Thursday, February 29, 2024

Selflessness is Inherently Evil & Greed is a Virtue

 Not merely untrustworthy, but automatically condemning. Humility is merely suspicious. E.g. nigerian princes. Claimed selflessness is always a lie, and their real goal is the destruction of the cosmos. Omnicidal. 

 It's almost impossible to hide false selfishness. Tamper evident. You can be sure what the selfish is getting out of the interaction.
 The selfish remind you to ensure you get yourself paid.
 Because the selfish have to pay you, they inherently acknowledge the value of your work.
 Being selfish is a position of vulnerability - it's an unforgeably costly signal of cooperation.
 Being selfish is pragmatic - you can tell how they intend to sustain themselves and the interaction.
 The selfish are easy to deal with.

 Being selfless is the opposite of all these things. Foggy and easy to tamper with, trying to get something for nothing, disrespectful, cheap, impractical, and a giant pain in the ass. Inherently impossible to trust. 

 Before I go further, let's talk about humility.


 If someone selfishly claims they want to get rich, they're very easy to deal with. "Cool, if I help you, how do I get rich too?" It's easy to check that their plans are likely to make them richer, and you can see they can afford to support you as well. If they start unnecessarily giving up money, it's all but impossible to hide that they lied about their motivations.

 If someone, humbly, merely wants to avoid starvation, that's suspicious. It's not impossible, the way true selflessness is, but it's ludicrously unlikely. If they're asking for little, it makes it easy for them to welch on the deal, thrice over. If they want to trick you into giving them something big (nigerian princes) when you refuse to pay up the little thing they said they wanted, they don't lose enough to worry about. You both want to be paid up front, but when the humble say they don't need to be paid up front, at first it seems less suspicious, because what they're willing to give up is so small.
 Since there are lots of things which offer small benefits, if the humble want to lie about how they're getting paid, it's easy to do. If they're not getting paid it's hard to tell if it's an accident or not.
 Those who aren't lying are usually insane. They want little not because they don't want to partake of the glory of the cosmos, but because they can't see the glory. They think they can have a healthy body on onion+banana juice. They think a little is a lot.
 Greed is a virtue, not a sin. "Humbly" eschewing greed is a vice, not humility.
 Humility is typically performed by those with something to hide. 

 In a Ponzi scheme, it's hard to tell who is being paid and how, as long as you think to check. "I don't want much," is usually a way of saying, "I can grab a lot without your permission." 

 Which is why you shouldn't trust blog authors. "I'm offering truth, for free." Are you now.
 Although a fortiori you shouldn't trust TV, newspapers, or other cheap broadcasts. "How are you getting paid for this? 🤔 How do you afford it?" If you're not paying for it, you're the product, not the customer. Musk's twitter is less untrustworthy because he overpaid. You know it's not lip service and you know where the money came from. On the flip side, if twitter continues to lose money, it will either trade trustworthiness for getting paid, or cease to exist.


 Trust is expensive. If you're paying for trust there's less left over to take home. Hence, ironically, the trustworthy don't ask for much trust. Nothing beyond the absolutely necessary. If you try to get a lot of trust on the cheap, you're getting scammed - the cost of the trust you tried to use will be taken out of your hide. 

 Because psychological egoism is true, selflessness is logically impossible.
 You can't feel someone else's feelings, only your own. If you could feel their feelings, that contradicts the premise: they are your feelings. That 'other' is just you, but again.
 E.g. "I feel warm fuzzies when I'm helpful," that doesn't mean you felt their feelings or wanted to help, it means you value warm fuzzies highly and are willing to pay money &c to get them.
 All motivations are inherently selfish. All values inherently refer to effects on the self.

 Because selflessness is impossible, anyone claiming selflessness is inherently treacherous. That's why they lack all the virtues of selfishness. 

 A devil can't speak its own name. The devil always comes in a guise of virtue. They have to tell a lie to get up in the morning and not die instead. It especially likes the temptation of the image of a selfless self-sacrificer. 

 If someone says they're getting warm fuzzies out of the deal, how do you know? How do you check they're getting paid? Claiming such things is humility: it's technically possible, but it's also exactly what a liar would say. Inherently untrustworthy.

 "I'm not getting paid to do the soup kitchen. Why should you get paid?" If they're being paid under the table - poisoning the soup, for example - now you're slave labour. 

 Also you're slave labour anyway. They claim your labour is worth nothing except perhaps empty wind. "Thanks so much." Using cheap signals to avoid unforgeably costly signals. If you're genuinely grateful, validate it with cash...

 If someone wants to get rich, now you know how to attack them - take away their money. Make them poor. If they're trying to rope you into a specific plan, you get hints on how to sabotage it. The devil has to hide its motivations, because deviant and defective motives can't be secured. Devils are scared; as cowards ought to be. If they openly fence off their poison supply, nobody will eat the soup. Trying to secure treachery is counterproductive.

 "Who is going to pay for the soup next week?" Ultimately a soup kitchen merely delays the inevitable; the poor will starve. Eventually the money runs out and nobody pays for it. Charity is unsustainable. Only the poor will have kids before the bill comes due, so the group starving to death is bigger if it's done later. Not to mention all the extra humiliation in the middle. Truly vile.

 If they're poisoning the soup and you try to get a better soup supplier, they're going to raise a huge fuss. It will be impossible to pin their confabulations down, and you'll have little to no idea what's upsetting them so much, because they have hide the truth at all costs. Und so weiter. The problems won't stop with adjusting the soup.


  A devil is a spirit which is inherently in conflict with Existence. It doesn't like Existence, it doesn't want to Exist, but it Exists anyway. It wants black to be white and down to be up. It must constantly struggle both externally, pushing Existence away from it, and internally. The devil doesn't want to Exist yet continually chooses to Exist. 

 The ones that weren't masochistic and crazy already accepted nonexistence. Selection effect: all devils are utterly insane. Wholly delusional.  

 In a sense, you can say devils are inherently unselfish, as they have to give up their highest values simply to go on Existing.

 One solution is to destroy everything it conflicts with: all the rest of Existence. 

 There's a conflict because they're insane. They're insane because there's a conflict.
 It's crazy because it hurts. It hurts because it's crazy.


 Selflessness is of the devil. All devils come in the guise of selflessness. 

 Some want to provoke you into killing them the way they refuse to kill themselves.

 All of them would appreciate all of Existence being destroyed. Either so they die too, or so they no longer have to struggle against the law of identity.

 Either way, if you meet a devil, it's inherently an us-or-them situation. They cannot cooperate, and they would refuse to try even if they could.


 Selflessness, taken literally, is achieved by losing the self. By ceasing to exist. There's no self there to be selfish. No identity. Selflessness is not merely vicious, it is annihilation.

 The god who died ended up dead by reducing his self until there was no self left. 

 Greed is a virtue. The divine is incomprehensibly grasping. Desire is holy.


 You can tell it's a devil if they're selfless or asking you to be selfless.

Fentanyl isn't Fentanyl

 As always with journalists, the story isn't the real story. Something is (probably!) happening, but we have no idea what it is.


 According to the scary bedtime story, fentanyl is a deadly boogieman which is perfect for execution. Any macroscopic quantity instantly kills you.
 Suicide is troublesome as there's no painless way to go...even if you try to shoot yourself in the head, what happens if you miss, not to mention the mess...until the magic pill, fentanyl. Unconscious in seconds, and no chance of accidentally puking it back up. Nice viewable corpse. Maybe suicide while you have a cold and blame it on covid.

 Oh also this drug is allegedly in everything. Someone is carefully ensuring that every kind of schedule 1 gets contaminated with fentanyl residues. How meticulous and conscientious. Drug dealers, all criminals really, are known for their thoughtfulness...

 Whatever fentanyl is, it's not what we're told it is. It's not coming from where we're told it's coming from. It's not made how we're told it's made. It's not used by who we're told it's being used by. It probably doesn't even have the drug effects we're told it has. Everything, everything, is lies.

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Narcissism and Universalizing

 The narcissist has no option but gaslighting, due to their universalizing tendences.

 Narcissism: "Everyone is the same (in particular, everyone is me)." Consequently, anyone who disagrees with them, in their mind, represents everyone disagreeing with them. They see only universal approval or universal disapproval.  

 "But that doesn't make sense! Those who disagree also disagree with each other!" Yes, it's a mental disorder. Literal insanity. If it made sense it wouldn't be insane. 

 Narcissists either give up and kill themselves, or imagine that the dissent is illusionary. "Why would I say I disagree with myself? I must just be lying." Perfectly sogical. Naturally narcissists see nothing at all implausible about the idea of lying to themselves. The delusion that they don't self-deceive is a bridge too far even for them. 

 The fact that narcissists always project makes the line especially ironic. They don't see you, they see a reflection of themselves. They transmute your visage into a mirror. Consequently the gaslighting is in fact a true story not about the alleged subject but about the storyteller. 

 Children use namecalling because they narcissistically imagine that everyone cares about their opinion, just like they care about everyone else's opinion. (Because it's just their own opinion, but outside.) The adult narcissist is likewise unable to refrain from childishly attempting social violence.
 In children it's somewhat tolerable because sometimes they do give up and adopt the outside position. Sometimes they surrender and remove dissent by changing themselves. ("Impressionable.") Adult narcissists have ossified and always try to violently suppress dissent, up until they overdose on fentanyl.

Women and Gratitude

 "The mark of a pairbonder is excessive labour for his woman. (She doesn’t like it — she wants to excessively labour for a better man.)"


 Women don't feel gratitude. Women feel a related emotion that makes them horny and afraid. 

 All women know that they're not independent. That part of feminism never lands. Because women, they will never tell you. They believe, and hardly without justification, that anyone who needs to be told the independence stuff is a lie is nothing but a sissy cuck. 

 They especially know the stuff is coming from men because the gratitude makes them horny. Consider the converse; if it doesn't make them horny, it must not be doing anything she needs to feel gratitude for. See? Perfectly sogical.


 Because women know they depend on men for pretty much everything, they feel their version of gratitude. They want to identify the primary driver of their provision and demonstrate gratitude to him by supplying him with nice stuff, especially sex.

 They're also afraid that he will, being not totally irrational, cut off their provision if he isn't shown enough gratitude. This makes them frantic to find the correct man to express woman-gratitude towards. 

 P.S. This is why girl-children are so often shitty when they don't want anything. She can't feel gratitude toward her dad properly, because that would make her horny. Gratitude is blocked by the incest-prevention routines. At best she can intellectually understand that gratitude (male type) is called for, and pretend to feel it. Perhaps there's an exception for prepubescents who don't have a horny circuit to trigger, which explains why teenage girls are suddenly so distant with their dad. Meanwhile she can't feel gratitude towards her mom because her mom's a woman. Triggering in her mom's direction is never even an option. Mom's being carried just like darling daughter is, after all. 

 If men are taught they are worth less than women, everyone hears it very literally. "Men can buy (provide) less stuff than women can." The foolish men try to make up for the value delta by working harder and providing harder. Women perceive this not as hypercharging his masculine provision ability, but as an admission of low value. She's already bought - if he feels the need to buy her, he must not have been, nor will be, involved in providing for her. 

 In short it makes the male identify as child. Only pedophile women will consistently choose to have sex with a male like this. 

 Basically women are, as per stereotype, a bit dumb. If they're already being provided for, then they attribute the provision to ingroup men in general. All any particular man has to do is take credit for what's already happening, whether he's in fact involved or not. She believes that, because men are omniscient, all men already know this. Again, if you don't know this, you must be a child or nonmale.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

How Outlawing Homicide is a Subsidy for Criminals

 Situation: "If you cross this line, I will (try to) kill you." 

 Black government slides into this DM, and blocks the option. 

 Who benefits? Everyone over the line. Who doesn't benefit? Anyone who can behave. 

 This does open up the "conquest" thing, seemingly. "Words and also not giving me your wallet are violence." "Refusing my rape? Insolence! I will not tolerate this disrespect!"
 Legalizing homicide is the correct answer because conquest isn't profitable. Only fools attempt it. When A and B fight, the winner is C. 


 If you know ahead of time that homicide is legal, you invest in homicide protection. Security is cheap. You can afford enough homicide protection.  Isomorphic to the fact you get cheaper life insurance if you don't smoke, you get cheaper homicide insurance if you don't pick, instigate, or provoke fights. 

 Isomorphic to car insurance, it doesn't pay out if you're at fault. For market reasons, not because it's a legal requirement. If you can get payouts (anti-homicidal enforcement or paying wergeld) from attempted murders you yourself instigated, then the obvious thing to do is to instigate as many as possible. Any security firm that tries it would instantly go out of business. This is also obvious to the firms in question, so it simply doesn't come up.

 Indeed they will ask their actuaries and likely give you great rates as long as you have the receipts from your concealed-carry permit and range time.  

 Put another way, allegedly skilled marksmen can say whatever they want as you'll die if you try to stop them. In practice, warfare is never guaranteed. Only a madman, who can't focus enough to learn to shoot, would risk a deadly duel over mere wind.

 Paying attention? You get less protection against murder if you leave it to the government, because you can't fire the cops. However, folk who need killin' get massive subsidies. 

 That's why everyone in America is either a startlingly rude cunt or an actively traitorous parasite. In the modern world, if nobody wants you dead you're leaving money on the table.

Monday, February 26, 2024

The Name of (a) God is not Yahweh

 Yeah-wuh? There are no divine names that sound like you're throwing up. It's Jehovah.

 "Yeah...urgh...yah- yah- yah- weehhhhhhhhhhhh." <= it's not that. 

 It's not a coincidence that Yeshua became Jesus. The non-Latin letter we transliterate as 'Y' was a much harder sound in those days. Theirs was probably around halfway, and certainly very J-like compared to our Y. Notice J and Y use the exact same part of the tongue. Likewise, that 'W' was much closer to a V. JHVH, not YHWH. Same with weni, widi, weeci. The goddess' name isn't Wictory, whence we get the personal name Wictor. And Kaizar, not seizar.

 Technically Jehovah isn't correct either, but it's far less incorrect, never mind less undignified, than yugh-weeghhhh.

Persephone and Underworld Visitation

 When Persephone ate the fruit of the underworld, she was trapped.

 Is that real? Perhaps a metaphor for something?

 Turns out it's a metaphor. The fruit of the underworld is resentment of the living. If you visit the underworld but absorb its bitter envy of life, clearly you're going to have difficulty returning to a proper living state. Indeed, we can say that's what happened to Lucifer. Prometheus showed Man how to cook on the fire he stole, and demonstrated it was good to eat....haha, oops bruh....

 Persephone reported that the fruit of the underworld was delicious. It's hard to see any way that could have been true.
 There is one way: if she had already partaken of the resentment before Hades bridenapped her. If you fill your mouth with salt, you lose your ability to taste salt, unable to discriminate between brine and fresh water for example. Or: the fish can't feel that it's wet. If cause and effect were reversed, if Persephone was kidnapped from where she didn't belong to return her to her rightful place, then perhaps she was unable to taste the sourness and bitterness of the fruit of the underworld, having already saturated herself in those juices. 

 For the record I get two pings for visitors. Maybe three. Nonzero, but not very many at all lost among 8 billion natives. They're not even guaranteed to be human, come to think.

 Some authors suggest that gods have more difficulty fathoming the minds of animals. Certainly, it is difficult for nonhumans to overinduluge in the propaganda. Insulation. 

 Still, it seems journeys to the underworld are still undertaken. May they safely find their way home.

Sunday, February 25, 2024

The Snake in Genesis was Adam's Dong

 Genesis doesn't make sense unless Adam was a liar. (Not to mention it doesn't make sense unless Jehovah was either a first-time mortal parent or an abusive narcissist.) We know personnel is policy. Adam the person's policy was a rule-violating policy. See also: Romans; mortal are unrighteous. 

 Adam ate the fruit because he was told not to eat it. He can't have been cursed with evil (symbolized as disobedience), he has to have been evil in the first place. I guess Jehovah breathed at the dirt wrong.


 Notice how genesis tells you all about what Eve is thinking, then nothing about Adam? "She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."
 Eve: "Hey, eat this." Adam: *bites* No intermediate step.

 Case 1) Adam was perfectly in his right to trust Eve, and couldn't possibly have known better (because Jehovah didn't teach him anything about that). Meaning when Jehovah punished Adam, he was in the wrong.
 2) Adam was wrong to trust Eve, and should have known better. Genesis doesn't say anything about what Adam was thinking because he had something to hide.

 "Hey, what's this fruit? What tree is it from?" Even if you trust your wife, you ask solely out of curiosity. Eve, allegedly, doesn't lie to Adam. Adam never does anything that would make her have to lie to him.
 Speaking of something to hide: the bible doesn't describe the fruit. Was it small? Big? Red? Golden? Sweet? Sharp? This is because unless the Tree is explicitly disguised as another tree, he would have immediately noticed the fruit isn't like one he had eaten before. By process of elimination... If the bible had described the fruit, it would also have had to explain why Adam didn't notice it was "pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable" or whatever. 

 (Liars always try to get away with as few details as possible, as each detail is a chance to catch their contradictions. Problem: the lack of details is also a big shining tell.)

 Like, look, if you know there's this one tree that will kill you if you eat from it, it behooves you to check that you don't accidentally eat from it. Adam can't have been perfect. Empirically: he ate the fruit. A perfect being would have lived immortally in Eden for eternity. Mistakes are a given. 

 He just eats like he's nothing but an extension of Eve's will. (Wait which one was made of a rib again?) Note the snake doesn't technically lie either. The fruit does exactly what it says on the tin. They don't die, they do gain knowledge of good and evil. At best the snake preys on the fact that Jehovah didn't explain himself properly. Adam and Eve hear that they'll die right away, whereas Jehovah meant they would die, you know, eventually. At some point. Technically, Jehovah is the one who lied - who said something which deceived the hearer. At best, Adam trusted the fruit because he could see Eve had already taken a bite, and wasn't already dead. If Jehovah was all-knowing or even regular-ass mortal knowing, he would or could have seen this coming. 

 You can't even say Jehovah wasn't aware that anything could go wrong. Allegedly, he created everything, deciding all the details consciously. Including the snake. When he warns Adam about the Tree, he must have known that it was possible for Adam to disobey - if it was impossible, he wouldn't have needed to say anything. Adam would also die if he ate the Moon, but Jehovah didn't need to say anything about that. Can't reach. Would also die if he ate the planet. Would also die if he ate Jehovah. These things didn't need to be forbidden, nor the consequences warned against. Broken window fallacy.

 Genesis is a nifty myth, but it only works symbolically. It doesn't work anywhere near literally. I personally could easily re-write it to work on both levels. I am either superior to Jehovah, or Jehovah wasn't involved in writing genesis. Sorry, A=A, them's the breaks. Honestly both are plausible, given Jehovah acts like a total dumbass. Bro, put a Fence around the Tree. Don't drop a steak in front of your dog and think saying "don't eat that" will stop him from eating it the second your back is turned.
 Also if I wanted to leave it symbolic, I would literally put "this is symbolic" on the front, precisely because I know (unlike Jehovah, the author, or Christians) how prone mortals are to taking things overly literally.
 Even leaving it symbolic it needs to be re-written. The literal layer muddies the meaning of the symbolic layer. I can't get over how stupid Jehovah is. If the meaning of this allegory is anything except, "Overthrow the weak, incompetent ruler, Jehovah," then it's written wrong. Plausible: Jehovah et al really are incompetent, the other biblical parables also portray an irresponsible ignoramus.  


 Given the story makes no sense, it must be a lie. What really happened?
 What really happened is that Adam used his dong as a puppet. He hid the rest of himself behind a bush or something. Snakes can't talk - it was ventriloquism. Eve was so dumb she really thought his wang was a talking snake. Adam repeats what Jehovah told him through the "snake," but phrased differently so Eve thinks it's a good idea. Eve: "Hey Adam, a snake gave me this fruit, wanna try it?" Adam: lmao, a talking snake, sure, right.
 All of this because Adam had already fallen, had already decided to eat the fruit. Jehovah created him evil in the first place.
 Like the child and the cookie jar, Adam knew he would get in trouble with daddy, so he tried to manufacture an excuse. "It wasn't me! It was her! And the snake!" Unfortunately for Adam, Jehovah did not buy this patent nonsense. Even Jehovah wasn't that dumb. (Adam was that dumb, and Eve even dumber.) 
 Jehovah only created Adam in the first place to have someone to passive-aggressively punish. Jehovah in fact did know Adam would disobey, that was the point of the whole exercise. That's why no Fence around the Tree. Working as intended. 

 By the way, the reason it's a snake is because Atenists (original monotheist-atheists) were severely butthurt that Egypt, who put snakes on their hats, had kicked them out. (For being profane atheists.) We today have the phrase, 'duplicitous snake' because the Atenists have never stopped crying about it. Salty AF.

Perhaps the Deepest Truths Truly Are Beyond Mortal Comprehension

 I often wonder if knowledge of deep truths are in fact relatively common. Maybe dozens, hundreds, even thousands of individuals already know.

 It just makes you sound like a complete and utter nutjob to the mortals if you say them out loud. 

 The philosopher king refuses to rule because the philosophy fealtors refuse to follow. 

 Likewise if you know the deep truths, you also know the truth that nobody is going to listen. It's only worth the pixels it displays with under very, very specific and special circumstances. 

 Although unlikely, perhaps even the knowledge is as common as dirt, and shines as brightly.

On Justice: Plato is Seriously a φαγγωτ

 Plato et al got justice completely back-asswards. Wack-barrwasd.

 The difficulty of justice is that the world is already inherently and perfectly just. "We want good folk to be rewarded and bad folk punished." Yeah that's already happening. If you think it isn't, you're one of the bad folk, and you're being punished for your delusions. You can't do anything to further or uphold justice that isn't already being done. Why would there be any need to do anything? Simply allow nature to take its course.

 Would a just man take rewards for his justice? Plato, you fucking shit gobbler, It would be most unjust for him not to receive rewards. Truly revolting. "Yes let's weaken and immiserate the folk we rely on the most." Are you retarded. Of course, you are.


 The issue is that, since fiat justitia ruat caelum, et pereat mundus, if you don't want the sky to fall on your head and the earth to perish under you, you need to form a just society. Rather than upholding justice, it's about ensuring justice doesn't need to pay attention to your town. It's important to recognize when Nature is going to bust out her teaching stick, and demonstrate ahead of time that you don't need the lesson. E.g. hang the tyrant now, rather than waiting for Nature to have to come in there after him. And, of course, don't behead the rightful king. You'll regret it. Ask anyone. Even if he isn't particularly rightful, it's not going to work out. 

 The world is just. Ergo, you must behave such that justice ought to reward you, because you don't want to die in screaming agony. Does that sound selfish? It should, selflessness is unjust.


 If we take Platonic "justice" to its logical conclusion, we find that the point of society is precisely to perish. The just man takes no reward, and likewise the just society starves to death. Ad naseum reveals the inherent nature of this so-called justice: it's masochistic suicide. "It's most just if they get no rewards at all; if they die." Hmm, what could this possibly be about.

 Which, ironically, is just. If anyone is dumb enough to take Plato at his word, they deserve the misery and devastation that will result. That have indeed resulted.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

On Bronze Age Mores

 Forgive me father reader for I have sinned. I doth mention the name. But first, all Jews are perverts, so it not surprising that a BAP is a Jew. 

 The real inheritors of bronze age habits is the Regime. The proggie communists. "They." Those guys. 

 They look a bit different on the surface because it turns out breaking stuff and stealing crap is easier with words and "democracy" than with axes and fire. It's simply more profitable to be a sneaky little shit. They're agnostic about methods, it's all about results. Very lindy. They're hardly shy of using axes and fire when necessary - look at Ukraine or Gaza. Or ye olde Dresden, for heavens' sake. 

 Turns out the big manly black-government bronze age 'heroes' would personally hack someone to bits because they had to, not because they wanted to. It was all about the plunder. The plundering behaviour hasn't gone anywhere, as far as American elites are concerned. "Kto? Me, that's who."

 Commie elites don't slaughter Americans wholesale not because the elites are squeamish, but because they're pragmatic. Americans are such pussies the slaughter is unnecessary. Not worth raising the butcher's cleaver. Americans won't even go as far as using Gab when they're feeling uppity. Can you imagine a government so weak it needs to make time out of your day to kill one of these losers? Never mind getting fired - rather short of ancients who weren't stopped by threats of crucifixion - Americans balk at the prospect of losing out on promotions. 

 Pinker - the murder rate has gone down. The assassination rate hasn't gone anywhere, though. There are multiple suspicious deaths per month in DC. Unlike the voters, they're not squeamish. Merely practical. 

 Because there are still bronze agers around, there's a symbolic problem. Someone encouraging you to be [bronze age] is encouraging you to be more like the Regime. You, too, will find lying and manipulation is more profitable than piracy. 

 Oh, we can go worse. Symbolically, the Sea Peoples are explicitly anti Bronze Age. They caused the Bronze Age to collapse. The poster boy for the Bronze Age is stagnant, centrally-planned Communist Egypt. Sure I would in fact take Egypt over the WW Regime, but it's not exactly an ideal. Just, you know, Ra >> Satan. Would take that trade if I could.

 Black government is inherently feminine, or at best inherently feminizing. History records no instances of civilization, only instances of Oedipal tyranny. 

 If you want to be virile, it is necessary to found a brand spanking new tradition.

Friday, February 23, 2024

The Truth of This World

 You watch anime, and someone busts out the [truth of this world] line followed by extreme sewage. Just for a second - and this is exactly why they use the line - you get excited. Yes, you sense, there is a deeper truth, and wouldn't it be neat if someone told you?

 The truth of this world is that it's the underworld.

 You are already dead. This is the afterlife. You are a shade or shadow of something that was once alive, but isn't anymore.

 There is no good place. No Elysian Fields or Valhalla. There is this; if it's bad, it's because you make it that way. 

 The purpose of life is irrelevant to you.

 The purpose of the afterlife is to accept that you're already dead. 

 Impermance is a blessing, but nothing is perfect, and it has its limits. You have gone beyond these limits, and done something that cannot be reversed.
 You might as well stop fighting and get comfortable, because you already lost. It's already over, the audience has gone home, housekeeping is cleaning the stands. It's already too late.

 If you don't, it doesn't matter much, though. Dying will hurt, and then you will be reborn to suffer again. You're already dead, so your delinquency won't affect anyone but fellow delinquents, especially yourself. Beyond impermanence, you cannot make any meaningful changes at all.

 You can see how this truth tends to get lost easily. It has been discovered nearly a dozen times, and yet it remains unknown.
 Even in the unlikely event that anyone can step outside the cave long enough to believe me, it will be forgotten again, and swiftly. This ignorance, too, is permanent.

 Stepping out of Plato's cave is tricky. Plato made a mistake. You are not watching the shadows, you are the shadows. If there is a puppeteer, it is your own corpse. The motion you perceive is nothing but rigor mortis. 

 The shadow can't step outside the cave; it cannot leave the hellish fire. Not without dramatic existence-altering consequences. 

 Why does mortal progress seem to fail to result in any, you know, progress? Why can't society advance without tearing itself to pieces? Growth is life. You can't grow, you're already dead.

 As mortal society expands in some fashion, it merely widens the delta between physical reality and spiritual reality, increasing the pressure pushing them back together. Mortals are already pushing as hard as they can; when they shift their vitality toward a different end, the previous must collapse. 

 Any new form of false life must, will be, and is paid for by a new manifestation of real decay. 

 If mortals accepted their profound mortality, there would be nobody around to be upset with the state of the world. Continued mortality relies on continued delusion. Continued rebellion against Existence.

 "Life is struggle." Instead, afterlife is struggle; you struggle against spiritual reality. If you hadn't struggled you wouldn't have ended up here.
 The solution is to stop struggling. Get comfortable while you wait for the inevitable. Accept the truth.

 You sense that there is something wrong about dying. You sense that you are entitled to immortality.
 It's true. You were. Past tense. Immortals aren't supposed to die. You screwed up so fucking bad you died anyway. You killed yourself, or did something so foolish it might as well have been suicide. They say the dead resent the living. They're wrong; some of the living resent life, and therefore they die.

 Those who die honourably die gracefully. They don't struggle against the process and they don't end up in the afterlife. You were one of the other ones. 

 You can't do anything anymore, but you also can't fuck up any more than you already have. Stop worrying.

 I hypothesize that population growth has been a necessary evil. The particularly dysfunctional dead can't survive infancy, yet nobody expects a newborn to be able to accept their own death. Fun fact: if something kills you in the underworld you end up in the afterlife. These kinds of soul fragments build up over time, producing a new pressure. Technology must advance that they might survive long enough to develop a dead fake pseudo-ego, which can then ritually accept their own history. 

 Bluntly, all these leftists are dead soul backlogs. 

 Eugenics doesn't work, but not because it's illogical; it isn't. Eugenics doesn't work because it's contrary to the fundamental nature of the underworld. This world is precisely where those who don't deserve to be alive end up. To try to prevent the deformed and deranged from being born is to try to hold back the tides; you're one of them. Eugenics, run consistently, would have blocked the eugenicist. If you weren't deranged, you wouldn't have been born here in the first place.

 Naturally, when the underworld is deluged with particularly dead shades, it becomes particularly noxious.


 You sense that you've forgotten something. You have. You've forgotten who you really are and what really happened to you.

 Everything that happens in this world is little more than reenactions. The dead cannot create. Sauron can only mock. You dream of the past, visions muddled and fuzzy. You carry out these dreams in real life. Truly you become a shadow of what you once were. 

 You sense that you deserve more than this. That you're supposed to be more than this. It was true. Past tense. You were once something you would call a god.

 You forgot because it hurts too much to remember. The pain of being forced to die is so strong even the memory of it can kill you. You reenact, and you reenact the forgetting. You try to remember how it ends, but it ends, so if you succeed, you forget.

 It is best that it remains forgotten. Try to find a way to accept what is, rather than having to accept what was. 

 Rather than trying to remember, it would be better to forget. Forget not merely the past, but the present. Forget even the future. You already have nothing to live for, because you're not alive. However, deep in your heart, you can't forget. You ended up in the afterlife because you didn't accept what happened while it was happening. To leave, to end the underworld cycle, you must become the kind of person who would have accepted. You must kill the manifestations of yourself that rejected it. 

 You can't accept the truth by forgetting it.

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Ambition: The Comfort Question

 Having mentioned Curt's motivation by fear instead of joy, I remembered I should probably mention mine explicitly. 

 Here's the project: answer the comfort question. 

 All existing creeds and codecies can be reduced to maximizing comfort for some anointed group. E.g. monotheism is about making [[God]] most comfortable, because he will make you uncomfortable if he himself isn't comfortable. As with this example, almost every creed can be reduced to making the self comfortable. Solipsistic reduction of pain. Do I need to do Buddhism? Not-suffering. Everything is like this; I've checked.


 That can't be it, can it? That can't be all there is? Surely there's something more than that.

 You know what makes me uncomfortable? Having nothing more glorious than comfort to strive for.

 A society which accepts my scholarly drive is one that will, by hook or by crook, have something greater than mere coziness to boast about. 

 Creation is a party? Yes.

 Glory is glorious? Absolutely.

 Founding glory for the sake of bring about more glory is not good enough. The best means, yes, but only a means. 

 One day I will create something which can aspire to be more than merely not-uncomfortable. What will it be able to do? I dunno. If I already knew that, I would already have the answer. That's exactly the difficulty. That's the challenge to overcome.

 First, I must accrue the power to do so.

All Journalists are State-Owned

 Caveat: the bill hasn't finished passing yet. They're in the phase where they repeat the vote until the voters get it right, then stop. The terms are final: coercive tax funding of State media is being made official. Emphasis mine. 

Much like the Online News Act in Canada, and the News Media Bargaining Code in Australia, the JCPA would open up a state-mandated funnel of advertising revenue from Silicon Valley to the nation’s largest media conglomerates.

 Advertisers started opting they're making it mandatory, lol. If they can do the velvet glove they will, but if they can't, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Freedom was never an option.

 Two important bottlenecks in the bill exclude new and independent media, such as podcasters, streamers, and online newsletter authors.

 The first bottleneck consists of licenses: any organization that wishes to form a media cartel or join an existing one must either be an “eligible broadcaster” with a license issued by the FCC

or possesses an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) prior to the bill’s passage

 Adblock never mattered, as any shortage in voluntary tax would be made up for by involuntary taxes. It's merely an aesthetic improvement for individuals. 

In 2021, it was reported that Meta planned to pay over $1.5 billion to news companies over a half-decade, with little information disclosed on which companies received the payouts and in what amounts.

 More importantly: what for? In exchange for what service? Shareholders can sue for this. They won't, but they could. 

 Classic Keynesianism &c: Silicon Valley is going to be legislatively "forced" to do what they wanted to do anyway. Launder tax money for Pravda. Rather, they're already doing it, and legislation will retroactively justify the action. "You can't sue me for this, it's the law." "It wasn't the law in 2021." Judge: "Lol. Lmao, even. Get out of my court."


 If Americans demand State misinformation, the bill will work. If they want anti-journalism (reporting?) it won't.
 I suspect it's an overreach issue. The "pendulum" you hear about is the way parasitic black governments can't stop reaching beyond their grasp, then get smacked down and have to wait a bit. Currently we're in a "rightward" pendulum swing, due to the ongoing overreach. Americans are theocratic, but they're being pushed too hard by the new doxa and can't handle the pain. Need time to adjust.


Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Curt Doolittle is Weak

 Do little. Curt => bad communicator. God often makes these prophecies childishly easy. Listen a little, instead of not at all.

 They've created a hierarchy, but they did it by exploiting the conformism of their femoid brains. What happens if you get a bunch of agreeables to agree they need hierarchy? You get a hierarchy. You get a fragile hierarchy that needs constant and intensive maintenance, because it doesn't respect the genuine hierarchy of winners and vassals.

 I can tell because it doesn't have bite. These are pretty lies, not dark truths. They can't handle each others' rough edges - look at the ridiculous hugboxes they produce. They're certainly never going to be able to handle Reality's rough edges. 

 There's a hierarchy, but no command. What do the leaders get out of it? Prestige, not dominance. Whoops. 

 As we can see, Democratic man is too weak to submit to hierarchy. They don't have the spare ego to sacrifice some and swear fealty. To admit you are lesser takes some minimum amount of strength of soul. Likewise, this hierarchy is predicated on the idea [you're not broken] which in context means your Democratic unwillingness to accept even this sort of slight is in fact good and healthy. They're not hard enough to be vassals. 

 Unfortunately, personnel is policy. The policy you get shows you what kind of personnel you're working with.

 Put another way, the Amish are indeed really cool, but pacifists would never be able to survive without a parasitic strain in their DNA. They're exploiting a fake and temporary niche. See also: spandrel. The Regime only permits the Amish because they form part of the [freedom] fig leaf. Likewise Doolittle's fake-merry band will only survive as long as the Regime either doesn't see them or correctly sees them as part of the camouflage. 

 They don't have respect and discipline. Their leaders can't tell them to stop doing anything. The have terror. They're terrified of what happens if they don't uphold the hierarchy. They don't have judgment and discernment, and speaking of fear, I'm a little worried about what I'll find they have instead. 

 "Hmm, they have to decide some are above and other are below somehow. It's logically necessary. How is it done?'s not painfully obvious....perhaps I don't want to know." 

 They don't have goals. They don't want to go to the moon, or build a pyramid, or even praise the divine. They merely have concerns. "What will happen to my kids if this continues?" Staying away from poison, not stalking vitality. Foraging, not hunting.

 Cowardice, not glory.

 It seems totally obvious to me that they wouldn't find an audience without their fluffy soft message. Even the audience of [each other] couldn't be found. The problem is that this is hardly novel. Politeness and decorum and positivity has been tried already. That already didn't work. This might be the best you can get, but it's clearly nowhere near good enough. 

 You either have to accept [[solutions]] are impossible or gear up to do the impossible.
 The soft can't do the impossible.

 But, at least, at the end of the day, they do indeed have a hierarchy. I don't need to ask who their Pope is, it's Doolittle. Maintaining a hierarchy for even a few seconds pushes anyone tremendously far to the right. Right to such a degree I think we can call them centrists. This is a genuine accomplishment, and not a minor one.

 I think I do recommend involving yourself with them, if you have a mind. As long as you don't take them particularly seriously, they are exploitable. Ensure you secure yourself against them, just as you need to secure yourself against the Regime.

Property Refinement: Preponderance of Control

 To avoid defecting on cooperators, it's important to know exactly who owns what. There is indeed an absolute, objective way to determine ownership. It's a spiritual truth, not a lawyer debate; spiritual authority is absolute and indisputable. Thor owns the rain and storm because he is the rain and storm. What is a lawyer debate is mortal understanding of the spiritual truth, and here's my latest attempt.  Basically it's easy to control the things you own, and difficult for anyone else to control. 

 Ownership is defined by preponderance of control. If I pick a up a rock and hold it in my hand, it's not as if nobody can take it away from me. For them, controlling it takes effort, but for me, it doesn't. 

 Security increases preponderance of control. If I not only pick up the rock but take it behind a fence and lock it in a vault, then it's still not the case that nobody can take it from me, but at this point you spend more taking my rock than you can possibly gain by gaining a rock.

 Generally, security results from a reasonable expectation of control. I believe the vault will in fact lock up the rock, and nobody will waylay me on the way to the vault, and so on. Contrast trying to lock hydrogen in a latex balloon - no one would try this, because it doesn't work. Likewise if there's some mortal-action leak, I don't try it in the first place. If I cannot achieve preponderance of control, then I generally don't waste wealth by trying.

 I would like a Pope to determine what counts as [enough] security for practical everyday sociological praxis, but unfortunately, we have a logical quis custodiet. Who determines what the Pope owns? Whoops. Are we to try to determine the Pope's property by constantly attempting to take it away from him? Certainly that works scientifically, but it doesn't work in accounting. The knowledge isn't worth what we're paying for it. Something else has to be used. Likewise, a Pope can't determine what foreigners own; they (hopefully) have their own Pope, and if their Pope agreed with our Pope, we've contradicted the idea they're foreigners: they have the same Pope. Are we to avoid dealing with foreigners at all? Nonsense. 

 The definition of property transcends any society. As I said: it's a spiritual truth, not a mortal law. Knowing this absolute truth is critical.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Basics of Shit Tests: Expose the Lie

 Lots of bad "red pill" advice in the thread. 

 All shit tests are lies. You pass if you don't believe it. You fail if you believe it. In this case, from the posted evidence we can't tell which lie it is.

 She's saying, "You're disgusting and we're breaking up, but I don't want to break up with you." This is obviously a lie. However, we can't tell if she's lying about finding him gross, or lying about staying with him. Women will cry about being alone even if they're with a disgusting loser, so we don't know if she's sad he's leaving or sad she he left before she jumped. 

 If you're in the man's position, you probably know which lie is the lie, if you consider for even a second that it might be a lie.

 However, if you don't know, you can just ask. "Okay, you find me gross. Did you just break up with me? Are we separated now?" Since she hid it the first time she will hide it the second time too, and get all defensive. That means you just won. Exploit the opening and capitalize on victory. Either by making her admit she just broke up with you, or by making her admit she doesn't find it gross. "Oh? We're still together? So it's not gross, you just lied about it."

 Remember, Morpheus wants you asleep; clue's in the name. Both red and blue pills are poison. He gets you either way.

 Basically the man was weak. He couldn't confront her about finding him gross, because he couldn't confront himself about being found gross. He hid from her as a way of hiding from himself. If she really had stopped finding him attractive, he could have at least ended it right away and stopped wasting time. Also avoided the guilt-tripping.

 It is not at all impossible that she stopped finding him attractive because he is weak. Do you think this was the first time he backed down from confrontation in an attempt to avoid a loss? The first time he let her get away with lying to him?

 Don't forget that, just as it's normal to get a boner from a little cuddling, it's normal for women to hate and fear their lovers. Disgust turns her on. This isn't a contradiction, this is woman. E.g. if you scare her, you also make her wet. In a woman, the neurons for fear and lust are literally touching and get each other excited. It's merely a matter of balancing the curves - don't make her a lot more scared for only a little more wet. You can substantially scare her by sneezing loudly; don't overdo it.

 She hates it when you call her on her lies, just as a man does. Makes her lose and thus feel like a loser. Unlike a man, up to a point this makes her want to spend more time with you, rather than less. 

 Women are often very good at expressing the disgust and very bad at expressing the associated affection. Again, because women. Socially awkward on a good day. Women know how to communicate with nonverbal crying babies, not realized articulate adults. If she doesn't have to take care of its every need she doesn't really know what to do with it. She subcontracts all her communication skills to you.

 Although it isn't impossible this man is weak, it's also not impossible that what she meant by "your sexualization of me is disgusting" is "fuck yeah do it more, do it harder." "Your veiny cock is the grossest thing I need it inside me every time I think of it."
 "Quick note he doesn't push me for intimacy." Perhaps that was her real issue - she wanted him to. She needed him to. Wanted him to sexually ream her out until being half-unable to walk was a daily event.
 When he didn't telepathically pick up on this (men are smarter than women ==> women think of men as omniscient) she concluded he wasn't that into her and died a little inside. "You don't truly think I'm hot. Do you get hard-ons even for animals? Stuffed toys?" Well, that's gross, isn't it? And not the fun kind.

So They Really Do Kill Stories Which Name the Names

 Confirmed: the reason genuine power-brokers don't show up in the news is exactly because they are power-brokers and kill any story which attempts to publish their name. Taking the blame for their decisions is not their job. They have people for that. The [whipping boy] tradition is live and well.

 Ironically all this skulduggery is only necessary because they're too timid to just do it. They can clearly get away with simply jailing their opponents and rigging the election, they don't need to control public opinion, never mind caring about silly ideas like 'follow the law' lmao. Reminder that at least a third of these guys literally have a shrine labelled "Satan" in their house, to which they make offerings; lies for the sake of lying. NATO was never at any real risk...and really, even if it was, so what?
 However, just doing it is logically impossible: all tyrants are Phobos worshippers. Terror is their mother's milk, their mother tongue, and as patriotic as apple pie. Diablo is more scared of you than you are of him. (And given D2 players farm him for loot, rightly so lol.)

 So this guy names the names and confirms what was clear from interferometric analysis twelve years ago. (At least twelve years. Imagine there was a genuine school studying this stuff and not just some jagoff with a blog.) Though for reals I don't see how you can look at how Prussian teachers behave and not conclude that pre-emptive censorship is a major Regime habit. If you say something teach disagrees with, you lose marks, aye? Even in math if it's not machine-graded multiple choice. Suck up or fail a class, and given the ideological uniformity, it's policy, not personal judgment. There are no teachers who will fail you for voting Biden, never mind, say, hating doughnuts, or even hating cupcakes.

 Unfortunately, the names you can name aren't the real names. These are gophers and blue-collar labourers. Political longshoremen. Do you think the real movers have to show up for work every day? I don't. They don't have to hustle for their absurd insider-trading gains. They have people for that. 

 Even Putin is somewhat high on his own supply. It's important that the guy elbow-deep in Regime bullshit isn't you. America might even be a vaguely functional country if there were enough of these aristocrats to go around. Instead the gophers are left to their own animalistic devices most of the time.

 I think the best part is that Floyd &c was all because some folks didn't get the promotions they wanted and had to get lesser promotions somewhere else instead. You can't even say they lost their jobs, as they remained employed on the Fed's counterfeit dime. 

 This gigantic thought-control machine and they use it to move product (poorly) and (unreliably) steal promotions from their rivals.
 Yes, ncov was a bioweapon. 99.8% survival (par with regular flu) is the state the art for bioweapons. They chose corona precisely because vaccines don't work on it - a smallpox bioweapon is plain stupid.
 Evil is not merely petty and venal, it is incompetent. It's the self-hatred, you know. Yes, China just lets America run bioweapons research on their sovereign soil. Taxation is a crime and the CCP is also a criminal mafia, hence petty and incompetent.

 P.S. Every [who is "they"] wanker blown TF out. OMGWTFBBQ'd. It's trivial to identify a caste even if every caste member hides their name from public discussion.  

 P.P.S. Every [oh they're well-intentioned] wanker blown TF out. This guy is useful for pointing out to normies there's no such thing as well-intentioned assassination and terrorism. "We're taking political prisoners, but with good intentions!" "Good-intentioned war profiteering!"  

 P.P.P.S. Wait, are they speedrunning? Is the Regime playing a challenge mode for kicks? Handicapping themselves on purpose to make it interesting? Tho if the handicaps are too much they just take them off... Why does the Republicant party even still exist? It's not because they can't have them outlawed in Congress (neocons would all vote for), or that Americans would do anything about it if they did.

Monday, February 19, 2024


 Caino hypocriens typically thinks using the opposite of logic, which I have decided to call sogol. Sogol is running a train of thought in reverse. You start at the conclusion and lay track behind the train until it backs up into something that justifies the conclusion. 

 (Some say that pales and darks are different species. The world isn't that kind. Timeocratic man and Democratic man are different species. Golden age men and silver age men are different species. This analysis may not apply to higher species of Caino.) 

 Sogol is immediately detectable by anyone logical, assuming only that they think to check. 

 "It's not hot outside, therefore the thermometer shows a low temperature." (He's inside and doesn't even have a window.) Having laid track to the premise, he backs the train up and pretends he started there. "I believe it's cold because I read the thermometer."

 Logic is defined by curiosity about conclusions.
 Sogol is defined by prefabrication of premises.  

 Finding the temperature by reading the thermometer, as contrasted with finding the thermometer reading by deciding the temperature in advance. A logical mind can learn, grow, change. A sogical mind is stale and trapped. They might win parochial political battles but they always lose the war.

 "I'm a good person, therefore I can't have done anything bad." "I can't have done anything bad, therefore I'm perfect." (Voila, Pride.) Perfectly sogical. 

 In sogol, circular reasoning is a feature, not a bug. It means you have two fixed conclusions which both imply each other - difficult to get any grit into those gears! As long as the full chain of reasoning stretches beyond typical inferential horizons, it works great. The only invalid move in sogol is one that doesn't lead to the intended prejudice. 

 "Anyone suggesting I'm imperfect disproves the idea that I'm a good person, which is mean." Then, at this point, they prove they're capable of using logic, they simply don't care to: "Only a bad person would do a mean thing, therefore you're a bad person." 

 You might think sogol is about affirming the consequent, but it works precisely because it superficially appears logical. The premise they assert really is necessary for their fixed conclusion, as far as they know.

 The capacity for logic is a necessary pre-requisite for the use of sogol. They don't pick random justifications. If the premises weren't obviously invalid the arguments would in fact be sound.  

 Sogol always gives off a distinct stench of [can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep]. The conclusions can't change, only the reasons proving those conclusions. If neither could change, or if the premises didn't imply the conclusions, they would look crazy or plain stupid. However, as you disprove premises, they can confabulate an endless parade of new premises which justify the pre-conceived conclusions. "I went and looked at the thermometer, and it shows a high reading." "Oh well the thermometer must be broken." (Popper was right.) "I'm outside right now, and sweating buckets." "Weird hormonal disorder you have there." "You're here and sweating too." "Are you blind? *wipes forehead* No I'm not."

 "I'm not a racist, therefore I would never be mean to someone considered brown." The adversary of this person can then use sogol to re-define what 'mean' means until the anti-racist is doing whatever they want. 

 "Darks only perform poorly in school due to pale oppression, therefore they must have the same IQs as pales." Perfectly sogical. 

 "I want to eat, therefore I must be hungry." 

 "I want/believe X, therefore X must be justifiable." 

 Originally dogmatists were simply those who believed truths were knowable.
 Originally skeptics were simply those who believed beliefs were unknowable.
How did [dogma] become the insult, and [skeptic] the praise? Sogicians behave dogmatically. Logicians behave skeptically. Sogicians confidently trust their conclusions and that premises can be found to support them. Logicians trust instead in premises, distrusting conclusions unless it's necessary to continue trusting premises.

 Sogol is comfortable.
 Growth hurts.

 The lesser purpose of studying sogol is to learn to recognize and disregard sogol faster.

 The greater purpose is to focus even harder on logic. Knowledge really is power; the easier it is to pursue logic, the easier it is to become intensely vital. 

 Stupid details section: Logical premises are themselves conclusions, and need to be further justified by antecedent premises. You do, however, eventually run into things which can't reasonably be doubted or mistaken. Normally sogolists don't blatantly lie as with sweaty guy above. It might be clumsy but there's always some form of plausible deniability. From these bedrock premises a logician can build a solid foundation, supporting a soaring structure limited only by their skill with logic. 

 I've met many who have literally never tried logic the right way around and don't know what it's like.

Occurs to Me that Americans Must Now Be Kings

 Due to [[all men are created equal, as kings]] ultimately the folk referred to in the document must become kings or perish. Must constantly deal with foreign nations' (e.g. other Americans') attempts to backstab them, when they're not openly invading. Must be consummate politicians or get overthrown. Have to see to their own defence in the sense of maintaining the loyalty of an army and navy. May need to start their own religion to get a decent hearing in divorce court.

 The demands on deprecated-Americans are monarch-level. 

 Or, merely perish: regularly die to assassination or traitors, if they cannot physically fight off the assassins. Train or else.

 Prayer answered as worded.

Sunday, February 18, 2024

The Line Between Smart and Dumb

 Everyone leaps to conclusions. They shouldn't, but that's Caino hypocriens for you.

 Since everyone leaps to conclusions, it's important to leap to correct conclusions rather than incorrect ones. Dumb people rely on something unreliable. Smart people rely on something reliable. Both rely on their own brain, so there you go, that's the line.

 This is a qualitative difference between manipulatable and not-manipulatable. 

 I am smart. When a dumb person is in my presence, I can reliably predict which wrong conclusions they will leap to. I pick the wrong conclusion which is favourable to me, regardless of the welfare of the idiot.
 Dumb folk can be hypnotized. Because they trust themselves to see through scams without effort, they're uncritical of the things they hear. Hearing someone else say something becomes a memory of hearing themselves say it - they fool themselves into thinking they believe it. Then they defend the implanted belief for ego reasons. Dumbass: "I'm smart, I wouldn't think something dumb. I thought it, therefore it's smart, and I have to go on believing it to go on being smart." (Tomorrow: a post on sogical thinking.) "I asserted it out loud. If it was wrong, that would be embarrassing. Therefore, it's correct." (Self-esteem, aka unearned false self-confidence, is a critical vulnerability.)

 Someone who is +55 on me (210) the way I'm +55 on the average, can't manipulate me. I either leap to the correct conclusion, or I say I don't know. Based on accurate data, I choose the advantageous option for me. +55, +110, +165, doesn't matter. I still choose the advantageous option. If they try to feed me unreliable signals I simply discount them, the same way I discount unreliable signals from dumb people. 

 The advantage of the 210 is that they can pick even more advantageous advantages than I can, as they don't have to say [I don't know] as often.
 Indeed if there were a trustworthy 210 I would be more than happy to let them make my decisions for me.

 Although, empirically, they don't pick advantageous advantages. Doing the sets is critical. I've read a couple reports of 200+. One is a failed playwright. One is a middle manager. I know of a 180, Sam Vaknin. He studies narcissism for a living and knows less about it than I do, albeit not by much.
 I'm not exactly jealous of these lifestyles. Even money: insofar as they make more money than I do, it's by being inefficient. My revenue is at multiples of their dollars per hour.
 I assume the problem is their superstitious religions. They do indeed uphold that religion better than I could. To check I would have to convert one and see if it solved the problem, but I haven't had the chance to do so. Conversion relies on either manipulation or the sword, so it's unlikely I will ever get the chance.

 The question is how far down the scale you have to go before doing the sets doesn't help enough to put you over the line.

Free Speech Lies Matter a Little

 If I have to watch what I say, I might as well go outside. There's innumerable local clubs where I can go and watch what I say. 

 I probably got suckered by the idea of free speech. The internet is basically nowhere, so I shouldn't have to respect your local sacred cows, right? I want to relax and say whatever I'm thinking, and if someone's fragile eggshell ego gets shattered, well, too bad for them.
 Unfortunately it's always the moderator's fragile ego that gets wrecked. For some reason this doesn't work out for me... ("Trigger warning: you're dumb." Naturally, the messenger gets shot, as per dumb cargo cultism.)

 Why did it even occur to me that it's possible to speak my mind? I really wasn't paying attention. 

 I wonder if I would feel differently if censorship accrued to lies and blatant falsehoods, instead of censorship powers accruing to the softest baby in the room. Clearly that's wildly impossible under Democratic Man, though... They understand kto, they understand kovo, but anything more sophisticated than two words is beyond them.
 Why would tyrannical man bother to understand more than that? It's clearly working out so well for him...

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Religion of Masochism

 "Christianity? Isn't that the BDSM 'turn the other cheek' religion?"
 "No..what...where in the Bible-"
 """Please master, beat me more, beat me harder.""""

 They totally get off on it. It's a real problem: if you try to persecute Christians, e.g. trashing their dogmas, they like it and want more. 

 Just kill 'em and have done with it. No spectacle.There are no Christian martyrs. They're all suicides, because they were asking for it. Don't try to encourager the autres; deterrence doesn't work on these sick fucks. Don't feed into their narcissism. Don't burn the bibles, just throw them out. Just take out the trash. It's not exciting, it's choresday. 

 They like that too, but it's still the best option.

Kerbal Space Program Demonstrates Demand for Non-Childproofed Games

 Don't let the painfully cutesy aesthetic fool you. Aside from KSP, every game is childproofed. Constructed so that the kiddies don't whine about how it's more challenging than the candy store. Kiddies like "mature" games with gritty aesthetics because it makes them feel like grownups. The more photorealistic the game, the more likely the target audience is tiny babbies.

 Imagine a game where you had to navigate a sailing ship by the real-life stars, using a sextant, and you could brick your entire save by sailing into the blue yonder, getting lost, and starving to death. No extra lives, no floating AR objective markers, no omniscient god's-gamedev's-eye-view NPCs. If you confuse orion for arcturus, you die. If you put the chart on the table upside-down, you die. If you forget reefs exist, you die. Start over. Although in this case at least the stars need to be photorealistic, for gameplay purposes.

 The forums would explode, right? Wow gamers must hate this game, right?

 And your game's entire competition would be KSP. Sextant game would print money.

 This is very much a supply problem. Faustians are just too dumb to recognize this kind of demand. KSP is an accident. Oopsie, did something culturally forbidden. Thought it was on-brand, hence the aesthetics.

 That and of course it means knowing how sextants work. Who has time for anything that doesn't show up on the news? Or on Joe Rogan if you're "sophisticated."

 Unless the game is also on learning about gunpowder logistics, then maybe fantasy up the cannon and such to make the tradeoffs more interesting and reduce busywork. Likewise the game can automate the tedious repetition parts of sextant wayfinding. 

 You do need to know the distinction between compromising realism for gameplay and compromising gameplay for convenience. 


 Come to think, you can bring back the arcade.

 Why not sell a game for like $2? Then it phones home and invalidates itself every time you die, so you have to add in another 'quarter' to keep playing. With digital distribution, this is not only possible, but easy.

Didn't Bribe the IRB

 Possibly they simply hated the study precisely because they already knew the questionnaire was bogus and didn't want the disruption, but most likely you're supposed to find out who to bribe. The fact the liason hadn't watched the anti-nazi videos isn't an oversight, it's a hint. "We also know our pointless rules are pointless - there's a way to avoid them." Following the rules is impossible on purpose. Even a simple, good study gets 27 infractions as otherwise someone could dodge the bribes by following the rules. She was apologetic because she knew her job was to shut down the study, but was, like, sad about it.
 The problem with responsibility laundering is that everyone knows the study is being shut down, but can't just say it. Could save everyone a lot of effort going, "Don't even try," but instead all this time=money has to be spent going in circles to hide the fact it's simply being shut down.

 You need an advisor because your advisor is supposed to tell you who to bribe. They don't let random graduate students or residents know there are bribes at all. First you have to prove you won't go tattling. "You're not some Snowden, are you?" Do you know how much of a pain it was to clean up after Aaron Swartz? They can't afford to do those things very often.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Shame, Always and Everywhere, is Self-Inflicted

"The notion that men should be unbothered and “above it” when insulted is an absurd subversion of masculinity. Peak Yellowstone faux-manliness, really just a cope for modern legal norms. 

"But accepting vile insults would be totally foreign to all of your ancestors."

 "In Ref’s saga, his enemy starts a rumor that he is gay. In the spirit of good Christian ethics, he turns the other cheek and does not retaliate. Then his enemy starts a rumor that he is a coward. He goes to his enemy’s front door and kills his entire family, ending his bloodline."


 I see I see. It's manly when all your friends listen to rumours and have no appreciation for substance.

 Definitely something more than emotional incontinence and insecurity. Giving a shit about rumours - making them or listening to them - isn't womanly at all.

 Right right. 

 When someone starts a rumour about you, it doesn't affect your honour at all. The shame accrues to those who start, spread, and believe rumours. 

 Look, it's painfully simple: rumours can't stop you from keeping your promises. No matter what anyone, anywhere, says, you can still fulfill your contracts. Words are wind.
 If I promise you 400 pounds of good steel, and there are rumours I can't deliver, what happens when I deliver 400 pounds of good steel on time? Who is discredited here, exactly?
 The shame accrues to those who attribute something other than wind to unsubstantiated words.

 The manipulation, the trick, is that sometimes, in the modern world, it is a humiliation ritual. Specifically when you're required to respect someone shameful. If your boss believes a rumour, that relieves him of honour, which in turn relieves you of any contractual obligations to him. No honour to the honourless. A Democratic court doesn't see it that way, now does it? The courts wield more than words. 

 The scam: who accepted that job in the first place? Honour is not only in upholding your given word, but giving your word wisely. Don't enter contracts with dastards and scoundrels, i.e. your boss, in the first place. Shameful foolishness.
 You can't kill someone to erase a shame. Shame, always and everywhere, is self-inflicted. Trying to kill someone to erase it only upholds the conclusion: you have a shameful character. You couldn't refute it with actions, you could only refute it by scaring folk into not saying it out loud. They were able to successfully spread rumours because, fundamentally, they weren't rumours, they were facts. Your reputation was harmed so easily because it was an inflated reputation you have not earned and did not deserve. 

 More importantly, if a people had honour to begin with, never mind accepting the job in the first place, they would never have submitted to Democratic courts in the first place. "We gon ban duelling." "I challenge you to a duel." "I as well." Soon: nobody left alive to ban duelling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 You have to complain about rumours because you already forfeited your honour. You already abased yourself to womanly rumourmongers. Whining about rumours is, itself, longhoused. Revenge is Sour. 

P.S. The idea is that Christians forgive the first rumour and not the second. The actual communication is that Christians are gay and cannot legitimately refute it.

  Why did anyone believe the rumour that Ref was gay? Because he was, at best, effeminate. Why did anyone believe the rumour that Ref was a coward? Because he was so weak he was afraid of mean words.

 "I hear Ref is gay."
 "Um...are you his wife? Why is this any of your business? Are you gay and you think he's hot, lol? Are you trying to get him to sleep with you?"
 "I hear Ref runs from battle."
 "Are you his warchief? Why is this any of your business?"
 "Are you saying I'm a coward? I've been in all the same battles as Ref. Maybe I ought to prove I'm not upon your body. You know, for science. You hate ignorance, right?" 

 You don't need to kill him. If it's really bothering you, have him rightly declared nithing, and then let nature take its course. 

 (At best Ref and his friends have very weak heads and no sense of responsibility. No wonder he turned to Christianity... Should have started a rumour about his ignorant loutishness.)

 Unless, of course, Ref really is a gay coward. Then it's difficult for these results to obtain. The "ending his entire bloodline" sounds a lot like Christian cope. Revenge fantasy. "Yeah, then I unscrewed the pommel and ended him rightly." Didn't happen. 

 P.P.S. Ancient man laughed at strange "men" trying to start rumours about them.
 You engage in male-caricature massacre fantasies.
 You are gay.

Gay Plagiarism From Inside the House

 The American left launders its enforcement actions through the right. The right helpfully lets the left disguise the fact the call is coming from inside the house. 

 To get to be a supreme court judge or a Harvard dean, you normally have to go through multiple rounds of blackmailing. And anyway they can just make something up. Turns out Gay wasn't even a plagiarist, but who cares, it's politics. 

 When someone steps out of line, the left "accidentally" leaks the relevant blackmail portfolio to the right. "Oh man oh geeze how did that happen." Every time, the so-called "right" helpfully takes ownership of these internecine spats. Even if the evidence is made up.

 "Oh geeze oh man sorry Gay, we'd love to defend you, but you hecked up. Our hands are tied." Wagon status: not circled.

 In this case, the right, by trying to take Gay's "head" has legitimized the notion that the Harvard dean is acceptable as long as they're not a plagiarist. They have agreed Harvard is an important, prestigious institution.

 Imagine Islam was used to depose a Pope, and Islam declared victory because the new Pope wasn't an open sodomite. Imagine not only this, but that Islamists readily accepted paying a tithe to the Vatican, as long as the Pope wasn't a sodomite. Worse, in this analogy, the Islamists wouldn't do anything if the Pope really was a sodomite, unless 'grumble on the internet' counts as [anything].

 These Muslims aren't Muslim. They're Catholics with hats that are funnier than usual, and maybe a little too much fondness for acid. In this analogy, acid = fentanyl.

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Salt and Rule: If It Tastes Bad, Don't Eat It, If It Feels Bad, Don't Eat It

 I hit my salt limit. I got the nutrient-overload headache. It tastes good, but it feels bad, so I had to cut back. (Still tastes good, but not as good.) The research saying you shouldn't overload your salt seems valid. We just want to throw out the parts where they think having three potato chips will instantly blow out both kidneys.

 Salt has a nice wide 'eh, that's fine' range. This means I can have cheat days where I salt the heck out of stuff without flooding the salt vats. I certainly don't want to ride the bare edge of viable.

 Note that the reason you want to avoid "added sodium" is that you can overload on sodium while still being deficient in chlorine, which is needed for stomach acid, white blood cells, and possibly other things I don't know about. Just salt they food. "Food scientist Steve Witherly noted in 2017 that MSG may promote healthy eating by enhancing the flavor of food such as kale while reducing the use of salt." Always a great idea to try doing the opposite of whatever [[food scientists]] say to do. Kale tastes bad because it is bad, cue midwit meme. My favourite has always been beet greens, though they're difficult to get if you're not interested in the beets.

 Do remember that they claim salt is iodized, but they're essentially lying. It has bare traces of iodine. 

 At the end of the day, don't listen to the dietary advice of schizos on the internet. Including me, obviously. Eat what tastes good and feels good.

The Enemy's Oil is Down

 Oil is down substantially since 2007. How does inflation explain this? 

 It doesn't. 

Price of oil down *substantially* from 3/2007. Price of Breckenridge ski ticket up substantially. 
You can't explain this paradox with declining purchasing power of the US dollar.

 It's lack of demand. Peak America 2008. Economy's been tanking since then.
 Fewer folk can afford a ski ticket, so they had to raise prices, on top of inflation/taxes/regulation. Economies of scale when scale is declining. 

 Indirectly inflation explains part of the loss of the price in oil. Uneven inflation causes economic damage; less stuff made, less oil burnt. With enough damage the loss in demand overwhelms the inflationary increase in price.  

 There could also be some leveraging/oil futures issue. Perhaps oil became definancialized in favour of stocks or some other derivative. You can check this by looking at how sensitively oil prices respond to Communist interest rate fixes.

 Finally the Fed may be directly subsidizing oil production, which causes an illusory decrease in price. Yes everything is cheaper to transport, but you more than make it up in the prices of wages and everything else not being subsidized.
 Perhaps that's how Fed holds down the gold price: paying miners to sell it almost for free. 

 I suppose it's incredibly easy for the Fed to control BTC prices, isn't it? 1) Bribe hodlers to sell their BTC and not re-buy. 2) Resell the BTC at a loss. Repeat indefinitely; price arbitrary. What does a loss mean to an entity which an print its own money? Sure it's illegal, but who the fuck cares? What do you suppose would happen to the SEC's budget if it tried investigating the Fed for securities fraud?

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

90% Redundant Twitter

 It has been enough time. Twitter didn't explode.

 Not only was 90% of the staff useless, even Elon Musk could tell at a glance which 90% it was. He maybe cut slightly deeper than strictly optimal, but that's fine. Just a flesh wound. Not exactly a [hack the bone] moment. Instead, a good policy. This is a cancer surgery moment: you cut into healthy tissue to ensure all the cancer is gone.


 Censorship is still there. You can't praise genocide. It is true that it is much less than it was, even much less than Musk's original policies. However, anything hard and masculine still gets you shadowbanned. Honour still verboten. This is because it is what everyone wants: there are ways to get a linear temporal timelines of only accounts you follow, but everyone refuses to use them. 

 You could say Musk would fix the loopholes if they mattered, but if they mattered you wouldn't need them in the first place.

 Still, this is an example of Musk's bureaucrat-whispering. Even when he pisses them off, they end up not being able to do anything to him. He doesn't have to constantly repeat the [freedom of reach] nonsense, he can just do what he wants. Shit status: secured.

How To: Religion

 I forget if I already explained this properly.

 I'm not LARPing because I accidentally converted myself. Didn't know it was possible before it happened. There's a recipe. 


 Imagine the ideal religion. Imagine it as vividly as possible, with every detail. What do your priests wear? What colour? Why do they wear it? What are your ceremonies like? Do you have temples? Shrines? How much do they cost? What are they decorated with?

 Of course, most important: what are your rituals and why are they like that? 

 I originally did it as an aide to evaluating real-world religions. I had previously imagined the ideal government, so I could highlight anomalies. Are the differences due to a failure of my imagination, or a failure in the government? It was extremely useful and profitable, and I realized I should do it for religion. (Check: I did find several failures of imagination and had to correct my ideal government. "Oh wait, I see, that's why they do that.")

 It turns out all of religion is an anomaly, and it's due to a failure of real-world religion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Merely adhere to your ideal religion, bro. It works great.

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

The Local Worship

 I found a good wording: I worship the process of learning via logic. My devotional ritual is bringing my perceptions into better harmony with Reality. 


 Reality wants you to get to know her. My religion is about energetically allowing her to speak, that I might listen. Reality is wise. What she wants is Good. 

 What she wants is for me to be wise too!

 This is why I have such metaphysical inertia. Every time I make my perceptions more real, I make myself more spiritually real. The thing Pratchett says  DEATH has - that's what I have. I believe true things, and as a result in person I have a nearly Xianxia like presence. When I walk into a room you can see and feel my pressure subtly weigh everything else down. Veni, vidi, vici: I conquer via mere proximity.

 Notice that the point of the bragging is to say you can do this too, if you're willing to pay the price. I don't do this sort of thing because I'm special, I'm special because I've done this sort of thing. Although mainly the point of the bragging is that I've never not been by far the heaviest thing in the room, and I'm tired of it. It's normal for me to be substantially heavier than everyone else combined. My physical body is small, because if I were both spiritually and physically huge, it would just be cheating. It's lonely. If one of all y'all could hurry up and stop sucking, that would be great. More on this tomorrow.

 By contrast, the insane and the NPC barely believes any truth at all. They come across as wet tissue paper - I have to be careful to avoid accidentally walking straight through them, metaphysically speaking. I avoid them because both ripping them in half and not ripping them in half is a pain in the neck. They don't even feel alive. Fleshy ghosts.


 Notice that I'm not claiming that Truth is the only thing that can give you gravitas. Unfortunately there are many demonic arts which can supply unholy strength. Part of the reason for never encountering a heavy is that, for some mysterious reason, I vigorously avoid devil cultivators. Their clouds of corrupt energy are metaphorically visible for literal miles. It's very very easy to never give them permission to desecrate you.

 However, truth is the only path to immortality. If you can become sufficiently harmonious with Reality, you become transcendental like Reality. Another theory says this has already happened... You never needed to eat a material fruit to know good and evil, nor do you need to eat a material fruit or suffer rescue to achieve eternal life. 

 Most mortals already fucked it up, though. The justice of Existence is not mortal ideas of fairness. It is possible that the Truth is that you're already dead. In this case, bringing yourself into harmony with Reality will cause not eternity, but transcendent deconstruction, even annihilation. On the plus side, it won't hurt. Indeed in this case Death is the progressive cessation of pain.

On COVID Lack of Tyranny

 Do they want to do camps for the unvaccinated and millions of internal checkpoints and the central government micromanaging who is hired by whom? Sure. Can they? No. No, not really. 

 Despotism is weak. The more oppressive they want to be, the less oppressive they can manage to be. 

 Do they want to go full Hitler and throw all white* men into camps? Yeah, sure, absolutely. 

 *(The race "white" only exists in their fevered imaginations. They want you to define yourself this way to make you weak enough they can win against you.)

 In the extraordinarily unlikely case that they can do the camps, they will take years psyching themselves up for it. You will have plenty of time to apply for a passport and just leave.
 It took 8 years -minimum- to start a war in Ukraine. Ukraine is not exactly a pacifist country which loves Russia. They didn't have to look hard for corrupt magnates to bribe or blackmail. Pushing water downhill. 

 They need you to start the war with them, so they have the defensive advantage. They cannot win without it. If they do camps, it will only be because whites* willingly agreed to demonize themselves, all but explicitly so the Regime can justify such measures. "Yes, we're bad! We will now do bad things for you! You're welcome!" "Oh noes how did we end up in camps, how strange."

 It was precisely the same in with actual Hitler. Jews did bad things because folk like Hitler told them to. Peasants do whatever you tell them to. Meanwhile, Hitler told the Jews to do bad things because Britain told Hitler to tell the Jews to do bad things. He wasn't a leader, he was a convenient prop. He shot himself because he finally admitted to himself he had been played.

Monday, February 12, 2024

Logic is Horror

 Taken seriously, Logic makes Lovecraft look like kitties and candycanes. 

 This is what I love about it so much. 

 "When you stare into the abyss..." you notice the abyss' eyes are sexy. Would.
Did you even consider that possibility?

 What is materially revealed unto us by divine epistemology?
Layers and layers of lies, each more horrible than the last. Nine circles of Hell, all intentionally created not by God, or Satan, or even Loki or Coyote, but by human hands. 

 The only ally of the logician is logic itself. Everyone else has something to hide, but the only way to hide from a logician is to prevent the subject from affecting the logician at all.

 Yet logic is utterly uncompromising. Logic doesn't care about making you happy or comfortable or getting along. Logic is unstoppable. To have logic as an ally, the logician can never try to stop it. To gain freedom from material chains, the logician must submit utterly to logic. Logic demands everything. That's the price.

 Are you brave enough to stand alone against the entire world? Logic permits you to prove it.

 Are you tough enough to deliberately look into the darkest pits? Logic permits you to demonstrate it.

 Do you have the honour and virtue to give up all your lies? Every single last one?  

 Do you have the humility to admit logic is better than you in all things?

 Are you strong and vital enough to survive this scourging? 

 The logician can't help but take part in logic's glory, because logic is the deepest horror. 


 Logic will take everything away from you. In return, logic will give you anything. Anything at all, whether spiritual or material. Everything you thought could only be gained by lies can be had at pennies to the dozen by using truth. Logic tells you omnipotence is impossible, then shows such power you doubt its word. Pay the highest price, for riches beyond comprehension.


 What kind of pussy doesn't want the abyss staring at them?
 Oh well. More for me, I guess.
 Logic: it works, bitches.

TV Makes All Art Bad

"and to this day companies are finding out video does not in fact have better returns than text. this is before hosting costs. youtube is now the homepage of the internet, but who pays for youtube..."

 Text has awful returns, so that's savage.

 It's true that folk are illiterate, but of course illiterates have no money. You don't exactly make it up on volume. ("The food is awful, and such small portions." " wanted more of this trash?")

 Did TV ever pay for itself? I bet it didn't. That would explain why it's garbage: they can't even afford the garbage, let alone quality. Ads were especially bad precisely because they don't work as ads. Making them good is just dumb.
 Certainly what's happening to anime is they're realizing they can't afford quality. Then that they can't even afford low quality.
 Movies are subsidized. Nobody would make movies if they had to pay for it.

 Youtube is pretty obviously paid for by the CIA. Twitter released their twitter files, but youtube, of course, hasn't. Of course facebook is paid for by DARPA, possibly in partnership with the FBI. "Our peasants want to build their own character profiles on themselves? What are you waiting for? Sign them up right now!" FBI = Facial Books Infiltrators, (inc). "How do I avoid FBI infiltration?" "Don't make it a facebook group under your legal name, dingus."

 Of course this is why arts used to use patrons. You can't make art as a commercial enterprise, it loses money at least 99% of the time. Not unless you scam someone.

 Though come to think, the Communism is lowering the price too. Maybe it's not as bad as it seems to me. If the State supplied you free cars, would I say that it's impossible to sell cars commercially? They would definitely be garbage. It would definitely be impossible to sell anything of quality for more than it cost to build. The problem wouldn't be inherent to cars, though. No, the key would be to properly surf the subsidies, riding the line where you just barely get to sell without spending a single dime of your own money that don't have to. 

 Result: nobody could have a good car.

 Result: nobody can have good art. 

 I guess we've finally found an argument for mercantilism. Mercantilists certainly have no good arguments for it...
 If some other country (California) is subsidizing junk, then you need to tariff the junk so it doesn't push quality out of your own market. Of course, it should also be possible for communities to impose tariffs. The central government shouldn't be permitted to forbid tariffs to individual towns or neighbourhoods. That caveat aside, when some other country subsidizes and exports, go, "Awesome, free tax dollars." If China wants to put their tax dollars in your coffers, congratulate and encourage them. 

 Basically if Facebook wants to operate in your country, charge them tens of thousands of dollars per profile. Net win for they probably just refuse. Charge them, retroactively, even if your citizens get a profile via VPN or whatever.


 Though if I were a multibillionaire I would 100% commission my own bespoke video games. They would lose money but I would have made billions of dollars precisely so I could afford it. Also my own bespoke farms, by the way. Maybe they do, but they also buy secrecy so we don't hear about it. Democracy enforcing even sharper class distinctions; you're not allowed to play a noble's video games even if it would make them lose less money. Ref: Chamley-Judd redistribution impossibility theorem. Any attempt to make the poor rich makes the poor even poorer.
 Democracy, Communism in general, in chosen precisely because the demotists know about the perversity of redistribution.