Right Wing as Inherently Profane

"your shrill, catty chimpouts you guys have in response to the slightest criticism tells me none of you have the impulse control necessary to be worth anything in a real world situation"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Vitruvisch/status/1687141858965692426

 Background: every American is a woman. Twitter right = American or trans-American, i.e. they are women. There were no founding fathers, only founding mothers - politics is unfiltered knitting-circle. 

 Plato was right about Democracy, it's inherently bad. While one can (and I have) filtered out the true essence of 'right' vs. 'left' there's nothing debatable about it. It boils down to correct vs. incorrect. There is no left wing, there is only a wrong wing.

 Background II: "late Capitalism" is a real thing but it refers to late Fascism. 

Plato:
 "The democrat is desirous of all things and treats all, good and bad, equally"

 In other words, at first the Democratic house has a right wing and a left wing, placing good and bad in apparently equal standing. However, this is unstable; profit-seeking and loss-seeking can't coexist, and it must collapse into one or the other.

 "if his son, the tyrannical man, falls into bad company — and he will — then he will be governed entirely by the bad and the desire for the bad."

 Having legitimized the bad, it reliably collapses into pure loss-seeking. The house is consumed by the left wing. Plato's Tyranny is nothing more than late Democracy. (What cold warriors called 'capitalism.')

 Even calling yourself a "right" winger is to accept intolerable amounts of leftism, by suggesting it is remotely, in any way reasonable to claim leftism is an alternative. Leftism is nothing but self-mutilation. What Plato got wrong: justice is in fact very simple. It is impossible not to understand justice except willfully. To be left wing is to be wrong and to be right wing is to be wrong too.

 It should not be surprising that the "right" wing is fundamentally a bunch of women. In Reality there are no wings here. It's the contrast between virtue and treachery.

Lack of impulse control = zombies. Easy to manipulate. They can't even secure their own will. 

 It should not have surprised me that the "right" wing is nothing but furtive, insecure leftism. Nothing but the less-wrong-but-definitely-still-wrong wing. Left wing + self-doubt. 

 Is it too boring to admit the Greeks were right? Pursue virtue, eschew vice. That's it. Be wise, courageous, and reliable, not a foolish, cowardly traitor. There's absolutely nothing honourable or glorious about leftism, which means the name 'leftism' is itself is a vice.

Literacy Benchmark: Filtered by Twitter

Something like 90% of the population is too illiterate to use Twitter. Reading is too hard for them to enjoy non-picture posts. Even 140 chars is too long and complicated, never mind 280 / full text. They can just about handle 'yaas queen' before it's too laborious. They watch TV instead.

Naturally most Twitter users are only barely above the filter. They're still basically illiterate and will Dunning-Kruger your tweet 90% of the time. They're merely literate enough that tweets don't feel like wind-sprinting. 

 

One of the most liked tweets ever is 💜💜. Why? It lets the illiterates feel like they're participating. "I'm part of twitter now," they can say. They understood that tweet and liked it on its merits. They hit the button without faking it!

The fact Twitter is a largely a textual artifact means it is inherently antidemocratic. 

 

 

Publishing in a democracy is only useful for necromancy. Your audience will be wholly undead.
Necromancy itself is useless because the only thing you can do with zombies is make them destroy the other zombies. They can't catch vampires and other necromancers have to be unconscious to fail to stop a zombie attack.

Reminder that Your Superego is Insane

Feelings that come from your superego feel like real feelings. Perhaps the easiest way to spot them isn't very easy - they're a bit flat, a bit too repetitive or ritualistic. Hunger varies based on what you ate the previous day. Superego feelings are stamped out like factory widgets.

This verisimilitude is a problem if you live in an environment of lies and your superego is crunk. 

I consider the superego to be a maladaptive, deleterious mutation. It's one of the things that makes grass monkeys so hideous. You can imagine a society with perfectly healthy superegos, but in this case they're slaved to the ego and thus redundant. Remember: do ask what your society can do for you. If it's not paying for what it demands from you, it is a parasitic traitor and deserves to be painfully destroyed. Lies are bad, mmmkay.

When working 'properly' everyone has the same superego, or at best, the male-ver superego or the female-ver superego. Approximately there is one superego. Incredibly tedious - even women aren't attracted to someone that boring. In practice of course mistakes are made and the superegos differ, but it is all accidental. 

 

Your superego is holding you back. It's one of your worst enemies. Getting rid of it isn't pleasant, but unfortunately it is highly profitable.

Superego Principle of Writing Criticism

Background: it's popular to say Freud was wrong, which is how you know he was largely on the ball. The id-ego-superego framework is useful. Recap: the id is the raw impulses, the ego is your rational reaction to your id, and the superego is your social norms.

All but the very best writers create characters who are pure superego. At best maybe they 'struggle' with 'temptation' of the id occasionally. Their social presentation is their entire reality.

This is often a good thing since Caino hypocriens is such a trash species. The egos suck, the id's impulses are all horrific, and the written versions are strictly superior. However, it's also boring. Story characters can't be hypocrites since they don't have any inner thoughts with which to differ from the outer. Unless you're literally retarded, you know what the social norms are supposed to be, and don't need them repeated at you again.

 

JBP says a hero is like a refined moral instruction. If you think about it, it means they're repeatedly distilled superego. Especially all those Japanese manga heroes who are paragons of their local virtue. Perfectly selfless, always get a present on your birthday, always forgive, don't want anything but to [protect]...completely, utterly uninteresting, because there's not actually anyone there.
Due to the writer's own superego, they can't even make the other characters react realistically to the Paragon of Virtue, which would at least be interesting in a world-building sense, because it would reveal that some of the Virtues aren't virtuous. Even if they sincerely have criticism of the virtue, they will never (really really never if Asian) say so out loud.

Anyone who isn't an "anti" hero lacks a personality. They're not a character, they're a paint-by-numbers scheme. Without the paint. And most "anti" heroes simply have a few signs reversed. They don't have a personality, they have -1s, moral "failings," as if the id is always merely the inverse of the superego. Outgroup is always exactly the opposite of ingroup, right simpletons?

Still better than most real dire apes. Yes, we can call that, at a stretch, a hero. 

 

This is partly why stories are usually for children. They don't fully know what the superego is supposed to be, and it's not wholly a waste of time to tell them.
Likewise it's not useless to read stories written for other cultures. You can investigate their superego, and the kind of society they say it's supposed to create. 

There's a cheap vaccine for authors who want to escape superego characters. Have them disagree on values (not facts) and have them both be correct. Recall that anything else is narcissism.

P.S. Obviously if you have criticism of a superego virtue, the play is to exploit the rubes who buy into it, not to disparage the virtue out loud. Friends? What are those? Vampires don't have friends, only bloodbags and competitors. Social species lol nice one-liner.

Worry is a Bug

Worrying is never productive. 

If you can solve the problem, just solve it.

If you can't solve the problem, just accept it. 

If you're not sure, then find out. 

If the problem is you can't find out, just accept it. 

There's no space in here for worrying. It's just a bug. Maladaptive in 100% of situations.

The term 'worry' comes from the description of what dogs do to bones. You can't annoy a problem to death. If you have worries you're just being dumb. Stop worrying. If you can't stop worrying, just ignore it. It has no purpose.

Commons Tragic, Twitter Big Mad

"I would join the China hate but this is right in line with industrial civilization in general. The Chinese just seem even better suited to it. They don't seem to care a bit about the earth or any other life."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1681390601214754833

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/paradigmsmasher/status/1680982213016403969

 

Like everything else from the Empire of Lies, the idea of "international" waters is a scam. Anyone could put a stop to these Chinese boats, if the UN wasn't defending them. The Chinese, also, can't lay claim to these fish in any durable way, due to, guess what, the UN.

Enclose the commons or die. Secure your shit.  

Of course every statistic is complete bullshit, so who knows how much of this is real damage and how much of it is journalism.

They Conquered out of Cowardice

Those who admire Napolean et al seem to do so because they are afraid. 

They think that if they were like Napoleon, they wouldn't need to be afraid. 

Julius Kaisar in particular was very obviously motivated by fear. He didn't seize Rome because he wanted to seize Rome. It was not out of joy or appreciation. He did it because he was afraid of going to jail. If he crossed peacefully he would have been arrested and put on trial. He was desperately scrambling to stay ahead of taking responsibility for his own actions.

However, the fact everyone who admires Napoleon is doing it out of cowardice is solid proof that Napoleon himself was a coward. He didn't win battles because he thought winning battles was cool. He did it because he was afraid of not fighting the battle. That all his admirers have cowardice in common tells us that the part of themselves that Napoleon exemplarizes is phobia. Napoleon was just like them, but moreso.

Napoleon pushed and pushed the world until the world upheld his psychological dogma and did something scary to him. Napoleon was doomed because the one he needed to defeat was himself, but he refused to face himself on the field of battle.

Likewise, Napoleon's admirers feel that if they were like Napoleon, they won't need to do the one thing they're most terrified of, facing themselves. 

Napoleon won because he was weak. Napoleon's admirers admire him because they are weak. Whatever Napoleon wanted, unless it was self-destruction, he ultimately didn't achieve it. "I found the crown of France lying in a gutter," and when Napoleon was done, the crown of France was lying in a gutter. I loathe the French, so, awesome. Sounds good to me, great work Napoleon, you get a bonus this year.

You can tell Napoleon's admirers don't admire him for his skills because they don't know about his skills. They don't talk about his skills. They do little more than drop his name and an applause light. 

One of the things about respecting Socrates is that you can go and perform a Socratic dialogue in real life. By contrast, it's quite difficult to practice battle. However, Napoleon's fans are like an Aristotle stan who has never systematically observed a natural phenomenon. I see no reason to think I should be concerned were I ever to face a Napoleon stan across the field of battle. 

Much the same way sports fan aren't especially athletic, come to think. You find one that can rattle off the scores of every game in the last ten years and has all the stats on every player in the league, but can't shoot a goal. Can barely perform a layup. 

Narcissists gonna narc on themselves, I suppose. See also birds of a feather &c.

A Hidden Story from Cave Story

Let's talk about the coming of age song, On to Grasstown.

A small child starts to explore a grassy field. He encounters some strange and curious things in knolls and nooks. (Not just enemy #12 with 14% more HP, or [this time you can't stomp on them].) They're not a big deal, he plays with them a bit and then moves on. He finds more strange and curious things - he's really getting to like this field. Some of them give him a bit of difficulty, but he extracts himself and looks further.
Then he starts to grow up. He's exploring farther, and he crests a hill. A vast, mysterious vista opens up before him. The rolling terrain creates natural watchtowers and deep grassy seas hiding all their secrets. The shallow world of his back yard promises deep interlinking complexities, and as he travels down the big hill, the lands beyond deliver on these promises.
His greater depth of understanding brings his awareness to greater challenges. It's not a day trip anymore, he's packing and girding himself for war, really committing to the excursion, submitting himself wholly to the environment, allowing it to withhold nothing from him.
The camera pulls out and we see the philosophical themes of his exploration. How his personal determination creates and is created by the grand cycle of birth, growth, and death, of the seasons, the years, and aeons. How his self-imposed trials and travails form a rhythmic dance and how hardship enriches him. 

The actual level this music accompanies is action platformer #345676i. Shooting the big guy is pretty satisfying I guess, and there's a tank up there to get. As the title hints, it's mainly a road from A to B. It's intended to be functional and largely forgettable, and so it is.

I want to see the curious things the child discovered. Do you not? How is exploring a field the result of or results in coming of age? What are the rhythms of growth and hardship? Of the cycles of seasons and the river of time? 

I want to see a game where you start with Pixel's genius song, and then make a level worthy of that song. Make a level that feels in play the same way the song feels.

Not saying it's easy or cheap, but it only requires the odds to be lower than 1 in 8 billion. 

This is why I want to see massively overpriced games by aristocrats for aristocrats, not intended to make money. Made for the same reason the pyramids were made: because it's fucking cool.

Why are Comics Terrible?

Comics are not magic. It's just a story with pictures. If you have a good writer, then they hire an artist: bam, you get a good comic. 

In Reality, every comic, including manga, relies entirely on cheap tricks and pandering. 

That is one powerful selection effect. How do they prevent a good story from appearing in comic form, even by accident? 

I especially like the "cliffhanger" technique. How to tell a ""good"" story: interrupt your own story and let all the tension fade away while you tell me a different story I don't currently care about. Thanks. When I finally get wrapped up in this second story, stop that one too. Awesome. 

Such suspense. Many pageturner. Wow. 

Then get cancelled or sick so nobody gets to see the endings.

Then finally get better and it turns out the ending was prosaic and forgettable - no wonder you wanted to hide it. No wonder manga has to run the status quo in circles for 200 chapters. The resolution is, "Eat your vegetables, kids. Big Brother is never wrong." Sublime. 

Oh, and the 'grownup' stories do the same thing, but are more boring. Hidden dragon has no, you know, dragons in it. Just people. That makes it 'serious.' I can go outside if I want to see people.

I think it's Faustianism. I can't trace the underlying circuit, but it's clearly a cultural effect. The folk who produce comics want to conform, which means producing shitty, childish stories. Apparently nobody thinks of going beyond the culture anymore. (Except me of course.) All straining beyond the summit is fake, as intended.

It's the same in video games. What made golden age games so special is not secret. It's widely known. (Proven by mega man 9.) Self-publishing is not exactly outlawed - it's easier than ever. Why doesn't anyone make an awesome golden era game with modern QoL sensibilities? Billions of English speakers, a guy who tried to re-create legend of zelda in 3D (getting C&D'd while Cadence of Hyrule exists), and that's it? Answer: Faustian culture. Have to be like the VG devs who came before. They only break the rules by accident, when they're too dumb to follow the rules.

I can't get over how corporate art is a horrible environment that's nowhere near good enough...and yet indies somehow manage to be universally worse. WTF. 

Like Pixel is seriously impressive and all but Cave Story is and old-school game with old-school QoL. And there's one (1) Pixel, who isn't even English. 

P.S. Reminder that the great promise of video games is to go and live a life that's impractical to live IRL. Books can lie about interaction in a way video games can't. You want a game that simulates that other life as closely as possible, so it feels as rich and lifelike as possible. As much depth and detail as you can afford. You're not just playing with some simplistic toy, but genuinely exploring a distant possibility. 

Cave Story doesn't make you feel like you're a robot exploring a cave connected to a ruined civilization. It makes you feel like you're playing an arcade game with arbitrary powerups and unintuitive spatial relations.

Faustianism == Narcissism

Spengler's not wrong about a lot but he's wrong about the character of Faustianism. The core nature of Faustianism is narcissism. A severe, crippling developmental disorder.

Faustianism succeeds when it fails to be Faustian. When the Faustian "strains beyond its own summit" it means straining beyond Faustianism and returning to some form of sanity.  

The Faustian is restless and unsatisfied because he craves his parent's love, which he did not receive. He is caring due to babby's first empathy: "If I care for you, you will automatically care for me, right?" He desperately craves the care which he did not receive from his ancestors, and thus desperately offers care. 

He secretly knows his goal will never be achieved because he knows his parents find him unlovable.

He is proud due to megalomania. 

The yearning toward distance and infinity is born of the wistful fantasy that, if you get far enough away from your parents, you would find someone different enough to care for you. In base modern terms, the domestic patriot hated you, therefore the foreign immigrant (might) love you. The more foreign, the more likely they find you lovable. 

 

Faustians like to get mad at Jews because Jews are way more biologically narcissistic than the Borean races.  "Quite Faustianing better than us! 😭"

It's very very pathetic that other cultures couldn't fight off this train wreck. "You're worse than this? How?!?" 

Spengler was also wrong about the exact timing of Faustianism. The 2-millennia lifespan seems about right to me, but it started no later than the third century AD. Not to mention this clean round number is, as expected, rounded: classical cultures were clearly highly pre-Faustian no later than 400 BC. Ipuwer also records a Faustian spasm.

Faustianism fails because ultimately Faust's parents were correct: he is unlovable. He does not deserve care. Ultimately Faustianism fails because it's fucking insane. The compassionate reaction to a Faustian is to kill the shit out of him, putting him out of his misery. 

 

Turns out the original Faust was a proper telling. Devils never offer deals that are worth taking, and Faust, as someone who agreed to a devil's deal, sold something valuable for something valueless. This is Faustianism in a nutshell: the infinity the Faustian allegedly wants to reach for is exactly what the Faustian sold. Faustianism is like deliberately self-inflicted buyer's remorse. He pretends to regret selling the thing to justify his yearning for the thing he sold. It's absolutely Satan worship; the worship of suffering and failure via lies.

 

The cruel, sadistic reaction to a Faustian is to leave him alive to suffer his own company.

Respectomancy

Naturally I am a skilled necromancer and I find puppeteering a zombie so trivial it's boring. This means I know how the motivating spellwork goes. It's just math. Computer code.

Today I want to talk more about the respect functions. 

Given access to a zombie, any necromancer can inspect the triggers that result in the zombie displaying respect. If you try it yourself, you'll immediately notice that the triggers have nothing to do with being respectable. Presumably because the raising necromancer was lazy - appearances are simple in the way substance is not. It would take time and effort to not suck so bad.

They're begging you to spoof their respect algorithms. Hence e-girls and other grifters. It's not some momentary lapse or temporary peccadillo. Zombies gonna zombie. They will not rise up - it's a miracle they were risen from the dead in the first place, don't expect a double miracle.

In particular, look at the [[respect]] that comes from beating up the zombie. Naturally this respect is merely fear, but it pretends to be respect so the zombie doesn't have to admit to itself that it is a coward. It hates itself plenty as it is, after all. As long as you can inflict physical pain on a zombie and get away with it, the zombie will [[respect]] you.

Now look back at the other triggers. They all call the fear-pretending-to-be-respect functions. It all merges into one lane.

Look again: are these triggers plausible evidence that the zombie should be afraid of you? Within their sharply limited cognition, yes. You and I might be able to easily fend off many of these attacks, but a zombie sure can't. They're pushovers - as in they will often literally fall over if you physically push them, because zombie. 

E.g. a zombie will [[respect]] you if you have a lot of money. Because you can hire a lot of lawyer or bribe the mayor to make their life hell. If you look closer, it's not even [have money] it's a couple extremely impoverished indicators of money, like having an overpriced car and a nice watch. Get the car second or third hand and a fake watch? Usually the zombie itself will prevent anyone from seeing through the ruse, if it can, to avoid having to admit to being fooled. You and I might be able to tell the difference between a fake watch and a real one - I would look for e.g. anxiety while paying restaurant bills - but the zombie wasn't programmed with that, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To prevent a zombie from getting grifted, the necromancer has to constantly supervise them, or let a vampire feed so heavily on the zombie they have nothing left to grift. Even necromancers find zombies repulsively putrid.

There's an obvious solution. If you're necromancer-class and you're doing something because you're afraid, say you're doing it because you're afraid. Or deterred or wary. If anyone ever asked me, I would say I was efficiently threatened. You can then find other necromancers who are capable of giving and receiving respect, by noticing the ones willing to say when they're just afraid.

The zombies are fucked tho.
If you openly endorse "cowardice" in the face of deterrence, they will act weird, but you can just puppeteer them into doing something else with a minor effort. You can reprogram them to not be completely retarded but it's not remotely worth the effort, and after reprogramming you have to constantly guard them against being reverted, which means riding the ass of a rotting corpse. 

P.S. Do zombies laugh their ass or sides off because the connective tissue has disintegrated from necrosis? 🤔

Homo Sapiens is a Species of Zombie

Earth is the netherworld. Cthonic. Everyone has already died at least once. More specifically, nearly every dire ape is a Frankenstein, made up of salvaged mismatched bits of the previously-killed.

The zombies are controlled via necromancy. 

Actually necromancy means dead-divination, so raising and guiding the deceased is more like thanatokinesis, but I won't die on that hill either. English is doomed, don't waste time trying to fix it.

Maybe there's a few vampires here and there - special vampires which can survive on zombie blood.

Everyone is afraid of the zombie apocalypse because it's already happened. As usual, zombies IRL are less dramatic than movie-version zombies. IRL zombies are mindless, want (as far as they can be said to want anything) to destroy your brain, and reproduce via mob violence because they're utterly unthreatening one-on-one. They are easy to trip. They desperately hate and resent the living (as far as they can be said to feel anything). They even hate the mockery of life they themselves constitute. Along with being less dramatic, they are less cool. They do feel pain, remorse, and fear, and shooting them in the brain is far from the only way to kill one.

Actually that's a lie, they don't feel remorse. They pretend to be remorseful when properly terrorized, in an attempt to avoid pain.

They do genuinely recoil from divine symbols, and indeed that's a good test of genuine sanctity. If it makes NPCs reeee, it's holy, with a few edge-case exceptions. Look how far a zombie flips out when you call them a zombie, for example.

IRL zombies are undead souls, rather than undead bodies. The flesh is willing but the spirit is not. The spirit is defective.

The TFR 'crisis' is probably just the fact the necromancers can't be arsed to raise so many zombies anymore. No undead souls => no births, by hook or by crook.
Many vampires terribly butthurt about the shortage of prey.

Vampires aren't really feeding on your blood. They feed on your soul, using your blood as a medium. Symbolic essence as a gateway to actual essence.
IRL vampires do it backwards by feeding on metaphorical blood. Zombies do have their own unholy vitality. Come to think, IRL vampires must be thanatovores or scavengers. It's logically necessary. The body is holy, and thus blood is a holy oil. If a vampire drank blood they would exorcise themselves. They can only feed on flesh and essence that's already been desecrated. E.g. paper money.

lol add 'blood' to the list of critical vampire weaknesses
and gold
and stars
kek

Social Credit is Almost Right-Wing

Subsidized silence. Don't say anything, don't lower your score. Based.

Say something dumb, have to take responsibility. Like, no wonder Twitter hates social credit.

The problem is that it's irresponsibly imposed instead of voluntarily taken up. The correct, responsible response to someone trying to impose something like this is to kill them immediately. 

Do ask what your country can do for you. If it's doing nothing for you, it is betraying you, and you need to immediately betray it right back. If social credit were to the credit of the individuals who make up China, they wouldn't need to impose it. They would be demanding it. Begging for it. Folk outside the system would feel banished, not privileged. 

A genuine right wing would have coded third-party credit scores and attached them to Twitter, so their Popes could tell them when they're engaging in heresy, degeneracy, or simply being declasse.

Missing Studies: Nerve Sensation Lab

A million studies trying to find the neural correlates of consciousness, and not one study trying to find the nervous correlate of bloodwork markers. 

What does having good hdl/ldl feel like? What are the precise sensations of the bad stuff? What movie is most like having anemia? What painting makes you feel similar to overdosing on vitamin A?

Fuck waiting for scientists to stop being profane. Get a god and use divination. 

If you don't feel perfect, ask your divine contact which soil amendment flesh amendment you need, then develop a religious dietary fixation. 

Enjoy your terrible health, atheists. Nobody can say you don't sacrifice for your faith.

Long-Term Effects of Chlorinated Water

Admittedly I only spent about 30s looking, but it seems there's no studies on the long-term effects of drinking chlorinated water. It's not like you can sue the government, after all. (Hire your lawyer to sue himself next. *fireworks*)

There have been studies finding the chlorine tends to produce highly carcinogenic compounds, though. *party noises* It reacts with organic chemicals in the water. 

Hey, what are stomachs made out of again?

On the plus side, chlorine can be driven out of the water with high temperatures Which means there's no first world country: no matter where you live, you need to boil the water before you drink it. 

In particular, it seems that chronic exposure to an antibiotic would be bad for your gut flora. There are naturally no studies on this at all. Germs bad, death good. *applause* Germs very outgroup.

I don't go for blood work. I use my nerves for that - it's what they're for. Sending your water to a lab for testing is a great idea, though. At least do A/B testing. Discover the delta between what's supposed to be in the water and what's actually there.

Cars and Roads Aren't Designed With Safety, Which Spreads Fear

I was reminded of the safety factor. You calculate the maximum stress your building or device is going to feel, and then you make it capable of withstanding 3-5 times that stress, because you're stupid and it will probably feel 2-4 times the stress you think it will.

In other words, a safe car would be designed to keep the driver and passengers unharmed even at collisions that are four times as hard as the maximum collision. I expect this would mean limiting maximum speed.

Likewise, any building next to a road should be built like a bunker. It should be able to withstand a collision with a speeding truck and suffer only cosmetic damage. Bollards everywhere at the very least. 

Roads and buildings are common enough that folk will peg how dangerous the world is on these artifacts. In other words, they will think everything is built for maximum speed and fuck health. They think planes and elevators and corporations and all that stuff are built to the standards of roads. 

A dumb safety factor is pretty dumb. You bulk up parts that are never going to fail, putting additional stress on the fragile joints. Once again, there is no shortcut to wisdom. You cannot substitute dumb rules for intelligence. 

Safetyism is not remotely worth it. It costs a ton of money and regularly makes things more dangerous. Worse, it costs glory. Because cars aren't safe, they have to look safe, which makes them hideous.

 And it seems safetyism is all repressed desire for cars and roads to not be horrible aposematic deathtraps.

Femininity of "Mandate of Heaven"

Women and Han make no allowances for situation. You're only allowed to succeed every time; any failure is considered to be total and universal failure. 

E.g. if you lose a fight in front of your girlfriend, she will treat you as if you will lose every fight to everyone forever. She will probably jump ship to the guy who beat you up. If you win the rematch, she won't reconsider, she'll just consider you both losers. 

Bureaucrats do the same thing. Even being near a failed project is disqualifying. Women and Han do not consider the long-term result of filling a society with folk who need to spend more time on avoiding the appearance of disqualification than they do on avoiding actual failure. (&c)

With women this can be palliated. Don't let men start fights in front of women and don't let women into places where men are allowed to fight each other. However, if your whole society is like women, you're SOL. 

I suspect this is because women and Han are kinda stupid. They genuinely can't handle any discriminator that's more sophisticated than pass/fail. Women and China shouldn't be allowed out of the house unsupervised, because they're too dumb to handle wild environments. They need strictly controlled conditions. Indoor cat only; houseplant only.

Challenge: Identify Grammarly Users Without Referring to Grammarly

The easy thing to do is to install Grammarly, note its solecisms, and then naturally recognize those solecisms to identify Grammarly abusers. Too easy. The proper training exercise is to figure out someone is using Grammarly based on a hunch, and subsequently validate the conclusion using independent indirect evidence.

In particular, Grammarly loves hyphens. (That was my google search for the confirm.) It will give you one-hundred ways to incorrectly use hyphens. ("Also note that “semicolon” is not spelled with a hyphen") At least a hundred of them. Whatever a [one-hundred] solecism is.

"but he’d decided to avoid any half-measures and go full-ringwraith." (Delve ch 61) As opposed to full half-ringwraith or quarter-circle grass-type-ringwraith. See, Grammarly, if you really love hyphens and want them every-where, you don't have to use them un-correctly.
"there’s not a damn thing I can do to stop her, short of moving-in with Halgrave" A good joke: an alleged grammar-checker can't detect context. Thinks all instances of moving and in are from moving-in day. What's the difference between a moving-in with Halgrave and a regular with Halgrave?
"He’d lost his foot to something called a ‘dunch’ early-on in his career" Presumably that's the opposite of a late-on. I wonder if a late-on also has a dunch variety, or if they're solely chwemp. Must be quite the energetic ion if it can take off a whole foot.

Alternatively it could have been a wonderful new decay fad, such as using 'dismantling' when they mean skinning and butchering. As expected, idiots are seeing bad translations and 'improving' their writing to the bad translation's standard. Have a bear you want to process? Get out your wrenches and screwdrivers, we're gonna dismantle it. First, unbolt the skin, then carefully lever it away from the muscles... I suspect the every day / everyday failure in Harvest Moon GBA was patient 0 for that error.

Instead, many alleged EFL students are telling on themselves, because the Grammarly style is impossible to miss if you even vaguely know what you're looking for, as expected. Grammarly clearly noticed that stuff like twenty-two takes a hyphen and decided that numbers love hyphens just like it does. (To distinguish it from twenty twos; it was originally twenty-and-two.)

Alternate alternative, Grammarly could have offered good grammar advice. It shouldn't be logically impossible. Merely empirically impossible. Instead, Grammarly will actively degrade your grammar unless what you're starting with is so unreadable it's Canadian-Healthcare-tier.
Not unlike Strunk and White, come to think. Or that 1800s grammar book that told everyone they had to use [he] instead of [they], which inevitably lead to the cancerous [he or she]. Negative-sum grammar checkers are traditional at this point. Lindy, even.

Scholars Can't Not Rule

Merchants can't rule because they can't tell the truth. You can always trap a merchant into self-harm by holding hostage the lies their friendships depend upon. All their short-term incentives encourage shameless irresponsibility, and as a result they grow up to lack discipline. This is a tragedy as the basic merchant interaction is positive-sum, unlike the other castes. Disqualified.

Warriors can't rule because the correct way to choose the warrior chief is through violence. If you can beat up the old chief you get to be the new chief. In a warrior hierarchy having the weak lead the strong makes no sense at all. Did you notice the treachery? The correct way to become head warrior is to betray the head warrior. Which means the chief wants to betray all his competent subordinates. He wants to cripple his own organization so there's a band gap between himself and his underlings. A warrior organization is inherently a non-society. The test for membership is willingness to betray. The way to lead it is to undermine leadership. A human warrior hierarchy can't declare peace on itself without renouncing Martial virtue. 

The correct warrior strategy is to forgo crippling your own organization only long enough to destroy every other warrior organization. This means warriors can't declare peace on each other, either. Disqualified.

By process of elimination, always and everywhere the scholar caste is in charge. Your priests, your brahmin, your university professors, your shaman, or whatever you happen to call them locally. Neither the emotional left heart nor the strong right arm can make decisions - only the brain can make decisions. 

This is still a problem. The scholar caste having a zero-sum challenge is better than the warrior caste's negative-sum, but not by much. The top scholar wants to keep all wisdom away from any of his challengers, surrounding himself with idiots and taking all the society's wisdom with him when he dies. At best every human scholar must reinvent the wheel. As in, literally starting at reinventing oscillatory transportation. 

That said, of all the castes, only the scholar caste can be expected to appreciate long-term incentives. It is not bound by its mindless biology.

Scholar-Merchant Reversal Causes Merchant-Scholar Reversal?

Democracy is a bunch of scholars pretending to be merchants so that they can be in charge. Shamanism: a witch doctor wears feathers and pretends to be a bird or wears a bearskin and pretends to be a bear. A Sophist wears a merchant skin and pretends, so they can commune with the animalistic merchant caste for the purposes of controlling it. They provide offerings such as Communism to quiet the restless masses, and receive the strange powers of their dubious blessings in return.

Curiously, according to the [know them by their fruits] principle, this leads to the universities becoming stuffed with merchants pretending to be scholars. Sophists turn their own enclaves into sewage lagoons. Either inherently or voluntarily they tear down their own security and rip apart their own communities. Impiety results in divine wrath.

Let's see if I've worked out the new AI

A transformer is just interpolation, but, like, really complicated?

And an LLM is a kind of interpolation that looks like extrapolation?

An LLM is fairly easy to describe since it's 1D. It just takes some mathematical function of the previous words in an attempt to predict what the next word would be. 

It extrapolates based on the input text, but the result is an interpolation of the training data. It's an extraordinarily expensive way of trying to figure out the conventional answer. If someone in the training data had started saying X, how would they have finished saying X?

Interpolation cannot create anything new. An LLM cannot extrapolate semantically, it can only try to make the output text match what it sees in the input text.
It's an extraordinarily crippled approach to AI, like trying to transport water in a bucket by first drilling a bunch of holes in the bucket. It's not like you can't get water from A to B using a Swiss bucket, but it takes an ungodly amount of effort. 

Have you tried drinking with a fork? I gave up once the liquid wouldn't cover half the tines. It's an amusing thing to do, once. Gives you a sense of "nonzero" as in, "A mouthful of water using a fork is a nonzero amount."

When they try to refine the approach they often attempt to drill more holes in the bucket, but sometimes they get the bright idea to drill smaller holes. Normally they throw more buckets ("compute") at it, in an attempt to pretend that money is no object and they're so high-status they don't suffer from scarcity.

 

The transformers take the surroundings of a pixel and try to work out what that pixel 'should' look like. If, in the training data, the surroundings of a pixel looked like Y, what is the correct value of the pixel itself, X? Because this is recursive the transformation has to be done many times and try to get to an equilibrium. Imagine three regions - left, middle, right. Once you've adjusted the left to be consistent with itself and the middle, the middle is now being adjusted to a different picture than the left was adjusted to, and the right will be adjusted to yet a third picture. The model can't appreciate the picture as a whole, so you have to run it again and hope it converges.

Basically the prompts adjust the weights on the pixels. Can you see how this means there's a distinctly finite number of meaningfully different output pictures? There's only so many weight sets that make sense.

That it would have issues with fingers is predictable. Fingers are periodic, and AI can't count the fingers. It doesn't see fingers (or words). It just sees a bunch of numbers. The numbers don't mean anything to it - it can only tell the numbers need to be larger or smaller, or so its masters claim. It can sort of tell that a finger should be next to other fingers, but it can't see any further than a finger or two away because making the pixel regions too big will bring your CPU to its knees.

Probability Defined Relatively Easily

If you react to stimulus X with response Y, then there is a set of outcomes with well-defined probability. 

For example, if you respond to a fire with a fire extinguisher, the fire will go out with some probability. 

It's defined by sensation and decision.

Stimulus or a situation is defined by your sensor suite. You get nontrivial probabilities because you can't tell similar situations apart. It's too expensive, so you don't bother or cannot pay for it at all. You probably can't instantly see the exact line between 'large' fire (the extinguisher won't work) and 'small' fire (the extinguisher will work). Thus you simply react to all fire below 'huge' (the extinguisher is laughable) with a person-portable quenching device, and the exact probability of success is defined by where you see the line. And whether you're using an expensive highly-engineered laboratory extinguisher tank or a bucket of water or sand.

The strategy for dealing with the stimulus is a decision. Thus sensation+decision=>probability.

It only seems anything but infinitely precise because the probabilities change over time based on e.g. sensor degradation/upgrades or changes in the environment. E.g. if the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere goes up, it will get harder to put fires out. Perhaps changes in building materials also lead to more pyrophilic fires, without being visually legible.

Gonzalo Lira and why I can't trade stocks

I predicted Lira was dead, but he wasn't. Lira then kindly retroactively fixed my analysis. You can confirm this on his twitter. 

Stock trading demands precise timing. I can tell where things are going but I can't fathom idiocy to figure out how long they will take to get there. 

E.g. Lira knew he was basically a fugitive and then decided to go through a border checkpoint, instead of trying to cut across the countryside. This is a level of dumb I would naively attribute to amoebas and slime molds, but here we are with an alleged sapiens. Incomprehensible stupidity. "I'm criticizing a usurper...maybe I should invest in a dirt bike? Naaaw, I'm sure it will be fine." 

Anyway, thanks for tidying up my error, Lira.

Universal Disrespect

I think homo sapiens is no longer capable of respect. One of the many reasons I instead refer to Caino hypocriens. 

Respect is startlingly easy to diagnose: if you obey someone you don't fear, it has to be due to respect. This may even be a definition.

However, I have literally never witnessed this. Every single instance of obedience on record has been an incarnation of fear. The queen of hell (=Earth) is Phobos. 

It's curious, because it shouldn't be genetically possible. That one can conceive of respect as a possibility means that it must have been possible in the past. To be completely absent in behaviour, it has to be completely removed from the gene pool. If it were still physically possible, some folk would show respect by accident once in a while. There's no way that there's a selection pressure strong enough to eliminate this particular mutation in a mere millennia or two. Odd.

On the other hand if it's a spiritual mechanic, where genes 'by chance' just so happen to converge on spiritual reality, it is not at all hard to explain. Nor the reason respect came be to considered a sin in the first place.

 

The above may be a definition, but it's not worth checking since it doesn't exist. As worthwhile as minutely defining a unicorn. "This leprechaun is in fact 1.5 millimeters too tall." Skip.

Being Explicit: the Modern World is Religious

I've said over and over that this and that is religious, but it's supposed to be a pattern: secularism is a fanatic religion. 

What is atheism? It is the denial of the divine.

Christianity is atheism. It denies the divinity of everyone except Satan (and calls him Haeland or whatever, because Father of Lies). 

Full secularism is merely purified Christianity. It's atheism without the unprincipled exception. The more they claim to be areligious, the more fanatical you should assume they are, because atheism is Christianity. 

Communism is Christianity. Democracy is Christianity. Wokism is Christianity. The Japanese are highly Christianized. Of course Fascism is Christianity. Perhaps Judaism wasn't Christianity at first, but it certainly is now. Etc etc etc. It almost seems the only effective way to escape Christianity is to be so stupid you try to be Christian, fail, and don't even notice.

It's hard to tell: is all politics a form of religion? I think so, but it may be simply that fanatic Christianity/Atheism is so embedded in moderns that they can't do anything without doing it in a Christian way. The resulting decay is only natural.

Because everything is religious, it makes no sense to speak about anything in non-spiritual terms. No social activity anywhere in the present time invokes only physics. They are all religious rituals, deliberately summoning heavenly interference. 

If you really did want to be atheist, you would have to go through Alchemy first. You have to exorcise yourself incessantly, getting rid of layers and layers of Christianity. Total transmutation of the soul.

Of course getting so deeply into Alchemy is impossible unless you own a spiritual root, so I can't see any way that someone capable of carrying out this process would want to be Atheist at the end of it. 

Conclusion: atheism is Satanism, as no atheist is secular. It inherently has to lie about itself; narcissism.
Corollary: Satanism is Christianity, which is atheism, which means we have a bifurcating proof. Starting from any observation on either branch leads to proving the other.

Repetition: Christianity is Indeed the Cross

What is the cross? It is a crucifix. It is an instrument of torture and death.

Everything you need to know about Christianity they tell you up front with their own "holy" symbol. They intend to torture and murder you. 

A Good Christian tortures someone to death, and then lets themselves be tortured to death. They run around inflicting pain in the hopes that someone will snap and kill them. (Slowly.) That's the point of the religion. Anyone who takes care of themselves and cooperates with a second person is committing heresy against Christianity.

Some Calvinists noticed that, if you take the "Gospel" seriously, it condemns everyone to Hell. They were correct; the god of the Book had only malicious intentions.

Christianity is for devils. The Book claims Jesus is Love because Jesus was Hate. Self-hate, and omnihate. It claims Jesus is omnibenevolent because Jesus was omnimalevolent. The Gnostics were basically correct about the character of this demiurge.

(He had no part in the creation of physical reality, but social addicts confuse social reality with underlying reality all the time. When they said 'god' was 'the word' what they meant was that it only applies to the speaking species, homo sapiens. Things which don't speak in words are not part of the domain.) 

The correct solution to Christianity is let them fully live their own doctrines. Give them what they're asking for until none of them are left to ask for it.

Enlightenment = Christianity

The Enlightenment attacked Christianity as camouflage. They filed off the serial numbers in the hopes you wouldn't realize they're using the exact same merchandise from the exact same stores. Moldbug noted anti-Americans are in fact hyper-Americans: they're criticizing America for not being American enough. They got the idea from their Enlightenment predecessors, whose only real beef with Catholicism was that wasn't universal enough.

The Church had a Church hierarchy. Ew! Aren't we all equal before God? What corrupt heretics! Trust in the LORD Nature magazine!

When an anti-American attacks 'imperial colonialism' it's supposed to misdirect you: you're not supposed to immediately conclude that they're trying to reinforce colonial imperialism. They call it 'international community' or whatever instead, and the fact the words are different is sufficient to bamboozle wordcels. Shape rotators are yet more useless: they never object to being ruled by wordcels. Given over 90% of Americans got at least one fake vaccine, how many shape rotators could have possibly refused?

You can find a Bible verse to back up everything a "liberal" believes, but you can't find a scientific study to back up everything they believe. Their value schedule is lifted wholesale from Satan's little Book.

Recall Satan was the arch-narcissist. Liberals share with Christians the narcissistic inability to cooperate with anyone who isn't identical to them. Narcissists' inability to perceive anything outside themselves means anyone whose likes or thoughts differ from theirs is incomprehensible and, frankly, terrifying. Narcissists' obligatory navel-obsession makes it impossible for them to predict the reactions of anyone who isn't a carbon copy of themselves. Note this is an extreme military disadvantage. You can't lose to this group without trying.

When the second law of thermodynamics applies, sects diverge, and this causes sectarian violence. Every narcissists' first priority is defectively enforcing conformity, and ostracizing or executing anyone who refuses to submit to the LORD. [[Unity]] means having a Pope and cancelling anyone who doesn't slavishly obey the Pope. Remember never to call him the Pope, because that would be remotely sane.

The logic functions in reverse. The Enlightenment was secular, therefore, Christianity was secretly secular the whole time. That is, insofar as the Enlightenment can be considered secular, or in the case where you define secular as whatever the Enlightenment was.

More Serious => Less Serious

An ancient Greek putting a Medusa head on their masonry is basically the same as a modern putting a Juggernaut bust on their front porch, maybe with a "bitch" caption. Likewise, the austere dignified 'white' statues were painted in bright primary colours by the folk who carved them. Same palette as baby toys. Meanwhile, Americans are making fun of each other for LARPing. So obsessed with Looking Serious they can't get anything done. 

I hypothesize an egg and chicken situation. They know they can't get anything done - they have no honour, it's obvious - so they obsess about at least appearing honourable. Anyone of substance sees right through them, but these are so rare it doesn't matter. Result: they can't get anything done, and now they're boring and ugly too. Even hippies are diamond-tight prudes by any genuinely cosmopolitan standard.

To accomplish anything, you need to like glory. These feelings are delicate, which make you vulnerable. If you're not totally autistic, you need friends who won't attack you for liking likeable things. You need to get the hell away from Americoids.

Being a Saviour is Always Sin

Those who deserve to be saved never need to be saved.

"What awaited me was dreadful gazes from the people I saved."
https://chapmanganato.com/manga-fj982966/chapter-1

Yes, you were impious. They didn't deserve to be saved, but you saved them anyway. Thus you will take their punishment on yourself (and later they will be punished anyway, if IRL).

If they had earned a saviour, they wouldn't need a saviour gifted.
The kind of society which rewards a saviour will not be threatened in the first place. High demand = high supply. Low/negative demand = no supply.

The responsible thing would have been to conquer and enslave them. It's okay to save someone if they pay for it. They owe you their entire existence and should be made to pay as much, with interest. That is justice.

You're allowed to protect your belongings. 

If you're not willing to conquer them instead of "save" them, then leave them alone. 

P.S. This is an example of even the stupidest lowbrow art being useful for profound analysis. 

Is this a stupid trash comic, or a cultivator manual, worthy* of being placed in the sect archives? "Yes."
*(There's a lot of duplicates, especially with Japanese artists, and you only need one example per situation. Redundant trash is straightforwardly trash.)

Cuture Seeding

Building a culture from scratch is easy and straightforward. 

First, decide what the culture is for. What do you want to accomplish? 

Then, work out what virtues would lead to upholding this value. What behaviour do you need to encourage?
You'll probably screw up this step. That's fine, simply iterate. Try it, and adjust what doesn't work.

Then tell stories of heroes who uphold these virtues. As long as they're realistic-ish, and reasonably entertaining, it's fine. Touching up and lightly embellishing a true story works quite well, but pure invention can work also, it's merely more work and unless extremely lucky takes more iteration. 

Usually it's best to select a king or pope first, so there's no ongoing argument about what the culture is for. You follow that guy, he tells you what the culture is for. If he's a good king he will value your input, but you don't get a say or a voice, exactly. If he tells you to sit down and shut up, you do, or he isn't your king. If he isn't your king, he should probably banish you, so...

The only real difficulty is that if you take any random Caino hypocriens for anywhere in the world, they almost certainly enjoy a little of the old ultra-self-violence. Their culture leads to a hellish, sadistic utopia where they torture each other as much as possible without actually dying, and that's exactly what they want. Not really interested in a new culture, since the old one already supplies all their demands as much as can be reasonably expected.

Locke ~= Keynes

Journalists tell you Locke was an influential philosopher, but wet streets cause rain. In fact, the ideas were influential therefore Locke tried to take credit for them. Politician, not philosopher. The payload was lies. Like the Bible, if any part was correct, it was only as a means of building credibility for the lies. 

 

"But America's liberalism didn't start in 1787:
1637 Voluntary participation & Popular Sovereignty (Providence Agreement)
1641 Bill of Rights, secular covenant (Massachusetts Body of Liberty)
1642 Federalised Government (Rhode Island)

In 1641 Locke was only 9 years old. 4/8"

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GroyperHbd/status/1671541628581052417

Basically the same as Keynes. Keynes wrote down what the government wanted to do anyway. The tyrannous plan came first; the [[intellectual]], second. 

Locke was staunchly opposed to property rights, just like Keynes. He was merely more subtle about it.

Wisdom is Trainable and Achievable

It's important not to wait for anyone's permission or blessing to become a wise man. If you are wise and nobody acknowledges this, it doesn't mean you're not wise; it means they're not.

Intent matters. If you genuinely intend to become wise and work toward it, you will succeed. There's no IQ requirement - being smart merely makes it go quicker. 

Lots of folk will say, "There's no one moment where you realize you made it." Wisdom isn't like that. There's a distinct transition, and it's hard to miss. Especially if you're wise and have therefore figured out the kinds of things to look for. 

The only problem is that self-doubt is a necessary precondition to being wise, and it's tempting to doubt your own self-assessment. But, of course, you've become wise; this is no longer necessary or suitable. I forgot to test this part. That was dumb. Don't be like me; if you're not sure, do the test.

Children Should Be Outside

Children should do warrior-caste things so they grow up with healthy bodies. Most mental deficiencies associated with intellectual laziness can be fixed later. The brain is plastic in a way the rest of the body is not.

The few mental issues that you really need to address while they're young can easily be done during sports or whatever. Warrior tasks don't actually have 0 mental component. 

Only let the child be studious if they really insist. At some point it's not worth the bother. P.S. Don't betray your children. Don't declare war on them to try to "force" them to be healthy, you fucking idiots. 

My hips are twisted, because I spent too much time sitting, and crossed my legs. Result: I have to be very careful not to injure my back. I could have every moment of that sitting at a later age.
Imagine school was just laser tag, all day, every day. Would probably cost less. Maybe have the girls do some scavenger hunt / fiddly puzzle combo thing. 

Notice this is stupid easy. If you let small kids outside they go outside on their own. Give them a place outside to be, one they can safely get to on their own, and then don't break the habit. That's it. You're done. This is very much a [stop digging] problem.