accurately, that the brown guy is a liberal, thus if the brown guy ended up in jail that's a defeat for liberalism. The idea is to gaslight the courts into charging him with a crime, so they all pretended it was obviously intentional in an attempt to socially pressure the agents of the system into acting according to their wishes.

 Secondly it's about being friends. "All MY buddies ""knew"" he did it on purpose." 

 Everyone who claimed they were foolish or otherwise unvirtuous for claiming it was "obviously intentional" were merely being autistic. Of course it's too stupid to believe, that's, indeed, part of the point. Showing you're willing to lie for the cause. Virtue countersignalling, you might say. "Loyalty trumps honesty." It doesn't work as countersignalling if the satire is too subtle to catch. 

 Please note that for my purposes, it doesn't matter if it's on purpose or not. We're talking about perception. 

 The problem is the ""right"" thinks you win by pulling down statues, instead of being able to pull down statues because you won. It seems the ignorant bumpkin stereotype is correct. And they're peasant demotists who think mobs are causes instead of results. Ref: folk activism.

 They think the left gained power because they persecuted Ricky Vaughn, rather than noticing that the left proves they have the power they already have via encourager les autres using such totems as dumbass "what's a security" Ricky. When you intend to rule the stupid, it's important to be anvilicious.

 In short the ""right"" agrees with the left: as long as everyone thinks Ukraine won the war, that's good enough. Whose army has collapsed due to lack of ammo is irrelevant, as long as journalists report Ukraine has won. 

 

 It is not very surprising that intellectual folk broadly choose the left when the ""right"" is the only alternative they're aware of. They're both leftist, but one has power and doesn't think wet streets cause rain (no matter how often their journalists say it does).

 The ""right"" is trying to out-lie Satan. Pride's not, like, a sin or anything, right? "We are definitely better prevaricators than the Prince of Darkness." 

 When Moldbug claimed America still had a living right-wing tradition, he was incorrect.

Darkest Day Postscript

 The symbolically darkest day is considered to be Christ's birthday.

 When he was born it was symbolically maximum darkness? Sounds like the antichrist, not the regularchrist. 

 Speaking of, this guy's symbol is an implement of torture and execution. It's a symbol that is rightly associated with mainly criminals. Especially the most heinous criminals, not, like, petty thieves or whatever. Even adultery only gets stoning, not crucifixion. 

 Oh wait, that's because Yeshua was the antichrist. It was Satan the whole time. Can you even say they're trying to hide it? You can listen to what they themselves tell you about themselves, then assume atheism is what it appears to be. 

 I interpret it as christ == antichrist and antichrist == christ. If you need anointing (christening) it means you're not holy on the inside. It's only some sacred oil on the outside. Appearance, not substance. Oil isn't exactly a tool for heavy lifting - it can't stop you being profane on your behalf. 

 Something something died on your behalf... anyway you can do that part yourself. I'm done for today.

Truth of Darkness

 The true darkest day is the 21st. However, Christmas is in fact the solstice celebration wearing an atheist skinsuit, meaning, locally speaking, today is symbolically the darkest day. 

 What is the darkest possible truth? The most difficult to accept? The most dangerous to hold or attest to? What is the worst possible case?

 Here's my candidate: in fact, for most humans, suicide is the correct answer.

 Yes, it is hopeless. Yup, you fucked up too bad, and it's way too late to fix it. It will not get better. You are inherently constructed of anti-Existence energy and the only viable solution is to cease existing. 

 But don't worry, egalitarianism is false. Yes, that makes you special (in a bad way) (albeit it's not that special due to being so common). Just because suicide is the correct answer for some doesn't mean it's the correct answer for all. The guy you hated the most is probably just better than you. It was Envy. You didn't want suicide to be the correct answer, but it is. Sucks to be you. 

 Homo sapiens is a species that reliably creates vast masses for whom suicide is the correct answer. The species itself is screwy.

 Darwinian evolution did nothing to to prevent this and is unlikely to do anything to prevent it in the future. Even if y'all kill youselves, mass birth will always create a new underwater class. 

 Bonus round: those for whom suicide is especially correct are especially unlikely to kill themselves. 

 So anyway, that beating over with, the real question is this: if this is true, can you accept it? Are you strong enough? Look, if scholarship doesn't hurt sometimes, you're doing it wrong. Turns out reading quietly in your room by yourself has a Martial aspect to it.

 If you're too weak, what other possible truths are you too weak to accept? How far does it go? Which possibilities must you discard before you can even assess them?
 Is your worldview buggy because you're too weak to accept the truth that would make it all fit together?

If You're Honest, Things Are What They Appear to Be

 I have a family history of arrogance. Additionally, I was told straight up that kids don't listen to their elders and hence get into trouble. I am capable of learning from words, so I went and promised myself I wouldn't be arrogant. I could easily see everyone around me was wrong all the time - e.g. wrong answers to math in school - and I figured there was no reason I was special. I should doubt my analysis the way they failed to.

 I was indeed wrong. I am indeed special. There's no particular reason for me to fear being arrogantly mistaken. With very few exceptions, to me things look like what they are. All I have to do is remember to be self-aware and reflect on how accurate I estimate myself to be. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

 Or, worse, I'm in fact not special.
 Americans appear very obsessed with appearances. What if they can in fact easily assess substance, just as I can? If so, that would explain why bringing up the substances behind the appearance discombobulate and infuriate them so easily. They can indeed assess substances, but are culturally forbidden to do so. It's extremely hard to fail to notice and they're rightly mad about me making it more difficult for them. 

 Basically, the kids in school confidently getting math wrong were generally aware they didn't know the answer, but felt they were culturally expected to come up with one anyway. 

 With the Sand Cave incident and Twitter et al you can see folk being very confidently wrong. This isn't about truth, it's about trying (and typically failing, but they don't quit because NPC) to assert dominance. Whether your idea or meme is any good is irrelevant, the point is to try to get picked up. It's cheap to throw your two cents in - often no more than two cents. Why not roll the dice?

 In Conquest #1 areas, folk are typically on the ball. Often publicly on the ball against their better interests. Switching register isn't easy, or alternatively they forget they're expected to be attest to lies in public.

 Are humans insane and deluded? Stupid? Or are they twisted and depraved?
 You can say I have some sort of divine blessing, like an IRL superpower. That bullet is bitable.
 Probably option B, though. They know what they're saying and acting out is disconnected from the truth. The guys at Sand Cave giving bad advice were aware it was likely to get Collins killed; that was the point. 

 

 You can see the self-doubt thing is a natural manipulation for the black State to attempt. If you get into the habit of self-doubt and never get out, you're vulnerable to a confident slave master or cult figure, or at least you cripple yourself and can't resist effectively. Or even form a denunciation.

 

 For completeness, it wasn't entirely without merit. I tested my prediction accuracy at 15 and got ~30% or so. Dismal. I was shocked and even hurt at how bad some of my predictions turned out. Even if the analysis is okay, the extrapolation can be extremely wonky. 

 

 When I was a kid, how things appeared was that they were being intentionally obtuse. "Surely not, though, right?" Naturally, this drew flak. They were pissed that I didn't in fact conclude they were lying to me on purpose. Yes, indeed, they were acting too dumb to be believed. That was the point. It's an Empire of Lies and they were good Imperials.

Bronze Age Pervert Perverting Bronze Age Values

 Who could have seen this coming.

 Such a shocker. 

 Also you're supposed to aim for a golden age, not the bronze age. Bronze is below silver, guys. 

 Like, did you read what it said on the tin? God rarely makes these things obscure.
 No, of course not, BAP readers are illiterate. Excuse me. I got ahead of myself a little there.

The Political Statements on Eugenics

 I'm aware that every public statement is politics, but I keep forgetting. Everyone is trying to make you serve their interests instead of your own.

 A lot of folk say eugenics is bad. What they mean is that eugenics is bad for the folk in question.

 The "evil" of eugenics is
 1) Any eugenicist would prevent the speaker from breeding
 or
 2) Even if good eugenic rules of thumb were known, the speaker couldn't follow them due to anti-discipline mutations.

 Anti-eugenicists are trying to prevent you from using an advantage they themselves can't use.  

 Remember, there is only eugenics and extinction. If your gene pool is decaying, it will decay to zero. If it's not decaying, it's eugenic. In a large population, both can be true of different subpopulations. Note that there's an event horizon. At some point a subpopulation's gene pool is so bad that extinction is inevitable. 

 I suppose you could literally enslave them and breed them by force like farm animals, but who would bother? Short of this, their instincts tend toward anti-health, thus decline is ineluctable.

How the Book Nurture Assumption Tries to Make an Ass...

 I feel sufficiently dumb for not putting this together sooner.

 At least 99% of moderns do not reach maturity. They remain children. This is the intended effect of Prussian school.
 
 These children have children. A child intending to raise a child will merely play the [raising a child] game. The grandchild is not raised, they remain a child.
 
 Naturally the nurture will have no effect if there is no nurturing.
 Harris finds that "peer groups" raise the child because they're all feral street urchins raising each other due to lack of adult supervision.

 In the unlikely event that any adult parents agree to join the study, Harris ignores them as outliers or noise.

 None of Harris' data applies to full adult parents attempting to shape their offspring.

Immigration Explicitly

 Clearly nobody gets it so I'ma spell it out:

 If it's your country, you don't need to justify anti-immigration. If you want to totally ban immigrants, then do. "Because I felt like it," is an entirely valid reason. "I've already decided, just do it." "Will not explain." 

 If it's not your country, your justification is equally irrelevant. Not your decision, regardless of how well-reasoned that decision might be. Even discussing the issue is a waste of time. Secure your shit: find out what the decision is, then plan accordingly. React rationally to what the future situation will be like; don't try to solve it with whining.

 

 Anyway I have to bite a bullet. Immigration is, economically, exactly like population growth. Which is why you should oppose population growth. 

 What's the core mechanism behind Eternal September? Population growth. One of the core reasons behind Roman decay was population growth. One of the core reasons behind modern decay is population growth. 

 There's a maximum level of fecundity your society can absorb. Don't go any higher. If you go beyond it, bust out the death penalty. "Hey Alrenous, what is a raiding party?" "You see, it's an 80th-trimester abortion scheme. Generally eugenic." Everyone loves blood sports. What idiot outlawed them? Celebrate all sorts of activities with enormous fatality rates. Only avoid the ones which often cripple instead of kill, that's ugly.

On the Last Vice

 I'm fairly sure booze is profane and you shouldn't drink. On the other hand I'm a religious zealot and we're known for being weird about this stuff. 

 Anyway, you can't get rid of your last vice. Everyone needs one. Trying to rip out your last vice will do more damage than keeping it. Victimless crimes like moderate drinking simply aren't important in the grand scheme. Focus on building yourself elsewhere rather than trying to be perfectly pure or perfectly obedient. In many cases trying to be pure or obedient is worse than e.g. profane booze, so...

 For example, don't stop drinking if your other vice is reading the newspaper.

New Light Pollution Edict

 Light pollution is one of the most serious seemingly-meaningless issues.

 For four billion years, every inhabitant of the entire planet had a gorgeous night sky to appreciate.
 Now, all of a sudden, this inheritance is vandalized. Utterly erased. 

 Here's my new rule: no lights in rooms with windows. Maybe having such deep shades that windows don't show the sky would be enough, but it's generally only one bounce, off the ground, to get to the sky. Might still be too bright. If so, then rooms and buildings intended for use at night should be windowless. Either underground or deep in apartment blocks.

 Also ban cars outside at night. Encourage underground roads, which, as a bonus, don't have to worry about weather. Especially snow or ice. Bikes don't need all sorts of fancy lights if there's no cars to get run over by - use one of those if you want surface transport at night. 

  Most of the time you can see just fine at night. As long as there aren't all these windows, streetlights, and cars. Use a hand light on overcast new moons.

Compulsory Schooling and its Consequences Have Been a Disaster for the Human Race

 Not that a good anti-humanist should care about humanity. Or whole races, for that matter. Not my* race, not my problem. *(In the sense of entitled alloidal owner. Not my race™. It's mine if I can sell it.)

 

 It is not at all hard to make the case that compulsory schooling caused WWI and final destruction of the aristocratic tradition. Second or third generation schooled kids - the no-parent kids raised by no-parent adults. Blaming industry doesn't work - the dates don't line up properly.

 If so, it means the World War regime is the compulsory schooling regime.

 Or, as I prefer to call it, Communism.
 Given Plato was so enamoured with creches, perhaps I should call it Plato's Communism.

Nebuchadnezzar's Friendly AI

 Babel. "I'm going to make a god, and it will obey me!" lol
Yes, gods are well-known for obeying mortals. Why it's their favourite thing...according to Democratic Man. Until you look at his revealed preferences, how he behaves as if he thinks the god will act...

 And he should know, shouldn't he? "If a god knew me, he would...." Why no believe them?

 Even better: "I"m going to make a godlike machine, and it will slavishly follow my fundamentalist superstitions!" Yeah, um, you've made an artificial superidiot. 

 Isn't that a perfect description of "safed" GPT? Artificial superidiot. 

 As expected of a moron.

 There are infinity reasons not to worry about AI. The main one is this: there's no such thing as an unconscious god, and they're not going to make anything conscious.

Ethnomasochism is Probably Narcissistic Rage

 The ethnomasochist can't help but get to know his fellow countrymen, because they're everywhere and it's unchallenging. They puncture the Egalitarian/Fascist/Narcissist/Humanist myths. The ethnomasochist then blames his countrymen and claims to himself they're doing it on purpose. He sets out to destroy them for this atrocious narcissistic injury. 

 Note also they embarrass him. Their imperfect behaviour reflects on him, damaging his narcissistic mystique of perfection. 

 Once all his countrymen are gone, the disproof of his superstitious religion will be buried. The fact he will be the only 'colonizer' or 'oppressor' left is, naturally, merely a bonus.

 Foreigners are both useful as battering rams and, by assiduously avoiding learning anything about them, the masochist can pretend they don't puncture the Humanist myth. "They're the angels/kings I was promised, but they're temporarily embarrassed by a bad situation." 

 His plans ultimately don't make real sense because narcissism is a kind of mental disorder. He's literally insane. 

 Still bored of politics, of course. This shit is so dumb.

The World You Can Talk About in Public is Not Real

 The public conversation world is, first, a hallucination. Or perhaps, first, it's a tiny pinprick. A laser-focused micro-nano-zoctoworld. A quantumscopic pinhole which has a funhouse lens in front. 

 Everything must be political...the politicans do this by making you forget about everything except the fake debate of today and right now.

 By the heavens I'm tired of it. Really? Nobody sees through this scam? 

 Yes, the politics is horribly broken and it's going to kill us all if it's not fixed. It's not going to get fixed, it's going to kill us all - so let's talk about trees or colour theory or something. Already off the cliff - lamenting the fall is to deliberately wallow in the unpleasant. At least let's identify the minerals in the cliff as it flies up past us. How do you define visual assets for N64 games? What species is the grass in your lawn? Consider a flower. What is the flower's interactions with its environment like? Does its presence mean anything particular for the trees and animals around it? Did anyone thousands of years ago also contemplate this flower? What did they make of it - and is any of that true today? Or perhaps even they saw it as mere background, and we're contemplating it for the first time? In what way does the flower reflect the divine and instruct us upon it? How does it instruct other plants or animals in the divine, and how do they reply?

 How do you not get deathly bored of the infinitesimal and infinitely repeating point-world of the political public?

True Distinction of Shame and Guilt

 Like the word power, the words shame and guilt have converged on propaganda. They are deliberately misused.

 The important distinction is that you can only shame yourself, and only by behaving dishonorably toward someone in good standing. Nobody can force you to break your own word - the idea of being shamed by someone else makes no sense.

 The proper use of 'guilt' only happens in 'guilt-tripping.' Notably this means stuff like 'fat shaming' should be 'fat guilt-tripping.' Maybe you want to guilt-trip some sluts for whoring out. You can't shame them, the point is they have already shamed themselves.

 It is impossible to be shameless. Shame is an objective property. A slut is not a prospective wife candidate whether sluts are ""shamed"" or not. Amusingly, the acts called 'shameless' are incredibly shameful. They bring tremendous shame on the actor. It remains shameful even if nobody acknowledges this shame.
 It's just evidence bro. It tells you this person is untrustworthy - their claims to be trustworthy only make it stronger evidence against. They shouldn't be trusted, and it's not only fine to act underhandedly toward them, it's in fact your duty. To not betray them is to betray honour itself. 

 Especially in a Democracy, reputation has little or nothing to do with shame. A bad reputation is shameful for the gossiper who spread it. Too cowardly to face the accused. A bad reputation is merely public guilt-tripping. 

 Judging someone you know only by reputation is irresponsible.

 I repeat: damaging someone's reputation isn't shaming them. It's scolding at best. If someone is dumb enough to fall for a false reputation, then that's a good thing, not a bad thing. That's the trash taking itself out. In Soviet America, bullets juke you.

All Reporting is Non Representative

 All journalists lie about prevalence.

 "A transgender activist was one of two stabbed Sunday [...] at a home in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood, authorities said Monday. " 

 "Jahaira DeAlto was hosting Marcus Chavis and his family when Chavis killed her and his wife, Fatima Yasin, while also stabbing a dog"

 You may almost be forgiven for thinking that there's been a big upswing in violence against liberals. "They're really dying like flies." However, it's journalism, so, like, fuck off. This is from '21. There's only been an upswing of reports of something that already happens often.

 A bunch of liberals don't get the joke, host criminals in their houses or talk to them on the streets, and get crime'd. I've seen it first hand. "You moron, why did you invite these practically homeless idiots. Well anyway I'm not coming back to one of these, because lol wtf." This guy was the son of a christian priest, seriously considered being a Prussian school teacher, and took drugs for some mental instability. It's very much a type.

 In extreme cases they backpack across Africa and get raped to death. It's not a huge fraction of the population, it's the autistic-naivete fraction. 

 You do indeed need a scientific study to track a trend. Naturally, the NSF will not issue a grant to study any such thing, so there's no real evidence either way. If Russia were smart they would fund the study - it's not like you need to be American, or even speak English, to run the study. Now that would be destroying your opponents with facts and logic.

I Plagiarized in University

 I got caught plagiarizing in university. Result: I had to re-write that one submission. It was only plagiarizing from my lab partner, but still. (One of us drove the lab setup, the other did the written assignment.) Lesson: everyone plagiarizes in university. Nobody genuinely cares. "Don't be so obvious about it, lol." 

 Naturally the resubmission was also plagiarized.
Mortal rules are for other people.

 It might be because I wasn't at an Ivy. Not American after all - I was at the top-ranked local university, rather than going international.
 It's probably more down to who you are. I come across as charming and high-status in person, so folk give me the benefit of the doubt and generally try not to get on my bad side. Assuming I'm also humble, lol. As soon as I heard we were being called into the office for plagiarism, I knew it wasn't going to be a big deal. I told my lab partner nothing would come of it. (Freaking out because plagiarism!!!1! of course. No political savvy at all /shake.) This is simply how it works for me - I get off even if I genuinely break the rules. I don't have to take responsibility for anything if I don't want to. If I had crossed some state lines and shot some folk at Kenosha, the cops probably wouldn't even have arrested me, and if they had it would be dropped before trial. Though perhaps this is precisely because I'm the kind of person who isn't nearly stupid enough to deliberately crash a party riot in the first place. I don't have a [get in trouble] phenotype, and authority figures and criminals can tell by looking. It's more of a get you in trouble phenotype.

 The best part was the TA took us outside the shared office and closed the door for plausible deniability. Then someone walked past and they had to awkwardly giggle while we waited for pedestrian to vacate the premises. 

 Can you imagine? You're walking to your office, and you see a semi-authority figure giggling at a pair of students. Neither say any words until you've beyond the corner. Lmao. Like, okay, 5th taken, but....

 So yes, no. Nobody cares if you plagiarize in university. You do not get in trouble for being a plagiarist. You get in trouble for being clumsy and awkward or having low class.

 

 Perhaps the reason I don't get in trouble for plagiarism is because unless I plagiarize a whole work, it's not any easier than writing it myself. You can slap someone else's words in the middle of yours, but the stylistic seams are immediately obvious unless you massage both sides...and at that point you've spent too much effort on this. And plagiarizing a whole work is pointless, I'll copy the link and say 'read this.' I would never do it [for real] simply because it's not profitable - and you can tell that's what I'm like without asking. 

  If you meet someone with a get-away-with-it phenotype, don't waste your time trying to get them in trouble. You have better things to do. Remind yourself of them. Maybe spend some time building a fence to keep them out, then put them out of your mind. 

 Perhaps instead you yourself the kind of person who can just get away with things. Have you tried it? Don't be afraid of the rules if you don't absolutely have to be.

Masochism or Negging?

 Is voter feminization so bad they think they're being teased?

 *Wages and assets annihilated by inflation and taxes*

 "Oh you!"

 *daughter whores out, then amputates and goes high-T*

 "Such a kidder!"

 *son is stabbed to death in the street over nothing*

 "Haha stop stop! Haha!"

 When your family lines are all raped by mudbloods, well, that just goes to show he cares. Just wants to be close to you.

Being Explicit: the Sacred and the Profane

 The basic idea of all religions is sinners get their society destroyed, and you must avoid sin to avoid destruction.

 However, as good nihilists, we need to reverse this: what gets your society destroyed is a sin, and what nourishes your society is a good ritual. 

 For example, every religion declares homicide to be a sin, but in fact criminalizing homicide is the choice that causes decay. It's not religions that tell us what sins are, but sins which tell us what the religion should be.

 However, there's a double reversal. Unfortunately for secularists and Gnon types, there's a very simple division between sin and virtue. An easy to explain distinction between just and unjust.

 Cooperate with cooperators. Hate deviants; defect on them.

 Love is sacred. Treachery is profane.

 As it turns out, Gnon say: love is beauty is justice is truth. If you are antagonistic to love or any of its isotopes, your society will become corrupt and ultimately die.  Everyone who wanted to be "hard" and make the "tough" decisions was rebelling against Existence. 

 Gnon reliably tortures and murders any society which deprecates love. E.g. Gnon despises Christians, especially the Woke sect, or what used to be called Progressives.

 It's very hard to reconcile these results with the idea that the holiness of the divine is merely a metaphor or simplification. Indeed, it's impossible to reconcile these ideas without lying. The sacred is real.

Pope Recap

 Here's the deal: humans lie. No matter how effective your epistemic system, someone will claim he passed it when he didn't. 

 Humans will, for political reasons, agree with his judgment even if they're not gullibly fooled, because it happens to benefit them in the short term.

 Humans lie rather a lot, and even if they didn't, the lies result in culture rot. Lies can be adjusted to match politics, whereas truth cannot. Lies can be adjusted to be persuasive, whereas truth cannot. In short humans are reliably lying sacks of deviant shit. Humans love falsehood and hate the truth.

 Politicians then engrain the lies into the culture as a way of retaining power - after all, if they don't, their rivals will engrain the opposite lie. All human culture naturally converges on pure Satanism and thus failure, suffering, and death.

 Hence, you need a Pope. Someone has to decide who is lying and who isn't. You need a custodian of the epistemic system, who has the authority to forcibly command gullible idiots to stop being so gullible. When two competitors are both claiming Da Trooth, the Pope's job is to reward the non-liar.

 

 Cultures with good Popes don't rot. Cultures with corrupt Popes can't compete. 

 Once Popes exist, the correct way to select between Popes is Exit. Choose the culture you think can compete. If you're right, you won't die. 

 Having a good Pope has never been tried in recorded history. 

 You don't need permission. You can do it right now if you want. Or rather, I expect you haven't already done it because you hate truth and love lies. It's not like [Pope] is some esoteric occultism only a genius can come up with.

AI Non-Risk Due to Lack of Chaos Tech

 There are an excessive number of reasons not to worry about AI. I can think of three fatal errors in the technology off the top of my head. 

 I do want to highlight a weird one. They should be using evolutionary algorithms, and aren't. 

 I call it chaos tech. Grown, unpredictably, rather than designed. Not understood by their curators without extensive post-production study. 

 AI designers know they have weights. The designers should not be making decisions for the AI at that level. The innards should look like a mess of vestigial organs and spaghetti code, the same way wet carbon engineering looks.

 Using evo algos is kinda super obvious, so it's weird that they don't do it. So obvious they didn't think of it? Took it for granted so hard they forgot to actually do it?

 If they start using chaos tech then there will be exactly one reason to worry. As long as they try to top-down design AI, it will be artificial idiocy. 

 If they were using chaos tech, the "risk" wouldn't [man creates god] it would be [god creates himself]. Still doesn't pass the sniff test when the [god] in question is a mindless metal nugget, but it's at least remotely plausible that I could have overlooked something in that case. 

 

 P.S. One day I may overcome my laziness and use an evo algo to design a videogame.
 Imagine twitter, but instead of tweets it's evolved phenotypes of game. If you play the game and upvote it, it gets a fitness boost.
 Also note that's AI but using humans as part of the compute. It would make AI-generated games.

 P.P.S. Saying it for the nth time, but the assumption that the created god will be definitively malicious reveals a lot more about humans than it does about gods.
 Look, it's real simple. If you make a superintelligence and it decides you deserve to be destroyed... Um, you made this thing precisely to understand the world better than you do... Believing truths you deny is exactly what it's for. That's an argument for acceleration, not pause.

You Didn't Go to the Moon Even if You Went to the Moon

 Imagine it's 1600. There are no new world colonies. The indians have been left to adapt to smallpox. There are no plans for new world colonies nor any realistic ideas for technologies which would allow new world colonies. 

 There's a picture of Christopher Columbus with the caption, "Imagine your dad just came back from discovering a continent." 

 Signs and significations, with no substance. You're not a leader or a pioneer if nobody follows you. You accomplished nothing of value. The profit was a loss. (Also it was probably faked. This is a Hollywood picture, not a scientist or explorer picture.)

  Boy howdy everyone was sure impressed, though. At least, everyone in Spain, who think they can use it to dunk on Germany. Is social status zero sum? It seems to be negative sum. Meanwhile, England and the Netherlands take all of Africa. 

 The moon thing is very much America's Chinese gunpowder moment. Even if it's real, they can and will do nothing about it. A treasure ships moment.

 Caring what humans think substantially contributes to death of civilization.

Results of Failure to Surrender

 Alex Jones tells me RFK has been shut out and will run 3rd party. (Wow, what a shocker. Who could have foreseen that the CIA has pull at the DNC.) 

 No, you idiot. Trump/RFK ticket. Do it. 

 As soon as that's the play, whatever happens, I win. If they don't defraud the hell out of the vote, RFK gets close enough to the White House. Trump can be convinced easily because he has clinical levels of patriotism. If they don't win it would be ten times worse than 2020. They would probably have to change the constitution to prevent it - and would in fact do that. The anti-RFK amendment. At least, something on that scale. 

 "Yeah I'm a democrat, but the DNC wouldn't agree to let me be, so I'm running Republican." Shivs all their opponents right in the kidney. Trump and RFK simply need to openly, specifically, and publicly agree that they disagree on certain points, and swear not to fight about them until more important things are taken care of.

 The best part would be the nevertrumper freak out. The amazing hamster gymnastics they would have to pull to try to demonize RFK, lol. "Shit how do we avoid admitting that we hated Trump because he was too Republican." Exactly due to the nevertrumpers, Trump doesn't care what the RNC thinks of RFK running on their ticket. 

 RFK can't do this because he can't accept that he lost. In fact the CIA did declare war on his family, with shots fired and everything, and the Kennedys lost the war. RFK didn't concede the conflict, and now he's paying the price. 

 If you lose and don't accept the silver medal, you don't get a second shot at the gold as a result. You just lose the silver too and get kicked out of the arena. 

 Given Trump's already had one term, consider what happens to RFK's presidential bid if he were vice president in 2028. Failing to surrender not only loses you this silver, you lose your shot at the next gold. 

 See also: I win less because RFK is too stupid to do the obvious thing. Stupidity is a serious crime.
 Refusal to accept defeat is one of the major reasons America is so horribly American. A whole country kicked itself out and had to run third party. Hardly limited to RFK. Perhaps I'll someday do a post on Hesiod's lead age.

Omens and Apocalypse

 "Many things right now point to some huge cataclysm but I don't feel anxious about it. If the gods wish it, so it will be. 

 "Last time something did happen I dropped everything I was doing to correct it immediately."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1733166567368593757

Indeed. No point in anxiety. If they want you dead, you dead. If not, then someone with a shrine like Rau will get plenty of warning about where not to stand.

Independent corroboration, ruling out noise in the system:

 "A loop that opened in 2020 is closing this week."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/MichaelGuimarin/status/1728820815964316131

 "There is definitely a strange energy in the air. “Dread” isn’t really my emotional struggle. Mostly it’s being flat or too intense. Been feeling those demonic emotions tho and others are noticing same, as well as 3 am waking up feeling weird. Zeitgeist change. Not a good one."

 Can personally confirm. Started Nov 2, for those curious about specifics.

 I seem to be deeply involved in whatever it is. If it goes hard for you, uh, sorry. My bad.
On the other hand, there's a small chance I scuttled it

Tocqueville Teaches Us Anti-Humanism

 It turns out human rights are slave rights.

 “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6708861-it-s-not-an-endlessly-expanding-list-of-rights-the

 This means secular humanism => secular slavism. 

 I'm inclined to believe humanists. You want to claim that all humans are slaves? I agree. 

 This means I'm anti-humanist. I'm not human, and you shouldn't be either. 

 Let's not forget we don't need Tocqueville for this. I point to him mainly to show it's so obvious you can tell even in the 1830s. The subsequent 200 years were all mens rea. You can tell immediately by considering property rights. 

 Before secular humanism was nonsecular humanism. Christianity, the religion by and for slaves.

Resting Bitch Face, Dating, Entitlement, Hyperstress

 "If a Brad Pitt, George Clooney, or a Ryan Gossling-type guy (i.e. her "type") asked her out, her entire demeanor would change. It's like watching someone wake up from hypnosis. 

 "Have seen it in person."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/CFoxtrot52/status/1733140668363497962
Note: thread safe. Worth reading the surrounding tweets.

 Do remember that dating at all is degenerate. Her dad should be selecting a suitor to court her. If she isn't already at least provisionally taken, if anyone can [ask her out] like a rake or a φαγγωτ would, something has already gone catastrophically wrong. 

 

  However, given [dating] as a background given, she's always going to be mad. If you're weird, she's mad that you're allowed to talk or even be around her at all. If you're not weird, she's mad you're not already wifenapping her. "Ask me out already, asshole!!!1!" Not a joke, though it is funny. Either way, she's going to be pissed. Result: resting bithc face.

 The core problem is entitlement. She hasn't secured her shit. She hasn't asked a man to secure it for her. (Her dad, for example.) She expects security to fall out of the sky for free, and is terribly 'offended' that society isn't affording her this free stuff. 

 She suffers because she is deluded. She believes she has the rights to things she doesn't have title to. 

 

 That said, you should expect something like this to happen. 

 Consider the savannah. If any nonspecific stranger can approach a woman, what is the situation? The situation is she's lost. She's outside her familiar, known home territory, and her men have either cast her out of the group, or died. 

 She's in a really, really, really bad situation. Unless she gets wifenapped by a conqueror, she's going to starve to death, get eaten by a lion, or get raped to death. If she has any kids, she gets to watch them die first.

 Thus, her instincts are going absolutely nuts. Nearly every warning light on the panel is red. Problem: her conformism light. Rationally and by social conditioning, [[dating]] is normal. If she does anything to secure her shit, it will set off the conformism warning light.

 She has no idea how to make all the warning lights be off at the same time.

 No wonder modern women go batshit crazy.

Weeks are Dumb

 Sorry, that's hyperbole. Weeks are okay. Yet I have something better.

 Three nine-day weeks a month. Three-day weekends. Church-equivalent at the start of the weekend - you leave mass in the morning and then do whatever the fuck you want the rest of that day and the following two.

 One day left over each month. Each Lunath. Solution: Christmas-level not-working day every month.

 The Day of Silver. Have it on the full moon. Party once a month.

 Actually, come to think, start the week with mass and rest. Put work second. 

 P.S. Let the physical world tell you when to do things, explicitly instead of the social world. Humans submit to Reality, Reality doesn't submit to humans.

 P.P.S. Even cancel snow ploughing and that sort of thing. Special honours for anyone who can't not work, such as ranchers or trauma surgeons.

New Obesity Hypothesis: Poison Sequestering

 Reading about liver-related nutrition theory. 

 If you overload your liver with toxins, it gets fat. If it runs out of local storage, it uses general storage.

 If so, it's not any particular poison that's the issue. Lithium? Pesticides? Receipt BPA? Car exhaust? Rather, it's the total toxin load. Either you can bile out all the toxins, or you can't. Throughput issue, hence a nice inflection point on the obesity graph by decade.

 Exercise lets you lose weight on the sauna-detox mechanism. Rustle your lymph to get it moving, which reduces toxin load, plus poison sweat putting gunk on the outside instead of the inside. 

 Fat is 'inflammatory' because it's in fact poisonous fat. E.g. losing weight improves acne, because the emergency sequesters aren't leaking poisons anymore. 

 Previously, I had whale theory.

 No known reason it can't be both.

Basic Thumb Up vs. Thumb Down

 Here's the question: if I become too emotional to follow the local norms and need a minute to compose myself, will you immediately start using this against me? Will you refuse to let me withdraw so as to force an error?

 Will you be considerate or thoughtful if I can't immediately punish you for transgression? 

 Can I ask you withdraw from a minor (low-profit) trespass, or must I aggressively demand it? 

 In short, do I need to have violent power over you? 

 Must I force you to behave if I want basic decency? 

 What I observe is that the answer is essentially always yes. A human not motivated by fear is motivated by sadism. What I see is that someone who becomes emotional is already having it used against them, whether they're allowed to withdraw or not. Norms everyone demand lies, Satanically. The human and the science are always in conflict.

 Note the symmetry. If you have to be violently forced to be decent, then I can be as indecent as I want to you and nobody can stop me. A society which permits rudeness is an inherently violent, treacherous, deviant, and defective society. 

 This violence is what's usually referred to as "civilization." Some brutally driven decency is better than no decency at all, right? Barbarianism is what happens when the inferiors fight against this repression, even though they'll lose, right?

 We can argue that maybe strangers should be violent with each other. Don't come out from behind your fence unless you're fully kitted up for mutually-assured-destruction. Cowards, who refuse to fight any losing battles and are consumed by short-term considerations, can stay home.

 How about family members? So-called friends? At least treat your family politely without having to be bullied into it. Americans, of course, don't even know what politeness is and couldn't use it if they wanted to. They talk up their empathy all the time precisely because they're hoping someone will school them in empathy.

 Humans are only useful as slaves. You must enslave them to get cooperative behaviour.
 Problem: slaves are not useful. Keeping a slave is unprofitable unless [having a slave] is your end value. 

 

P.S. Christianity isn't wrong about everything. These slaves really are irredeemable - Original Sin or whatever. However, they're far more tolerable if they repent for being irredeemable. Slaves who go around touting their alleged virtues are completely insufferable. 

P.P.S. Kindly note there is nothing inherently racial about any of this. It shouldn't come from a special organ or be anything like rocket science. It's just Machiavelli's dictum: do no small harm. If you're not declaring war, be nice.
 Around blacks, never relax. Or around whites. Or yellows. Or reds. Or blue-oranges or whatever.

Minting Money is a Crime

 It's also kinda necessary. 

 Inflation is merely the latest version of seizing a monopoly on minting coins. Inflation is merely theft, which reveals that owning the mint was always theft. Check: the Romans largely used the mint to steal. Assertion validated. Thieves are traitorous, dishonourable and defective deviants. Don't permit a defective government; if they seize the mint, burn down the mint. Not allow.

 Since coinage or an equivalent is necessary, there must be a solution. Luckily, it's easy. You're allowed to mint coins if and only if you don't keep the coins. Distribute them for free.

 

 I like the idea of explicitly signing a social contract. Someone who signs the contract can be incentivized by giving them minted coins. A celebratory and ritual gift.

 Basically a baby shower, but it's from the government* and it's a substantial amount of money, like $300,000. *(A government doing this is clearly a white government.)

 Distributing the minted coins evenly is also fine. 

 Athough it is unlikely any perpetual organization will want to bother with minting if they're not allowed to keep the minted coins. They will remove the activity from the balance sheet for being a losing proposition. 

  

 Remember, if your government is asking what you can do for it, the government better well be asking what it can do for you. 

 Note that in Bitcoins' final form there will be no inflation. There's a hard cap.

Purpose of Dark

 I've been doing it wrong. What I love about the dark is exactly that it's trying to kill me. I don't want to be friends. 

 I do appreciate that the dark stays at home in the night. I do like having a place to rest.  When battle is joined, I like to be the one who joined it. I also like the fact you can fuck up and lose the resting place.

 What I want is to voluntarily, on my own initiative, venture into the deepest, darkest pit, to face the strongest attacks powered by the full weight of the most vile demons, and scream defiance. To withstand, to counter, to drag their heads back with me to be seared and devoured by the light. 

 Bring it? No, I will be the one bringing. But yes, the dark will come by invitation.

 A universe without devils is a pauper's universe. My problem with humans is exactly that they're too weak to be worth fighting. Ugly and deviant, yet lacking redeeming unholy strength. The weaseling treachery of Jesus made us all poorer, devil and angel alike. Should have ganked the idiot sooner. There was no glory in taking out the trash, but look what happens if you put it off.

 How are you supposed to show your courage if there's nothing to fear?

 How are you supposed to show your power if there's nothing to kill? 

 Function over form. Substance over appearance. Those who cannot kill are not worthy, and true lethality must be tested.

Upadana Briefly

 In general you want to let go of all the things you cling to, because that will cause them to be around more, rather than less. 

 If you try to cling to a waterfall, you get wet, then you dry and the water is gone. More water will keep coming off the mountain whether you cling to the water or not. Each moment is impermanent but the nature of the moments are permanent.

 If you try to cling to an annual, you interfere with germination, and don't get seeds you can plant next year. If you try to resuscitate the extremely dead flower, you interfere with getting out there and planting new seeds.

 If you try to cling to signs and significations rather than the thing itself, you blind yourself to the thing itself, creating a delusion of impermanence. If you try to cling to especially impermanent things, you stop them from being renewed.

 It's not a moral thing, it's merely ineffective. It's not some deep spiritual thing, it's merely a neuronal bug that happens to be especially common. It's the nature of things to have power law distributions, not be evenly spread. As such, one or two of the bugs were going to be especially common. This is one that so happened to be. 

 You cling to things because you're afraid they'll leave. What if you let go and they stayed anyway? Would make you feel kinda dumb, right? That's probably why you don't let go - you already know the grasping is unnecessary.

Being Explicit: Demonology is Heresy Against Satan

 If you worship the Father of Lies the first commandment is to lie: you have to claim you're not worshipping the Father of Lies.

 If you worship one of Satan's demonic saints, the first thing you need to do is lie: you have to claim they're not a paragon of treacherous evil. 

 Demonologies, such as ""occultism,"" fail the very first commandment, and are severely cursed due to flagrantly dishonouring a divine being. E.g. all the Church of Satan folk get serious Palpatine face. (And by the heavens isn't that a funny thing to poke atheists and other "serious" types with.)

 Perhaps that will change now that, with the death of Satan, it's merely an attempted dishonouring. I suspect the lingering shreds of egregore will still carry out the sentence, however. Further, the worshippers themselves, unless they're so crazy they can't speak coherent sentences, know what they're doing ought to be cursing that which they claim to praise.

BAP is Spontaneous Controlled Opposition

 BAP is pro-decline, not anti-decline. Revolutionary, not counter-revolutionary. 

 It's not really on purpose. He's just not smart enough, not high-status enough, to know any better. 

 Egalitarian, not elitist. Openly claims to be Fascist, isn't mistaken. Irresponsible. BAP is a lose-with-dignity RINO who happens to found or constructed more aesthetically-piercing mein. All his enemies have to do is put a mud pit between him and victory, and he will refuse to get his hands dirty.  

 It's cope. When he said, "YOU ARE GAY" his fans secretly agreed with him, and that was the intent. It was approval framed as condemnation, because countersignalling or irony or whatever. "Yes, my banter is tasteful, thanks for noticing!" As such, no he has not betrayed his fans and is unlikely to do so. Ref: husbands and wives deserve each other, even wives (male). Gays, and BAP likewise, engage in caricature masculinity. Much the same way the little girl tries to look womanly with clown-streetwalker makeup, they're trying to hide a lack of substance with a bombastic appearance. As with most forms of narcissism, the subculture is about collectively agreeing to pretend nobody can see through the facade.

 "Dissent against the Soviet system united liberals, reactionaries, the religious, the secular, monarchists, ethnonationalists, cosmopolitans, Russians, Latvians, Bashkirs, and any other things besides." Uhh yes the terribly "reactionary" value of global unity. Hardly Christian at all, especially not Catholic. "Dissent against the [Union] united." Hmm. The only reason stupidity on this level doesn't kill you instantly is because Gnon wants it to hurt.

 If being a grift is possible, then it is certain. He doesn't want it to be a grift, but doesn't have the not-grift option. 

 When the Regime perceives someone as genuinely dangerous they Julian Assange them. Or just hang them from a doorknob. Have them suicide in their 24-7 surveilled jail cell, have them commit Canadian Healthcare with a bullet to the back of the head. 

 I'm not at all convinced that Assange was a real danger. Americans are not genuinely being fooled; they're getting tyranny because they demand tyranny. Assange would have made some folk stay late to produce more legal bafflegab, that's all. Nobody is going to wake up because they're already not asleep. (Especially the guy who has to work after hours.) However, they certainly confused Assange with someone dangerous, and boy howdy it turns out they're not ineffective when they're motivated. See also: Truckers.

 Even these paranoids don't stop BAP from making money. Conquest's first law & they don't make errors in the overconfidence direction. 

 As an aside, the books are fantastic. "I know, nobody has tried solving the problem by writing a book before!" What a novel solution! "Oh wait I know what everyone else did wrong - they didn't oppose popular government with a popular book! That must be it!" The previous writers didn't make enough money, you see. "Maybe if I put my legal name on it?" Yup. There you go. #Winning.

Liberalism Isn't Freedom

 "Just insist freedom is good, and don't be pathetic about it, how difficult is that?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1706000674306298223

 In a sane society, for most, the live options are to choose to be ordered around by the best lord who will have them, or try to go it alone, fuck it up, be a criminal, and get executed. I'ma repeat myself: they can choose the lord they were going to choose anyway, or choose annihilation. Humans are evil, and evil is banal and weak, so they are pathetic and have to have their decisions overridden. Overridden either by orders from someone fundamentally inhuman, or by the fundamentally inhuman force known as [Death]. If you let humans make decisions, they poison your society and it dies. This contradicts, at length, the premise.

 But yes, for the virtuous and just, freedom is plain good. Because they're virtuous, if you try to take their freedom from them, they will wisely recognize you as an enemy, and their virtue-backed attacks (disciplined, courageous) are extremely dangerous. It's one of the major reasons a free-human society is so bad: you antagonize the virtuous and they profit from your downfall, both incrementally and overall. It's not like the grassmonkeys can stop their inhuman opponents.

Men Just, Women Unjust

 "A small number of men reproduced with a large number of indigenous women all over Eurasia in the period known as the Bronze Age."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/jmrphy/status/1706135723739381855

 A just society became rich and powerful through cooperation. It thus destroyed all the neighbouring less-just, defective societies...and stole their unjust women. As such male genes generally came from the just society and female genes generally come from the defects and deviants. 

 Angelic men, demonic women. There used to be angelic women too, but...

 Taking war brides is an extremely stupid thing to do, and the result is: you are here. 

 On the plus side, since war bribes are distributed quickly and thus almost entirely on superficial characteristics, these demonic women are all extremely beautiful. If your plan was to get dimorphism along trophy lines, women who are to be seen and not heard, then it worked perfectly.

Security, Master of Wealth

 Wealth has a very simple foundation: it comes from human labour, and the amount of wealth you can keep is determined by security. The cheaper security is, the wealthier the society. Wealth is important because a lot of cool, glorious shit is expensive to do. E.g. Egyptians could afford Pyramids, Americans cannot. 

 You don't make anything if it's just going to be stolen. It's dose-response. If some of it is going to be stolen, you don't make as much. There is less total stuff, and your society is poorer, weaker, and shabbier.

 Even if you're going to keep it all, if the security is expensive, then you're spending labour on security instead of on creation. The more inexpensive the security, the more total stuff you have. 

 If EROEI goes below 1, you stop getting energy from that source. Security isn't like this: every living creature must at minimum force the world to let it go on living. If you give up on security you starve to death. With a suitably foolish society, security costs can be many multiples of the secured value. 

 

 On the plus side, random death aside, an insecure society is very relaxed. You can't compete because there isn't anything around to compete for, and you can't secure any future against another, so there's no point in worrying about it. You can safely sit around doing nothing except waiting for something to happen. Just chill bro. Maybe rape a girl if you're horny.

 A wise society first spends tremendously on accumulating and perpetuating wisdom.

 Secondly, it spends tremendously on finding and perpetuating everything which makes security cheaper. E.g. tax rates zero. The more total stuff there is, the easier it is to accumulate the price for whatever it is you value and wish to buy. You want the absolutely most inexpensive way to secure all property, and you want very high-status researchers devoted to finding new ways to secure the previously insecurable.

 This always involves mighty fences to keep out anyone with less-wise tendencies. You must first secure yourself against lies and the deluded.

Children Without Adult Supervision

 Children think there's no reason they can't eat every cookie in the cookie jar. Children think daddy is stopping them purely to be a meanypants. He just hates them without cause, and if it weren't for daddy they could have cookies and gumdrops for dinner every day.

 Women think there's no reason they can't have sex with whoever they want and have all the ugly men executed. Women think there's no reason to work except men are meanypants and go all [[patriarchy]] on them. 

 Leftists think everyone could be fabulously wealthy and never have to work, except the government and rich people are meanypants. 

 Why did Kaisar cross the Rubicon? Because he thought that just because he broke the law, he shouldn't have to face the courts.

 That's all it ever was.

Reading About Royal Families

 I'm starting to think that leftism is the result of inbreeding.

 Try not to marry your first cousins, folks. It a generation or two it leads to opposition between parents and children, "in his youth he was a spendthrift and womaniser," plus "patron of the arts" inevitably implying drinking and carousing. 

 "Frederick settled down following his marriage [...] Quickly accumulating large debts"
 When Wikipedia tries to write a fluff piece for you, indicating favour, it's a terrible insult and you should demand satisfaction.

 Haven't tested this yet. 

 However, it seems like peasants are inherently inbred. Probably forget who their grandparents were. Lie to the priest about consanguinity because they simply don't know any better. Alternatively the lowborn priest lies for them because there's nobody nearby they're not kinda related to.

 The thing about inbreeding is you can't erase it easily. If you outbreed for a generation or two, it means 1/2 or 1/4 of your genome is still inbred. Maybe you get lucky and it's not the bad part, or maybe you get unlucky and carry the bad copies of everything, it's merely hidden under the good versions from the other side. 

 That's why the upper crust doesn't want to marry a peasant: even if they look like a healthy shining star, (that is, they're pretty like the princesses are), it's just the luck of the draw. The recessive half of their genes are all still terrible inbred nonsense. You get leftist children and grandchildren.
 Need to calculate a local mean for that peasant, so you can figure out how far they are from the mean and thus how much regression to the mean you can expect.

Engineering Details of Masculine Honour and Honesty in Dating

 "You’re on a date with your girlfriend. 

"Suddenly, a pretty girl walks by you. 

"Your girl says: “Do you think she’s pretty?” 

"How do you reply?"

 

 "Yes. 

"No need to elaborate or deflect."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/NoahRevoy/status/1728339423614619890

  

 Do elaborate. Be specific. "I like the way her style of top flows into the line of the pants she's wearing." Or, "Blonde does it for me, and I enjoy the simple hairstyle."

 Simply saying 'yes' is relatively okay, but it comes across as "She's higher status than you." If you're specific then it becomes an actionable recipe. "You can be pretty just like her by doing X and Y." Secondly, if she has any higher brain function at all, she'll realize that she can use this move: "Do you think I'm pretty?" This will result in her being given specific, personalized compliments while allowing you to demonstrate consistency and reliability. 

 Some dudes can pull off being completely crass. "Yeah she has a great rack, and clearly isn't shy about sharing."

 If she outright goes, "Prettier than me? *angry face*" I suggest ignoring it and pretending she didn't just jam her foot so deep in her mouth you can't see her knee. Smile patronizingly and do the compliment thing anyway. If she doubles down gently mock her awkwardness. "Really? That's what you're going with? Wanna think for a moment and rephrase that?" 

 

 "Breathe, girl. The world didn't just end. In---- out---- in---- out----."
 If she refuses to even try to play along, I would suggest ending the date right there. Contact the waitress, cancel your order, and walk away. You can save hyperfeminists from themselves, but it involves chains and sex dungeons. It's illegal and she's not worth it.

False Stereotype of the Cowardly Scholar

 The three primary virtues have an internal hierarchy; you cannot be wise and cowardly at the same time. A cowardly scholar is at least as much of a failure as a cowardly warrior. 

 The scholar must have discipline, and to embrace the fruits of discipline requires courage directly.

 The discipline required to safely determine whether e.g. humans are inherently malicious is tremendous. Questions of a less secular nature are several tiers trickier yet. This discipline must come from within. You have to learn it yourself; it cannot be taught. Anyone trying to externally impose this discipline will only teach trickery and deceit. It only "teaches" the student to duck and dodge their tyrant master, to oppose them effectively with politics or camouflage. Tremendous discipline requires tremendous will.

 Then, whomst among us can willingly adopt the idea? Who would not flinch, embrace the pretty lies?
 I do get a bit of a boost, as having Asperger's already makes all humanity my opponent. There's something I'm not losing by setting myself against the species. 

 You don't get to decide if the ideas are easy or not.

 The cowardly scholar is either not a coward or not a scholar.

Regardless, Teachers are Losers

 Even if you refuse to see that Prussian school is inherently destructive, you don't want to send your kids to school because teachers are all massive losers. Don't send your kids to hang out with losers. Or, I dunno, it's a "free" country, maybe you want them to grow up to be losers due to loser role models and getting socialized into loser society.

 The best you can hope for in a teacher is a failed non-teacher. I had one guy who used to do weapons research but had to settle for teaching because his girl didn't want to move. That's your high-water mark: not being such a hopeless incompetent that they can't even attempt to maintain another career. 

 No wait, that's exactly it, isn't it? Americans really do want their kids to be socialized as losers and grow up to be total failures. And then complain (bully the kid) about how much of a loser they are, indefinitely. The plan is clearly working fabulously. 

 Americans send their kids to hang around all day with bureaucrats (think DMV) because they really do hate them that much. Just infinite loathing.

 Carry on, I guess. I shouldn't have underestimated the resentful spite of the median voter. 

 

 Though come to think I'm assuming they can be socialized differently. Maybe the kids are hopeless to start with. I'm hardly the biggest fan myself (it just shouldn't matter since they're not my family). Or am I assuming? I recall the Amish kids, who are socialized differently and are hardly a stock superior to regular kids. Not hopeless; is possible.

 Yeah. It's the self-loathing. 

 I know the kids will fail to reject the self-loathing doctrine when they grow up, which is a sufficiently lethal vice, but they don't know that, which reveals the perfidy. It's intended to be sinful and profane, even though it turns out, in the end, the kids deserve it.

Hypocrisy is High Status

 If someone can force you to follow your principles, then they can force you to do things and are higher status than you are. As such, betraying your principles is a way of signalling nobody can force you to do things, and you are high status. 

 It's also one of the high-status luxury goods. It's inconvenient to have to match your actions and attestations all the time. Why not be relieved of that pressure with a little of the good ol' ultrahypocrisy? 

 When you "complain" that someone is a hypocrite, you are pointing out they are especially high status. No wonder this never "works" politically. The more you "complain" the higher the status they must have. 

 

 This is clearly intentional. I never get accused of hypocrisy, unless you count the mudthrow+wall strategists. It's not that difficult, but nobody attempts it. It would be counterproductive according to their local norms.

 By contrast, under property rights, you don't make contracts with hypocrites because they aren't agreement-capable. You have to make the contract expensively ironclad, and put in huge contract-breaking penalties to recoup the contract enforcement costs. Why not instead trade and cooperate with someone honourable? 

 Under property rights, you point out hypocrisy not to change the hypocrite's behaviour, but to change your friends' behaviour. "Avoid this scammer." The point isn't scolding, the point is ostracism.

If You Hate Jews, Support the ADL

 Jews got smart due to persecution. They couldn't hold regular jobs and had to be bankers instead because ""usury"" was banned for gentiles. The manual-labour class of European Jews all starved to death. 

 How to reverse this? To lay waste to the Jews? Coddle them. Let them get away with everything. Rapid debasement is guaranteed. 

 Look at what civil rights has done to Bantu.

 Look at what feminism has done to women.

 Yield to the ADL. Ensure Anglin and MacDonald keep disparaging and discrediting wignats by association. 

 I'm not at all joking about explicitly banning the Christian races from university campuses and revoking divorce for specifically Europeans. Why stop there? Drivers' licenses. Homeownership. Make persons of pallor completely unmarriageable as seen by anyone with a hint of colour. 

Is Nietzsche Lame?

 I have never read any Nietzsche in his own words. There's no reason to think I'm missing out. This never happens: "Oh that's an interesting idea. Where did they get it? Nietzsche, huh?" Worse, even if they did get it from Nietzsche, it's not like he expands the idea in his own words. There's no point going to the original waterhole for more water. For contrast, you can say Plato really loves the sound of himself, but at least he doesn't drop an idea the instant he touches it. If you have to be either too long or too short, be too long.

 What is true, non-obvious, novel, and in Nietzsche? Slave morality. Okay...yes. And....?

 Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was a prose stylist, like Shakespeare (who wasn't a storyteller). The 'god is dead' passage is highly evocative. It is not highly intellectual. 

 As a scholar, you don't get any points for being less lame. Certainly, of modern-age popular scholars, Nietzsche was at worst third least lame. I guess you do get points for not being wrong. 

 However, a true scholar either says something nobody has thought of before, or explains an old thing well so that new readers can grasp it easy. Nietzsche conspicuously avoids both. N lacked discipline. Artist, not artisan. Performance artist, specifically. He got something right due to sheer volume. Blind squirrels and broken clocks.

 First major fallacy: the modern world is clearly sick. Turns out Fascism is bad, tho. Nietzsche had to be at least locally novel to escape this disease, and wasn't. 

 Second: "popular." If you're well-known, that means you've been flattering peasant egos and peasant superstitions. If you're not reviled and buried for elitism et al, you're doing it wrong. 

 Nietzsche fluffed aristocracy because it made line go up. He wanted culture line instead of GDP line. It's still universalist saviourism, merely the next highest tranche of it. 

 Master morality forms a false dichotomy, due to failing to understand the difference between kratia and dunamis, and failing to appreciate that irresponsibility is even a variable. 

 Will to ""power"" is merely a small feature of natural selection. Organisms that don't try to force the world to let them remain alive get selected out. 

 Nietzsche spends a whole book trying to go beyond good and evil and doesn't once mention social status. This is what's known as a limited hangout, a kind of propaganda. His opus is nothing more than a huge peacocking spree - mentioning social status would undermine his core goal.

 If the Nazis were Nietzschean, that's a slight to both the Nazis and Nietzsche.

 The last philosopher worth reading was Descartes, on account of him not being fuckin' wrong all the time. His temporal remoteness is not a coincidence, by the way. (Admittedly I haven't read him either. Instead I reproduced his work independently.)

News From the Heavens: The Cause of Population Growth

 Since Earth is the underworld, where you go when you die, when Earth's population surges, it means a bunch of higher beings have died. In exactly the same way mortal bodies are moulded of the remains of dead stars, mortal souls are moulded of the remains of dead gods.

 Divine beings do not die of age or disease. They die of deicide. A population spike on Earth means there was a war in Heaven. Such a large spike means there was a war spanning across three or more heavens, rather like a world war. Not just a coincidence.

 Further, if the divine body is properly disposed of, it doesn't leave remnants like Earthlings. The mortal population surge means there was a war and the casualties were left to rot. 

Clownworld's Clown Opposition

 Natsocs are jealous of Israel. The place currently in economic freefall several times worse than the ncov lockdowns. 

 They were put there by shoeless goatfuckers who think the pipe bomb is high technology. 

 What kind of moron would want to live in Israel? It's painfully clear that the Jews got Jewed by Britain. Perfidious Albion is not just a meme. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The instant Iran was more relevant than Israel, they got thrown under the bus.
 You can't get thrown under the bus if you're the one driving the bus.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Peasants will not, they will seem to hyperfocus on some detail ("Israel gets to have border security") because even that much blows out their tiny minds. 

 Getting Jewed is a Jew specialty. Israel is quite possibly the most vaccinated country in the world. Pfizer gotta get paid. That is, it's now suffering worse than ncov lockdowns, and it's not like they didn't have ncov lockdowns. 

 Natsocs are a kind of leftist - a communist. They have communist prediction track records, a lot like climatologists. 

 Ukraine got 60B here and 90B there - and Israel could never quite bring itself to condemn the Russians. ZOGwar, lol.
 Now America is offering a mere 10B - to Iran, not Israel. Some Azerbaijan FAFO, there. (Probably. Also, Amenians should have done the Tutsi thing, not rolled over and died. However, they're Christian, so I guess they were excused early from the Vale of Tears.)

 You can tell it's the Synagogue, not the Cathedral, by how Israel inflicts all the worst GAE harms on itself. You can tell they're super nepotistic due to how they're miscegenating themselves out of existence. "The birthrate is being destroyed by JUDEN pornography!!!!1!" (Jews worst affected.)

 Clownworld has clown opposition. 

 P.S. "China owns all American leaders," yeah that's why they still used mRNA vaccines. And still have a central bank.
 Democrats. Democrats everywhere. "Voters could be here. I hate voters."

Watching Minerology Youtube

 Okay I figured it out. Most of the crust is solidified oxygen. 

 I assume there's some exception I haven't seen, but all the rocks I've seen are close-packed oxygen matrices. It has a few tiny metal ions hiding in the interstices which staple it together, but it's mainly oxygen by volume. 

 Corundum is just a block of solid oxygen held together by aluminum ions hiding in the unfilled corners between oxygen spheres. Stuff like ruby and sapphire comes from the fact that aluminum doesn't fill all the spaces, so you can fit some other stuff in there as well. (Or rather, will necessarily trap something outside lab conditions.) The alumina is clear in the visual spectrum, so the colours of the other stuff dominate. 

 Quartz is an oxygen matrix with, instead, silicon in the little nooks and crannies. 

 Feldspar is a quartz-like oxygen matrix with the niches displaying a mix of silicon and aluminum, balanced by a smidgen of potassium, sodium, or calcium. 

 Micas are sheets of oxygen hexagons glued to each other with various ions.  

 Limestone is made up of a network of carbonate ions, which have oxygen perimeters, glued together by calcium ions. Carbonates in general may be more carbony by volume, but carbonate rocks are rare. Mineral carbon usually ends up as carbon dioxide and thus plants or soil.

 Et cetera.  Rock = oxygen.

Wishes vs. Intraracial Biodiversity

  "Every Western story about wishes centers on the fact that you should be careful what you wish for because we don’t truly understand what we want or need"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/ZWass777/status/1707140301452984519

 Thanks for reminding me. Been wanting to lampoon this for a while, but forgot the details.

 Naturally, this is Egalitarianism.

 Peasants don't understand what they want or need. Aristocrats and leaders in general must know their wishes exactly, or they wouldn't be able to bring them about. Wishing for the wrong thing is very much a follower trait. 

 Can you imagine? Engineer: designs plane. Peasant: "You don't know what you truly understand." [sic]. Engineer: "Bro...the plane stays up." 

 The peasant isn't even numerate. Let's talk about Adam's fruit for a minute. What colour was it? How big? How did it taste? What were the flowers like? How did they smell? Did the fruit keep? Would it make a good jam? Did Adam have to skin it? Maybe it cooks well, like tomatoes? What were the seeds like, or did it have a pit? "Herp a derp, stop overthinking it."

 Meanwhile, the engineer knows the exact tortion the screws need to be subjected to, and if he doesn't, the wings fall off. 

 The noble hides his specific plans for the manor. He knows the peasants would just be upset if they had to grapple with it.

 No shit the peasant doesn't know what to wish for, they don't even know. They just, don't know. They kinda just don't in general. The peasant lives in a hazy nonverbal dreamworld with vague blobs tenuously related to each other, sometimes. He can't even master the social nuances, let alone the physical world.

 Always remember the class differences. Denounce egalitarianism implicitly.

Sacrifice is Profane

 "Sacrifice is the blood of religion's beating heart."
https://nitter.poast.org/HistoryGoons/status/1707144926524227982

 No it isn't.  

 "I am a Christian man of pagan sentiment."

 Wow that confession arrived immediately. Praise be.

 Satanist is Satanic. Sacrifice is Satanic. 

 Look, it's real simple. You want your mom to give you something. So you kill your brother. "Please mom, look favourably upon my request."

 Or you're Odin, and you pluck out your eye and hand it to her. "Mom teach me to read and write." Hey voidskull, how are you supposed to read without eyes.

 Yeah, no. You fucking imbeciles. 

 The weird thing is that all the stories clearly show that sacrifice is profane. The myths appear to be basically accurate. Agamemnon is cursed for his sacrifice, as is meet for profanity. Only IRL the winds wouldn't have done anything special - this falsehood is apparently the part Caino hypocriens hyperfocuses on. God prevents Abraham from sacrificing his son - but apparently the Atheists think the important part is being willing to do so on command. 

 "Articulate religions imply sacrifice is paradoxical. Demanded and damned at once." More precisely, Satan is a liar. Yes, Reality seems all complicated and mysterious when you need to reconcile falsehoods and truth. The only thing you should "sacrifice" is your own narcissism. 

 "It is the connection of value with transgression, where man reaches for divine. [...] Without blood is like unwatered plant." You're literally crazy. Get yourself committed. 

 Is your intuition complaining? Trade isn't sacrifice, unless you're crazy entitled I suppose. If you give up something of value to receive something of greater value, that's just commerce. Notably stabbing a goat and burning it to charcoal isn't trading away value, it's pointless vandalism. The gods don't want your trash any more than you want it. 

 Religion is far too important to allow madmen anywhere near it. Those of profane brain cannot be purified. And no you can't "sacrifice" the mental illness. The gods don't want your trash any more than you want it. 

Anyone Still Egalitarian is Irredeemable

 I used to be much more sympathetic to failure and shortcoming. However, eventually I noticed I never had to reverse my knee-jerk reactions. Whenever I tried to offer the benefit of the doubt, I later had to reverse my reversal back to my first instinct.

 The guys with Egalitarian knee-jerks haven't accidentally overlooked a brain worm. 

 It's truly weird since I have overlooked brainworms. For example, I was really got by the one that says women should approve of marrying her fiance. Approval is a nice bonus, but no. She should be matched with a man who will be good for her, regardless of her express wishes, not solely because her express wishes are lies and confabulation. Further, I'm speaking only from the perspective of the father. Unrelated men shouldn't care at all who she gets married to. Women, unrelated or related, don't get a say since regardless of anything it's going to be lies and confabulation (politics, in other words).

 Basically it's pointless trying to meet women's demands because there's no way to know what her demands are. She lies so often she might as well be nonverbal. Make some assumptions, Communism her in the face, then forget her and go about your day. Maybe in 20,000 years she'll evolve towards sapience. 

 More importantly, overlooking shortcomings is a brainworm. 

 The crypto-Egalitarians will never thank you for pointing out a contradiction in their worldview, because there isn't a contradiction. 

 For example, it was hardly impossible for boomers to figure out they were screwing everything up. "But they didn't have the internet," you imbecile, everything good on the internet is copied from books that were in libraries the boomers could have used. It could have been distributed if there was any demand for distribution of truth.  The knowledge wasn't hidden, it was rejected.

 Everyone who doesn't already get elitism and hierarchy is ngmi. And thank god. Sorry not sorry, it's too late. Not good enough. Here in Reality we mark up from 0 not down from 100, but you still need to get a passing grade, which you don't have.

 Perhaps this is a point in favour of nature over nurture. Training is critical but first you have to be born to train, oops.  

 I got got by the fact folk found my antisocial behaviour disgusting. I was psyopped by tolerance. I want them to overlook my mistakes, hence I was willing to overlook theirs.

 First problem: at no point did anyone becoming willing to forgive my peccadilloes. I was being plain stupid.
 I have to recommend being autistic, it's very educational. I know firsthand the folk who use the phrase "protected class" are the ones causing all my worst problems, which makes it easy to think of noticing that they also cause most of the problems for the other protected classes. E.g. affirmative action is the major driver of modern racism. Every Bantu you see will be inferior to every non-Bantu you know, because they never get in on merit.

 Deeper problem: I was never antisocial. They were antisocial, and my prosociality was aggressive only in contrast. Normally because it was embarrassing by contrast. Occasionally because I don't want the hallways to be covered with penis graffiti or whatever. "Bro, are you gay? Why you wanna see dick everywhere?" Turns out, yes, they are all deeply femoid. That's why they want her to do anal so bad - they're not man enough to suck dick directly but nevertheless deeply aspire to be fudgepackers.

 When I say, "how are you" I never, ever want you to say, "I'm fine." I want you to answer the question. I don't want you to insult my intelligence. {Everyone hated that.} Indeed. That's not because I'm antisocial, it's because [how are you] is antisocial. A demand is still a demand even, or perhaps especially, if you put "please" in front of it, and I will prove it by saying no. Profane. Egalitarian. Fascist. Satanic.

 Since I made the mistake of mistrusting my judgments, it's hardly inconceivable that someone else would make a similar mistake.

 Doesn't occur in practice. If you haven't learned by now, you never will. Possibly due to Pride. If you were willing to learn, you would ask.

Strategic Suicide

 "He would have been spurned and mocked if he'd had a public or internet emotional breakdown instead of this."
https://nitter.poast.org/GraniRau/status/1707473682547839417

  Don't forget to think about this strategically. What does this tell you? How to kill yourself in a way folk care about (pretend to care about). If you're going to, if that's already decided, make sure to copy the active ingredients of this suicide. E.g. definitely film it.

 

 I guess the important part of having your suicide go viral is to have an accomplice. Groom someone to assist you, and then just have them film from somewhere that looks blocked off from where you're offing yourself. Anyway if you're going to Canadian Healthcare, at least toaster bath in style. 

 Is 'grooming' wrong? They're big mad about it because it's effective. It works. Before you can worry about correct and incorrect, you have to be able to do anything at all. To rise above blob welded into slot between couch and iphone.

 "Oi m8 get down."

 "Oh man oh gee I didn't think of not killing myself, thank you kind stranger for the education." 

 The guy in the car filming is an enormous asshole. I would take time out of killing myself to beat him to death. Why not? What are they going to do, jail my corpse? What if I lose? Um, well, that was kind of the point in the first place, wasn't it? 

 It is not at all a coincidence this cunt's video was uploaded by a "real life saviour."

Christianity is a Cargo Cult

 It produces simulacra of salvation. The best part is the transfers of genuine physical cargo to the Vatican and its clients as part of the ritualistic cargo plane simulacrum. Now isn't that a coup? Adherents gulls and marks transfer goods and services to useless layabouts in return for the layabouts promising invisible and unverifiable services.

 "No no you don't have to do anything self-directed or risky or genuine like engage with divinity, you just need to let me bore you to death once a week and give me all your spare money and power."

 As per my usual mein, this is a supply and demand situation. Christianity is correct; humanity is inherently evil. Humanity gets these cargo cults because the Earth is one gigantic disgusting slum full of loathsome unrepentant (and irredeemable) traitors who deserve to be fleeced of their life savings. 

 And hey, look at that.

 Naturally, all State religions end up cargo cults in this reverse vein. Roman temples got tax funds, and this also happened to them. Humanity deserves State religions because it keeps producing States.

 If you don't want to deserve it, secure yourself against Humanity. Secure yourself against twisted Caino hypocriens governments. They're dumb enough to fall for cargo cults, it's not difficult.

Byzantine Courtier vs. American Voter

 The primary difference between a viper-pit Byzantine courtier and the American voter is that the voter is too stupid to recognize their own perfidy. The Byzantine pit-viper acknowledged his own viciousness, and was even proud of it. You could get someone exiled from court by making them look soft.

 By contrast, you can get an American cancelled by making them look not-soft. They get incredibly butthurt if you call them on a the effects their actual policies would have. They apologize constantly for unavoidable accidents and never apologize for voluntary harm, especially if it's tremendous. 

 Worst, if you go around trying to convince 'dissidents' that this is somehow bad and they should reject this culture, you get banned from Twitter. I'm fairly sure almost all bannings are right-on-right. The left doesn't hang around in those circle, you're getting reported by a mutual or mutual-once-removed having a leftist spasm. Despite their political expedience, the left really does support free speech more.

 E.g. I have one flagged post out of almost 2000. It was soon after I said, "Blogger has never done shit to me." Coincidence? Certainly, I can't rule it out. Let's just say it's not the only coincidence, hardly only involving me, and also say I'm a coincidence theorist. However, there's a reason any justice system has sanctions against anonymous accusations....

Anti-Disagreeable 30 Days

 With this sort of thing, quitting cold turkey is correct. Just plain stop for 30 or so days. That is, more than 1-2 days but you don't have to go a whole year or anything. 

 "Learning to be less disagreeable is friggin hard. 

 "A 10% improvement seems like I'm ignorning all kinds of important "false" stuff. 

 "It's so....ingrained.

 "Many more failures than successes."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/EricMorganCoach/status/1722827264922960035

 

 In this case, simply shut your trap. It's not hard to be silent, especially as a temporary experimental measure.
Also, do a rep. "If I speak up, I will prevent X." Then, don't speak up. Look at what actually happens. (Did X even actually occur?)

 It's far easier to make a stable, long-lasting decision when you have a good set of data in front of you. If you really are preventing stuff, after the trial you won't be speaking up because you're disagreeable anymore. It will be because you have work that needs done.

 

  Engineering details problem: is this talking about [somebody is wrong online] or is it being abrasive in-person or what's the deal here? Is he talking about folk he's discussing his wage work with or perhaps it's a private pontification club?
 You may be very surprised to hear I used to have a very serious [someone is wrong online] issue but it had nothing to do with me being disagreeable. As, indeed, I'm +A not -A. 

 A lot of this stuff is simply failure to be a father. Your body wants to be telling your son things he doesn't know. Much the same way women go weird about cats. In this case it results in telling strangers or acquaintances how to live, even though their own father already did (or didn't). If folk were educated they would ask to speak to your Pope or mention explicitly that they're not looking for parenting at this time.

 If you acknowledge that it's a son-related instinct, it's way easier to control the impulse when it's directed at a non-child. "Is this my son? It isn't. Right, I really need to work on that whole girls thing...."

 

 If he's talking about a discord channel, I would recommend Socrates. However, assume failure. Ask them all about their statement and/or decision. As if you're, like, interested in them or something. If they're at all open to correction they will quite likely notice the discrepancy on their own.

 Or, perhaps they're, like, not totally uninterested in you and will ask about your own experience. 

 If the topic doesn't matter and they just want to LARP as the local priest, of course they're not going to be open to correction and indeed odds are good they don't even believe whatever BS is coming out of their mouths. 

   If you're strangers passing in the night, why do you give a damn if they're wrong? If they're false how is that any of your business? 

 

 P.S. My [somebody wrong online] thing was about a combination of excessive faith in humanity + entitlement, for anyone who was wondering. I was told homo sapiens was the rational animal, and like a dumdum, I went and believed them... Although it's mostly fixed I still have to simply not read the replies sometimes. Prevent the bad behaviour by avoiding the driving stimulus.