On Dating and Civilizational Collapse

 Girls asks for dating advice. She wants to find a [[good]] [[[[man]]]] without being socially unacceptable.
 "You want to launch a rocket into stable orbit, using a couple elastic bands and some jello. The answer is: you can't. It doesn't work that way."

 Voters will ask how to fix their country. The answer is: you can't. Not without being socially unacceptable. And not, like, a little bit edgy. Like, breaking the geneva convention. War crimes are your table stakes. 

 

 Dating is inherently wrong. Voting is inherently wrong. There is high demand for destruction and suffering. There is no demand for discipline and virtue. "How do I get a healthy religion, without giving up worship of Satan?" You can't. It doesn't work that way.

Wokeness is of the Bible

 Every Woke tenet comes straight out of the new testament.

 Christianity, being a form of Satanism, is inherently self-contradictory. For historical reasons, we have a fossil of older phenotypes. Basically some of the older sects were stupid enough to think a written code was a good idea. I think the strategy went thus: "You can't contradict my lies, see, they're written down." Short-sighted.
 The basic reason woketards (enlightenment thinkers generally) don't call themselves Christian is that lies have a shelf-life and you don't want written proof of your older lies hanging around. That's plain stupid.
  The longer the fossil is subject to scrutiny, the clearer the lies and contradictions become. Now there's so many eyes on it you can't even change it on the down low and hope nobody notices. (The New International Version tried anyway, of course.) The problems become not only clear, not only known, but taken for granted.

 Nevertheless, this fossil exists, and all Christians have to deal with it. Ironically, even, perhaps especially, the Christians who don't call themselves Christian. They have to resolve the old, stale contradictions so they can form and implement new, exciting, topical contradictions. 

 Wokeness is in fact Puritanism. It is the purest, least contradictory form of Christianity ever devised, by a wide margin. It identifies and preserves core doctrines, harmonizes them, and goes on to preserve every ancillary dogma that can be salvaged. 

 Being Satanism it is inherently in rebellion against Existence, but them's the breaks. If you want to worship devils and their self-hatred, there's no getting around paying the price of declaring war against the Dao. Internally, Wokeness makes sense. As much sense as it is possible for Satanism to make, anyway. 

 

 Occasionally others notice that the enlightenment is basically a metastasization of Christian superstition, that liberalism is Chistianity, and so on.

"Upon closer inspection, in fact, one notices that Christianity is the only religion that fulfills all seven of McWhorter’s tenets, suggesting that wokeness is more than merely “like” Christianity."
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/02/more-christian-than-the-christians/

 They fail to notice that Marxism is also Christianity, but, well, you can tell from the diction that they're not that bright. Their muse is doing the good parts. It's more a stray emanation of the divine, rather than an emanation of their material brain.

 The primary reason Gnostics want to reject physical Reality is due to narcissistic injury. It contradicts their precious "spiritual" theory. (Here "spiritual" means it's proof mommy should have loved them - it addresses the highest truth they can conceive of.)
 All Satanism is Gnostic. All Christianity wants to be Gnosticism. The reason fossil Christianity rejected Gnosticism is because they couldn't afford to pretend to ignore physical reality. It lead to crop failure and death. E.g. the Jamestown colony. Or rather, many Christians sects didn't somehow reject Gnosticism, and they all died, leaving only the schizophrenic, impure Satanists.

 When a Christian society gets richer, it can afford more Gnosticism, so it buys more Gnosticism.

 Come to think the primary reason Christianity and Gnosticism have no feminine divine is that they're mad mommy didn't love them and want to snub her. "I'll show you! I'll make daddy love me!"

 The primary criminal hazard in any country is its own government, and likewise the primary general hazard facing any Christian is their own Christianity.
 But don't worry, Christians deserve it. They feel so guilty because they're inherently wrong; they feel like they deserve punishment because they do. Mommy hated them for good reason. Everything working as intended.

Have you tried being bad to baddies?

 Good kingship is trivially easy. So easy it's boring.

 In a Communist country, they lock up thinkers and workers. That's bad.

 In a relatively sane country, like El Salvador, they lock up criminals and the corrupt. That's good. 

 Literally that's all there is to it. Pick the guys in charge such that they persecute crime and not virtue. That's it. That's all. The fundamental theorem of governance is nearly also the final unified theorem. Be bad to baddies instead of good guys. 

 If you're really ambitious you can pray for a king who punishes liars instead of rewarding them.

Everything Lost at Alexandria was Already Lost

 The most basic form of security, which everyone thinks of, is to have two copies. If there was already only one copy, and it was at Alexandria when the library burnt, it means it was already the case that nobody cared to preserve it. If it hadn't been lost in a fire it would have been lost less dramatically, that's all. 

 Even at its height Alexandria wasn't, like, good. It was apparently in the main a collection of poems and scholars of poetry. Nice and all, but not the height of intellectual inquiry here. The loss of Alexandria was like losing all the sole copies of a bunch of web novels.

 

 Further, the legend of the fire seems to have been dramatically overblown. Hollywoodized. Turns out librarians are aware that fire is a hazard, and the fire was put out using the established anti-fire security. Whoops. Nothing was lost when it burnt, and also it didn't actually burn.
 Shockingly the library was run by men, whose reaction and response to events will tend to action and mitigation. It wasn't run by women, who react to events by emoting and talking about these emotional responses. Today "react" and "respond" largely refer to posting about it. Tweeting doesn't extinguish fires, not even at e.g. the Notre Dame, fun fact...

 When the library was for certain destroyed around 270 AD, it was already several centuries past relevance. It was primarily razed by lack of funding. It was not secured because there was already nothing left to secure.  Because demand for scholarship, even easy cut-rate scholarship, had already vanished.

 Women didn't run the library when it was burned in a civil war, as this was BC. A daughter library remained many centuries later, but was ordered demolished by a Christian bishop. What a coincidence.

 

 

Flehmen Response

 I read up properly on the flehmen response and found out most mammals have a second nose located, of all places, behind their front teeth. 

 "The flehmen response often gives the appearance that the animal is looking spiteful, grimacing, smirking, disgusted, or laughing."
 Certainly it's not natural for a human to assume a being sucking air into their teeth is trying to smell something. 

 The passage is connected to the regular nose too. Truly bizarre. You already have a nose? Why bother with two? And don't you have issues with food going up your second nose? WTF?

 The vomeronasal or Jacobson's organ sounds pretty fun and I'd like to have one, but still, the nature of the thing is really odd. It's not particularly mysterious that mortals have no such thing, as above, but it's more common than not, which certainly is mysterious.
 Admittedly, apparently a lot of VMN 'smelling' involves tasting pee, so I can't be too upset about not having one. Giraffe porn would be wild, lol. "This girl's piss is so hot." Certain hominids already do that...

 Many animals will eat their own poo. Dogs. Aren't you glad you're not one of those? Let's all not imagine what that's like. Let's not think about whether their tongues are different.

Grabbing a Sword's Blade is Indeed Stupid

 If you have a nice gauntlet you can push away an enemy's stopped blade, yes, or do half-swording.

 However, this is dumb. Don't do that. (Cue midwit meme: it looks stupid because it is.)
 If I try a mordhau on you, you block my forward hand, then grab my hilt, then yank: now you have two swords, and I probably have cut-up hands instead of a weapon. What, I'm going to contest your grip on the hilt by putting tremendous pressure on the blade? Even if I somehow do, you can try to scrape my hands off with your own sword. 
 Yes, using leather you can safely swing a sword like that...as long as nobody is trying to stop you. Murder-stroke is a good name because you get murdered if you try it.
 If grabbing the blade with two hands could contest a hilt grip, you would do that in the first place. Keep your sword sheathed and take mine when I tried to pull it.

 You know, fantasy works always say maces and warhammers take tremendous strength. This is indeed true: someone is going to grab these blunt weapons and try to yank them out of your hand. You need to be stronger he is so he can't.

 One-handed warhammers in particular are idiotic. The head provides a lovely point of leverage which the handle doesn't; unless you are Hercules, you better win on the first swing because you're not going to get a second. Axes don't normally work this way because there's a risk of the wielder yanking it back at the wrong moment and at the wrong angle; indeed instead the axes are often used as hooks to disarm the other guy. Again you need to be the fighter with more STR. Even if the opponent gets a firm grip there's ways and means of lunging the blade into their elbow or whatever is handy; body slam them, the blade is already pointed in the right direction. One-handed warhammers are perhaps mounted combat only. Two-handed warhammers, of the kind used by folks in full plate, are just fine. Anyone trying a disarm is going to use one hand, and your two hands will overpower that every time, so he won't go for the disarm in the first place. Most likely maces have sharp flanges not because it makes them deadlier but because it discourages the disarm. 

 Speaking of maces, if someone comes at you with a club and you have a shield, block, bind, wrench: now they don't have a club. Throw it away and take out your own disarm-discouraging weapon. Hence, ogres and giants: yeah you can't block an ogre's club, and if you try to grab a giant's club, they'll just pick you up along with the weapon. Instead of you disarming him, he'll be unlegging you.

 Halberds are both two-handed and move very quickly due to being long, meaning you can't really afford to block them. They can down someone wearing plate in a single blow, so, yeah, have fun with that.

 Spears are hard to bind and if the disarmer's grip slips, his hand will get sliced by the head. You can push it away by the shaft and stuff but it doesn't help much, the wielder has to retract it anyway unless he intends to tickle you with the blade.

 However, if e.g. a woman is using a spear, your grip won't slip. You can just take it. Almost none of them will be stupid enough to try to attack you with it in the first place. Their genes know it won't work.

On Wisdom of Crowds

 The kind of thing you can get a crowd to accurately answer, you don't need a crowd for. Revenge is Sour: the condition of a crowd being wise is for the wisdom to be superfluous.

 "How many jelly beans are in this jar?" You can weigh the thing far cheaper than you can ask hundreds for an opinion then tally and average their answers. Also, who cares? It doesn't matter. 

 Do you not have enough wrong opinions? If you need bad ideas, crowds are a great source of massive amounts of bad ideas. How about mob psychology? What's your demand level for mob psychology? Hard to get any without forming a mob first. 

 "Give to me straight, doc, what's my condition?"
 "Well gee sir, why didn't you ask the next 200 passers-by on the sidewalk? Wisdom of crowds! I'm off for the day, peace!"  weeeeee~

 

 There is a condition of pseudo-wisdom, which we can summarize as [capitalism]. If the crowd has to pay something to emit their signal, you can regularly stop them from lying. You can force a crowd to admit they're not as stupid as they pretend to be...which some foolish peakwits can confuse with being wise in some sense.

 

It Occurs to Me I've Built a Tower of Babel

 I held myself to a higher standard. Did I have to stop there? I did not, so I held myself to a higher standard. 

 Did this ultimately reach the divine? It did. Did it "confound" the language? Just so. Working as predicted.

 The "high" part isn't really a metaphor. Holding yourself to a higher standard changes your perspective. At this point, most of what I have to say is totally incomprehensible to normies. It's too far away - barely a dot in their eyes, even if I explain it most thoroughly. 

 The lie is saying that the language is confounded in an attempt to truncate the tower of babble. On the contrary. Language is confounded precisely to the extent the tower is successful. It's a natural, inevitable, and unavoidable result. 

 It is better seen as part of the reward, rather than the punishment. Just as my truths are incomprehensible to them, their lies are incomprehensible to me. They look unnatural and stilted, for the most part, rather than alluring or in any way pretty. My words look like babble to them because they're dumb. Their words look like babble to me because they're babble. A proper name would be the tower of antibabble, which carries the architect out of the gassy swamp.

 

 Of course normies can't hold themselves to any kind of standard. That would be self-leading, and they're incapable of leadership of any kind. (Their poor children.)

 

Microplastics vs. Phobophilia

 Not having contact with plasticizers would probably be for the best.

 Yet, what is not being afraid of everything all the time worth? 

 Fearmongers never tell you what the cost is. It's always binary thinking. Always [mandatory-or-forbidden]. Sanctimonious moralizing. Childish, womanish, lower class. 

 If you knew what the cost was, you might realize it's not worth the effort. You can see this particularly clearly with the clotshot. Is it bad for you? Sure. Is it literally genocidal, going to wipe out all life on earth? According to antivaxxers, yes. 

 You can easily see how they come up with it: to them, if you don't listen to them, they feel like they will literally perish. "Give me social status or give me death!" For fearmongers, the point is control, not health or glory. The point isn't that you should be afraid, the point is that they're afraid - of you. 

 And they should know, shouldn't they? Stop listening to them, and start believing them. 

 This is a major reason I came up with the guillotine criterion. If you need a double-blind clinical trial to detect the effect, it is not worth thinking about.
 In certain edge cases, admittedly only due to political nonsense, it was worth taking the clotshot. If you have a realistic estimate of the costs, you can do the accounting (mature, masculine, amoral, upper class).

 Almost nothing is worth worrying about at all, ever. Either fix it or surrender. Worry is all cost, no profit. 

 In certain cases, it's even worth being feminine. It's not always incorrect to buy the cheap lower-class good made of garbage. The correct deontology is that your rules aren't good enough and need infinite epicycles to handle the fact Reality isn't smoothbrained.

Feminine Egalitarianism & Argument Sex Substitution

 If you say all women are created equal, it's accurate enough for government work. Consequently, the order of operations is marriage => compatibility, not compatibility => marriage.

 Men must vary, because men must distinguish themselves. If women were also distinct, the [soul mate] thing would be true and finding your wife would be impractical. Any subspecies where the women were distinct have long ago died out. Consequently, women do not vary. Unless psychologically maimed, all women are basically the same. 

 Women are whiteboards. When you marry one, you dry-erase whatever was on there and write what you want. First comes love? No, first comes marriage. Marriage causes sex which causes love.* Love causes mimicry which causes compatibility.

 *(There's a better way but it's difficult and relies on rare conditions.)

 Yes, sure, check for psychological scars first. Also check she's not in a cult, with some other man usurping your right to dictate what she thinks. Unless you wanted to marry him in the first place, that will not work out for you. Otherwise pick the prettiest face and the rest just doesn't matter. 

 It is probable that the correct solution to any argument with a wife is to physically pull her into the bedroom and fuck her until she submits. No transition, start pulling off her clothes and she can get ready in her own time. Oh you want a "discussion"? Sure let's have a "discussion." It is sufficiently probable that her genes think that's what starting an argument is for - it's how she expresses horniness. If she wasn't horny she would be going "ew" instead of getting in your face and demanding attention. Put another way: if she doesn't like your decision fuck her until she's too out of it to care. 

 That or it's semen withdrawal. Cum is a mood stabilizer. If she's underfucked (or you use condoms) her mood destabilizes, and that's your hint to go, you know, stabilize it. "It'll start feeling good soon." The fact you're right will make her mad, so fuck her again to fix that too. 

 Sex => mimicry => compatibility => peace.

Anime Animal-Humans are Humans

 Specifically they're nihonjin, not ainu, and not from okinawa or kyoto either. Mainline nihonjin.

 If demihumans were actually demi, their living arrangements would be profoundly incompable with humans, and definitely nothing like a jap. Hence, they aren't demi. They're just nihonjin with weird pointy-ear mutations. The demons are also nihonjin. 

 Which you would naively expect if you start from the notion they all speak nihongo. 

 

 Egalitarians are boring.
 Grant every possible superficial difference, to hide the essential identity. All these majin and beasts and halfs, and they all love rice and hot springs and never speaking their mind. Yup. Sure. Not agonizingly narcissistic at all. 

 

 The narcissist's false self has to be simple, because lies have immense overhead, they are hard, because they are rebellion against god. Clearly, they can't handle any depth or complexity or profundity in the projection, not while fighting god off with the other hand.

 Hilarious broken aesop. Supposed to be [discrimination is bad]. Never notice anyone is different! Because everyone is identical as a matter of religious commandment!
 Except, the real story: everyone wants to discriminate against nihonjin, especially nihonjin.
 They genuinely can't imagine anything but themselves, so all their antagonists are nihonjin too, whoops. They want to discriminate so bad every other anime has to be about not to do that (because it really is bad for nihon). An immense, ever-present hazard.
 Why not believe them? They would know, wouldn't they?

 As per lastpsych, the antagonists are also valid social roles. The point of society, obviously, is to play out some cosmic drama, and if some of the roles aren't filled, well, the play isn't being done correctly, now is it? Quick, not enough school shooters, hand out more SSRIs until you can get those numbers up. Not enough race riots...

Peasants = Children Again

 If it is accepted that a child's stupidity is grounds to override their decisions, then it also must be the case that an adult's stupidity is grounds for overriding their decisions. If you're smart and they're not, if they can't understand what you're saying (determined at your own discretion) then you can and should go ahead and ignore whatever they have to say.

 That or children should be allowed to make their own decisions. If they want to play in traffic and you can't convince them not to, whelp, time to get pregnant again.

On Superiority of 3D

 The best 3D breasts look way better than the best 2D.

 2D can't smell nice. 2D can't be soft to the touch. 2D can't clean your dishes.

 2D women look tense and toned like a man. They can't be anywhere near as loose and relaxed as a healthy 3D. 

 2D can't squeeze tighter in ecstasy. 

 

 All but one of the best things about 2D are behaviours, which 3D can almost trivially copy. Most of 'em don't even have to be sincere. Being willing to fake it is good enough. Sure there are inherent disadvantages in 3D too, but they're relatively unimportant.

 If your 3D can't reasonably compete with 2D, it's because she sucks absolute shit. What stops 3D acting cute? Fuck all, that's what. Have all these advantages and is still losing. Loser.

Why are Women So Screwed Up?

 A: traditional marriage is Communist sex. For 500,000 years or whatever, women have been bred to be Communist at a basic level. 

 The traditional marriage is an arranged marriage. Neither bride nor groom have much say. The women are being distributed. Central planning, irresponsibility, not-cooperation, etc. Monogamy is especially Communist. From each woman according to her apussbility, to each man according to his, you know, lack of pussy.

 Well, that explains most everything. Q: why do most mothers abuse their kids? A: Communism is inherently abusive. Etc etc. Alright guys, cool, we've done it, pack it up. Time to go home. 

 The part where anti-socialists suggest socializing sex, state-appointed big titty GF, is especially funny. Yo, that's ye olde marriage. That's like exactly what it was. Admittedly the part, where the only kind of Communism that Communists hate is Communist sex, is also very good.  

 From what I understand of ye tribal times, the interactions were all tribe-level. In all monkey troupes, either the female stay put and the males go roaming for a new tribe, or the males stay put and the females are cast out. In grass monkeys, it appears to be the latter. "Hey we've got a woman what needs marrying." "Cool, we don't not have a spare man here." Compatibility? What's that? Maybe if she was hot and there was more than one man who can afford a new wife, they would squabble over her a bit, but that's the extent of it. Good odds no women were particularly hot in ye tribal times in any case. Capped out at like 6.

 Consequently, women now live up to the high quality standards Communism is known for. 

 

 Maybe in the future women will finish degenerating into mindless sessile wombs. No hips, no childbirthing stress. Easy. Or, miraculously, perhaps there will be a hermaphrodite speciation event. Having two separate genders in a near-sapient species is clearly a design flaw.

American [[Investment]] Decouples Profit and Loss

 American [[investors]] are not spending their own money. Largely it's printed by the Fed. Irresponsible counterfeiting leads to irresponsibility. (This has been a rep of set 1.)

 The Fed uses fraudulent debt schemes to print money, which means these [[investments]] are ultimately debt-based. This allows profit to be extracted from lossy businesses, causing double externalities. Paper gains, which can be converted to cash, appear before the debt come due.

 If investors were spending their own money, they would demand returns. Since they're spending someone else's money, it's fine to merely look like it might profit in the future. Private profit, public costs. Basically the point of coerced investment such as retirement funds is to drive up these false investments so the real [[investors]] can exit with the gains, and secondarily to accept carrying the bag when the bets inevitably go bust. You get tax credits on your 401k because it's a bonus-tax graft scheme. They get you twice over around the back. 

 The American [[investment]] style actively discourages profitable investments by replacing it with smoke-and-mirror business.

 There is still the wealth furnace effect, where inflation, due to the original Fed activity, allows businesses operating at a loss to post paper gains. [[Investors]] can capture these illusory gains, then exit before the business runs out of seed corn to burn for heat and light. 

 The real solution is to ban counterfeiting and thus paper money. E.g. encase tiny flakes of gold in epoxy, and now you have a high-tech penny. 

 Even without this, a lot can be done by ensuring debt-backed investments can't be divested before the debt resolves. Make debt-entangled investments have a vesting period, like stock-based compensation. I mention this primarily to illustrate how simple, easy, and feasible it is to establish anti-fraud practices, and thus how low the demand for security must be. 

 Imagine not being able to sell your Twitter stock until Twitter pays its debt down to 0. Imagine how much debt Twitter would take on under these conditions. Speaking of, companies should be banned from diluting stock. If they want to issue more stock, the answer is no. Just no. Hence, modification: you're not allowed to sell your debt-backed Twitter stock except to Twitter, who has to buy it from you if they want to issue more stock to someone else. Splitting is okay if they didn't make enough units. (Just make enough units in the first place tho lol.) 

 More precisely, if a company tries to dilute their stock, investors should immediately sell all of it. It has been proven to be insecure. Investors who don't do this aren't adults and shouldn't be allowed to invest.

Note on Epistemology of Outliers

 Outliers generally aren't really part of the intended data-set. Imagine someone surveying cats, felix catus, and it turns out one of them is 700 pounds. "Damn, this cat is huge! What an outlier!" Turns out a bear somehow got into the data. It's not an outlier, it's a mistake. Fuzzy, yes, claws, yes, cat, no.

 If you graph terrorist hits by mass lethality, you get a nice bell curve, except 9/11. This is because 9/11 was basically not a terrorist attack, exactly the way a bear is basically not a cat. It was the organized, disciplined action of a large state, not a disorganized and undisciplined guerilla or muslim force. War crime, not terrorism.

 

 Remember that although Cauchy distributions are super weird, they are also still bell-shaped. (Fun fact: IQ is Gaussian on the low end, but Cauchy on the high end.) To get a bear into the bell curve of cat traits, the bell would have to flare up instead of smoothly sloping down, something neither Gaussian nor Cauchy can do. 

 Never forget illiterates can't categorize. The majority of scientists need a gene readout to know what species a thing is, because anything more ambiguous than binary code is too ambiguous for them to deal with. If you can't gene-sequence the bear and show it differs too much from felix catus, they will argue the bear is in fact an ""outlier"" kind of cat. They will not notice how many other bears (and lions and foxes oh my) you would have to include in the data to be consistent with this definition.
 Fun: in this case you can't gene-sequence the bear, because the data was already gathered and tabled. The specimens have already been released. Lolscience.
 More fun: the GAE bureaucracy showed it's perfectly capable of moving quickly when it wants to, because it destroyed all the evidence from 9/11 in under a week. As if it knew it had something serious to hide. I choose to believe them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why Communism Doesn't Work, Shortest Version

 Communism proposes using price-setting to set the price of everything to zero. Free stuff for everyone => everyone is rich, kumbaya.

 Free stuff is worth at most what you pay for it. In Communism, everyone is not rich, everyone is starve-to-death poor. Price controls cause shortages. Shortage of existence - which is the actual point and goal of the ideology.

Honour on the Battlefield

 Before engaging in battle, parley. "Hey, I promise not to use this weapon, in exchange you promise not to use that one."

 First note: wisdom is the highest virtue but faith is the foundational virtue. All honour requires keeping your promises. If you don't keep your promises, you are simply dishonourable. Treachery is irrational; if parley with you is a waste of time, it makes you weak and vulnerable. You don't want to make rational actors realize your genocide is their most convenient policy. 

 Second note: if you're at war, by definition there is no higher power to appeal to for arbitration. Contracts must be self-enforcing, as with the above. 
 An honourable country can and should know all about chemical and biological weapons, AI weapons, not to mention having as many competent assassins as they can muster along with no shortage of skilled torturers. Solely so they can force other countries not to use weapons by promising to not to use their own. "If you agree not to use laser weapons, we won't use landmines."

 An example of the perversity of strategy. The more vile the available tools of war, the more civilized the actual warfare can be. 

 Conveniently, there is no need for permission. You don't have to worry about how other countries conduct their wars. There is no need for a pre-war agreement. There certainly isn't any need for a global arbitrator or mass treaty. If you think other wars are being fought with the wrong weapons, you can simply negotiate different terms for yours. For example, to me the danger of landmines isn't landmines, it's incompetent Africans. The mine-layer will forget their own maps, and the new owner of the terrain has no reason to care if some serfs get crippled now and again, because he won't be held to account. If they weren't getting merked by old mines they would get merked by something else. I would stolidly refuse to be held to any "treaty" ""obligations"" regarding landmines. Basically, do not sign the Geneva Convention. It's retarded and traitorous.

 There's always the issue of total failure causing desperation and irrational moves. If you're going to be dead anyway, what use is honour? That's the thing with war against an honourable country. Two things, actually. A) you can surrender before you get to that point, because you're honourable. B) you can surrender before you get to that point, because you can trust them to not be dishonourable in victory.

 And, you know, you have all that nerve gas to set off if they try to double-cross you. 

 Of course none of this applies to Fascist countries. They have no self-control. They're like animals. It's questionable to suggest they're even literate enough to be able to meaningfully consent to a written contract, and regularly refuse to even try to negotiate one. If mortals hadn't degenerated in lockstep, the non-Fascist countries would be slicing through Fascist armies like knives through butter.

A note on overlap of kratia and dunamis

 Wisdom is dunamis. No matter how wise I am, it doesn't stop you being wise, it can't prevent you from getting more wise. 
Nevertheless, the division isn't clean. Being wise allows the wizard to manipulate anyone less wise. The more wise the wizard, the greater the delta, the more easily he can manipulate the more-foolish, and the more resistant he is to being manipulated. Dunamis permits kratia. 

 Why do you need a pope? Because you have to trust that I'm not trying to manipulate you. If I decide to start manipulating you, you will be manipulated, and it won't occur to you to do anything about it, because I won't let it occur to you. Without a pope with wisdom comparable to mine, you have no options for defence. The ring of fnargl and the ring of gyges are childish toys compared to the mind-control powers of the rings of Sophia and Veritas.

 Also, fun fact, I manipulate by reflex. I can't stop any more than I can stop breathing by force of will. Tolkein told us the ring doesn't come off, and, well, he wasn't wrong. 

 "But I can stop reading your blog." Then I manipulate a shill and have them say it instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The point is you can't outsmart someone smarter than you are. Simply not how that works. See also: arm wrestling.
 "But I can do the science thing and only believe what replicates." Lol, revenge is sour. Yes, there's diminishing returns on epistemology; if you have the minimum to do the tests, the tests are sufficient. Full security if you don't make a mistake, regardless of how intelligent your opponent is. Except, if you do the replication thing, you've already become wise. Assuming you're already wise, you don't need more wisdom to resist malicious wisdom. Yup. Agree.

The Simple Principle Getting Sails Faster than the Wind

 Crosswind. 

 As long as some component of the wind is going across your bow instead of parallel to it, you can extract more energy from the wind. The limitation is that going faster perpendicularly makes the wind go faster relative to you, with some part of it a headwind, increasing your friction. But yes going faster than the wind isn't hard at all using a keel equivalent and the correct angles.

 What you can't do is go faster than a pure tailwind. Once you're going the speed of the tailwind, the air is relatively stationary to you. If you could extract energy from stationary air you would have a perpetual motion machine. Have to turn, get a crosswind, and accelerate that way.
 That is, you can't go faster than the wind while travelling in the exact same direction as the wind - if you get faster and then turn into alignment, you'll see a pure headwind, pure friction.

 There's an optimum angle between 0 and 90, and a true sailor would be able to tell you what it is.

 Without a keel, turning your sails isn't much use as the wind will mostly turn your vessel rather than accelerating it, unless the sails are exactly over your centre of mass, which they won't be because boats rock. (Hence all the oars on ye olde boats; they hadn't invented keels yet.) With a keel, the wind ends up trying to turn the water under your boat, but of course water isn't rigid so it becomes turbulence. A properly keeled vessel can not only go faster than the wind, it can head (painstakingly, tacking back and forth, never directly) upwind. 

 Exception: on land, using wheels on flat terrain, you can use a fan and gearing to extract energy from a headwind and go straight into it. However, this machine can only go into the wind - a tailwind would make the fan turn backwards, putting it in reverse; secondarily fan blades are concave, meaning they're convex (backwards) from the rear.
 I sincerely doubt you can get friction low enough that it goes faster than the wind, as friction usually goes with the fourth power of velocity, and you're starting at 1X[wind velocity] headwind. A larger fan gives you more power thus theoretically higher speed, but also increases your friction, limiting your speed at the same time. There must be some optimum fan size.

Slave Writing

 Are you looking for the incisive, topical, and courageous social commentary, slavery is bad?
Look no further.

 https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/87716/the-glorious-revolution 

 https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/83080/sexy-steampunk-babes/chapter/1672567/chapter-thirty-end-of-book-one

 https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/39408/beware-of-chicken/chapter/1669538/v5c11-wu-zetian-rides-again

 Really speaking truth to power, these guys.
 Just so honest and authentic.
 I'm sure we'll see them Hamas'ing into Libyan slave markets any day now. 

 φαγγωτς 

 Could not be more sodomite. I assume it's intentional.

Three Kinds of War

 Three kinds of war.

 Contractual war. War of reprisal, and total, genocidal war.

 Any kind of war not one of these three kinds is a bad war, profane before Mars.

 The idea of a contractual war is to avoid a genocidal war. The two disputants can do things like decide battlefields, forbid weapons, and disentangle civilians. E.g. if civilian power plants aren't used for military purposes, then the aggressor need not blow them up. In a military sense, they are already blown up. The aggressor will likewise agree to some equivalent concession, to avoid painting bullseyes on their own energy supplies.
 The contract is self-enforcing.
 The contract allows one to hold a war and settle a contest without undue costs.
With a pre-defined victory and pre-defined stakes, any resentment the war generates can be safely deemed illegitimate, allowing the dispute to be fully settled and cooperation and trade to resume immediately following the war.

 War of reprisal is used for someone who ought to mind their own business but has mometarily forgotten this. When you don't want to pay for a genocidal war, you can seize some border territories and convert them to a demilitarized zone. Force them to leave you alone.

 If the enemy refuses to limit themselves to contracts, and a limited reprisal does not teach them to keep their hand out of the fire, then it's time for genocide. If they insist on imposing costs beyond their benefits, even given the fact that you've absolutely repudiated the Geneva convention and are openly willing to attempt to wipe them from the planet, then unmistakably the most benefit can be had by causing them to cease to exist.
If a war of genocide is initiated, no surrender ought to be allowed. Destroy them quickly and efficiently, to minimize costs.
Children are just future men, kill them as men. Women are merely potential men, kill them as men. Mercy is unsuitable, unfitting, and unwise. Mercy is vicious, and the victim will be the winner.

 Frequently you'll find enemies unable to follow contracts. (They will often make a virtue of necessity and claim it's due to justice or whatever.) They should be put down like animals, because they are morally equivalent to rabid animals.
 Don't take war brides. It's beastiality.

A Near-Competent History of the Prussian Child Concentration Camp

 https://reason.com/1979/03/01/why-the-schools-went-public/

 A basically functional article from reason? How could that be? Answer: copyright 1979. Two generations of IQ degradation ago. 

 Turns out Marx was the result of Communist school, not the cause. lol
Owenites gonna owe. 

 Why don't they have a flea market in school to teach useful money-making skills? A: overt, intentional Communism. See also: why lemonade stands are banned. Deliberate, strategic brainwashing. 

 I do wonder how much the present rulers don't know their own history, and how much of it is knowing better than to be honest about what they're trying to do. Owen was honest about his goals and plans, and that didn't work out for him.

 Either way, certainly if you ask them, you will get a full traincar of nonsense. I don't like comparing them to bull or horse products, as they can be used for fertilizer. Nuclear 'waste' has numerous uses, and anyway radiation is a nutrient. Nothing in nature is as bad as their lies - it should be used as a metaphor the other way around. *opens lagoon* "Fuck! It almost smells as bad as the government!"

 Always secure yourself against the capital. It is impossible for it to be on your side.

Genetically, Individualism is a Communist Hack

 Theoretically, individualism is about treating each individual individually. Content of character &c, racial patterns in those characters notwithstanding.

 In fact it's a hack that nuzzles Communism. Individualism works not by treating each individual as their own mini-tribe, but treating everyone as part of the same tribe.
 

 Consider: self < nuclear family < extended family < tribe < clan < everyone. These are roughly the natural circles of intimacy. Individualism doesn't work by contracting the tribe or clan down to smaller areas. It works by expanding the inner circles. As per outbreeding: if you breed far enough, everyone is like your immediately family. Theoretically outbreeding could have resulted in loss of intimacy with family, demoting it to tribe, but in retrospect that could have only worked on paper. Instead tribes and clans and everyone are promoted to immediate family, in accordance with scripture, intention, and chosen method. To a member of the individualized races, everyone is your long-lost brother until proven otherwise.

 Cousins are about 12% related, which feels close, and it seems evolution did freak out and nearly divide by 0 when someone might be like 3% related to you. Which is what, second cousins? Share a great-grandparent? (Why isn't this called being grandcousins?)

 Since everyone is your brother, there's no need for indicators of tribal allegiance, nor any need to pay attention to someone who uses them anyway.

 Unfortunately, intimacy in conserved. Relative gain in intimacy is paid for by relative loss, so intimacy with blood family was indeed lost. Unfortunately, the original circles stopped at [clan] not [race] or [nation] so there's no API calls that can interrupt this unfounded brotherhood when confronted with members of non-individualized races. 

Get over sibling rivalry and everyone can be best buds. Calls for genocide or prison tats whatever are merely a rebellious phase, they don't mean it. If someone has a different religion, it's merely an aesthetic surface difference, they'll come around eventually. Worse, the distant foreigner might allegedly share your religion...

 Exogamy is Communism because [from each family according to their ability, to each family according to their need]. Great clans have to marry into lesser clans and vice-versa, on account of not having any options. Harrison Bergeron started centuries ago.

 Exogamy is Communism because families do need to be centrally planned. The patriarch needs to make the decisions, largely due to huge tracts of...transaction costs. Imagine trying to track a fee/debt every time your toddler wanted a snack. "Breastfeeding: $N per boob." Sorry, [go with your gut] is state of the art for intra-family accounting.
 Supposedly the patriarch is restrained due to narcissistic love, but exogamy makes everyone more dissimilar, thus less lovable. Individualists treat society as a whole as if it ought to be centrally planned, based purely on affection and brotherly love, but disregard the familiar bonds that make that remotely bearable.

 

 P.S. Of course, redistribution is impossible. The great families started keeping intricate geneologies to prove they were allowed to marry, while the peasantry became even more ignorant of their history. "Who is my ancestor, Bob?" "I dunno, Fred, everyone? Who is mine?" Eventually the great families bargained the church down and let them marry more closely, but only after the individual peasants had lost all their kinship supports. Each time the peasantry tries to replace these supports, the State has ferociously attacked their efforts. E.g. fraternal lodges. The church really had to fight for that one.

As Always, [[Right]] = Left

 "The primary schism on the twatter right"
 https://twitter.com/lmrwanda/status/1802973612837584905

 No. Gotta stop you right there.
 You're [[thinking for yourself]] instead of submitting to a pope and thinking what he tells you to think.
 Nobody under discussion here is even centrist, let alone right-wing. If individual personalities matter at all to orthodoxy in your [[group]] or [[community]] then the Revolution has already atomized you.
 Full leftist. No hierarchy. Egalitarian [[flat]] alleged-society. 

 lol, because apparently this is a big discourse-thing on the [[[[right]]]] at the moment

 Imagine this [[right]] successfully produced some real action. Would you notice? The outcome would be leftist. It would be camouflaged against the background. 

 Deliberately occluding the source for the following:

 There are people who think communism is natural and good, and they’re not going to be argued out of it.

 Of course they can't be argued out of it - it is good, for them, because they're useless eaters and end up starving to death if they have to pay for themselves. They're losers under communism too but at least they're alive to suffer, right?

 People are different (that’s a signature judgement of the inegalitarian liberal type), with no tendency to converge upon common ideals

 There's no need for common ideals if you're not a totalitarian.
 Do you understand how batshit leftist this idea is? It's literally modern trooning. "Men and women should converge on the common ideal of having sex with men &c." Everyone should love dick: full globohomo.  

 You either have to [redacted] them, dominate them, be dominated by them, or escape them. Escaping them is best.

 Or, you know, trade.
 To be fair trade with communists in particular is impossible, since they aren't cooperators, and if they had anything of value they wouldn't have to resort to communism.
 For the same reason defeating them is trivial...for anyone genuinely to the right of a communist.
 However, the quoted ideology leads to men "escaping" from women and vice-versa. Because men can't be argued into the common ideal of getting a dick up their hole.
 There is another theory, which states that this has already happened.

 It's narcissism. The [schism] is merely the separation of grandiose narcissists and vulnerable narcissists. The full spectrum is crazy. It's all leftist totalitarianism, as is meet for narcissist universalizers.

 Since communism is often a genetic problem, even if you [[escape]] from communists, more will be born in your galt's gulch. Gonna escape from your own descendants?

 For practical purposes, therefore, the future of liberty [...] is entirely dependent upon the development of American federalism

 Oh my god.
 "The important part is to make the shameless, traitorous parasites smaller, somewhat."
 Bruh, what's stopping you from getting a pope? What's stopping you from electing a king?
 "The fact Plato was right and I have no self-discipline. Even if I had a king I would be unable to do what he says."
 Ah. Of course. Carry on.

 Get mogged by fuckin' Amish you gossipy cucks. Narcissists always have an excuse. Nothing is ever their own fault. "I can't be right wing now, federalism hasn't been achieved yet." 

 Serious question: What has humanity actually achieved since the 1960s?

 Excuse me? Humanity? Is my last name Humanity? It doesn't seem to be. Why are we talking about this weird [humanity] thing which has nothing to do with me?
 "Butbut the world emperor is doing a bad job." So PM the world emperor lol, don't take this shit out in public. Also maybe tell him he forgot to conquer the Amish, kek.

 

"You don't have a pope either." I have an equivalent. To oversimpify, I submit and surrender to logic. I do in fact pray for discipline, and boy howdy are my prayers answered...
 This is perhaps why it's so easy for me to notice that these [[rightists]] have zero discipline. Zero responsibility. Zero rightishness. 

 They should jettison the superstition about speaking the truth. If you're doing it that badly, you might as well guiltlessly embrace lies.

 It's hard for me to read twitter nowadays. This is good. There was one (1) vaguely masculine guy on there - naturally, he gets banned regularly and as far as I know doesn't currently have an account. Masculinity is even banned on 4chan. Free speech lmao.

Britain and Peace

 What Britain says: "Hey, let us help you."
 What Britain means: "We're declaring war, you're next on our list."

 If Britain offers assistance, instantly invade them. Seize the entire place or die trying - it can't be worse than what they have planned. "We're renaming your soggy island airstrip one, the way you obviously always wanted." 

 

 P.S. In particular, this applies to ethnic British. Declare war on London ASAP. You've been warned.

Sanctimony is Phobos-Worship

 Sanctimony is always worship of some false god, and that god is always a subordinate of Phobos. Sadly not a false god, but certainly a devil-god. 

 Sanctimony is always the promotion of fear at the expense of joy and glory. It is weak, and it is the worship of weakness. Anyone who say you should "fear" god is worshipping Phobos, not the divine.

 If you can't avoid sanctimony, you should give Phobos something to be afraid of. How can she object? If you are not Phobos' worst enemy, you will both suffer for this poor decision.

Cleaner Statement of Public Choice Theorem

 All public officials are corrupt.

 It is impossible not to have a corrupt public official.

 Singapore's CPIB (and acid rain?) shows this can't be strictly true, but CPIB is an anomaly. Aside from CPIB, every public official is corrupt. PCT suggests CPIB must be getting more corrupt over time, and this seems plausible. We'll see, I suppose. 

 

 Normal bureaucracy works on the assumption that mortals are selfless angels. Mortals are mortals, so it doesn't work. Omnicorruption can be the only possible result, because bribes aren't true corruption - the corruption was the founding principles of the "service."

 You have to secure your shit. If you want a "public" servant to work for your benefit, you must be privately paying him for that service. No pay, no play. PCT and omnicorruption are guaranteed by the laws of property, security, and trade. 

 Of course the assumption that bureaucrats are selfless angels is deliberately used due to breaking in a predictable way. It's implemented precisely to achieve that breakage while retaining """plausible""" deniability.

Failure of Youtube's Deliberate Algo Failure

 Modern MBA is not completely terrible. Whoops. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yz565Xc25Y
 Doesn't pull punches or use euphemisms. Only overlooks the fact that a fresh doughnut - which you can't buy anywhere - is a wholly different product. Let's not even think about a fresh doughnut made out of food instead mechanized laboratory reagents.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuBCk8XMC8
 Overlooks the fact the primary thing you sell to Americans is lies. You don't sell products - you sell a false narrative, in which the product is a prop or excuse. He seems subliminally aware of it, but the video is significantly more valuable if you explicitly keep in mind. Secondarily, recall the the lordship shortage. SV is trying to use "data" or "AI" to replace the missing managers. Mechanical judgment. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mLEZaqUdE0
 In this one he only overlooks the value of a stable business. What if Denny's doesn't need to grow? 

 Of course, don't actually watch them on youtube. I prefer to use local storage. 

 If you want a chaser of disappointment, try this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWWVNq5GHp4
 Five minutes of video max, strettttttttttttched and leavened with sanctimony.

Types of Slaves

 Slaves can be distinguished from peasants by the need for constant supervision. Both peasants and slaves are like programmable machines, but slaves are like machines with bad memory that spontaneously drops instructions - often daily or even hourly.

 The primary kind of slave is the perverse "bad and the desire for the bad" kind of slave. They disobey because they feel getting whipped is good. The more they're whipped, the better they're playing the role of slave, and obviously the point of society is to fulfill social roles in some kind of cosmic drama. Their work is unpleasant because it's the assigned role of work to be unpleasant, not because folk will do pleasant things without having to be paid.
 The constant interruptions required to fulfill their need to be whipped consumes a lot of supervisor time and makes their work inefficient, mimicking an inability to concentrate. It is tempting to whip them so hard they can't work, which will at least, for a time, produce proper deterrence, but then they can't work. It's counterproductive, and regularly even more counterproductive than just literally whipping them into shape multiple times a day.
This kind of slave can't hold a normal job because they either get fired for insubordination, or, after the sensitivity training, they deliberately sexually harass some poor ugly chick.

 

 The least interesting kind of slave really is that stupid. In the middle of picking cotton they forget they're supposed to be picking cotton and wander off. They genuinely can't concentrate. "Why do I have this basked of white stuff strapped to my back? I don't remember. Is the white stuff tasty? Doesn't look tasty. I wonder why it's in there. The basket is heavy, I'll put it down." They can't hold a normal job because they forget what an alarm clock is supposed to be for, turn it off because it sounds bad, and don't show up for work. In a less atomized society with rigidly regimented and longhouse-panopticon'd social roles, they can maintain a normal job as they will get to work out of sheer herd instinct, following their peers because they're there and moving.

 Slaves like this used to be used in many computer applications. They're still useful for bot-resistant tasks that are still very simple and repetitive, like digging ditches or mopping. Maybe painting. Since they can't remember their own task, they need a supervisor to remember on their behalf. Alt: to be part of a herd of slaves all doing the same thing, thus constantly reminding each other by example of what they're supposed to be doing. Due to the need for constant reminders, the task has to be something explainable in words. Probably 100 or fewer words, which in turn means the supervisor must verbally understand the task. Sometimes you can get away with showing them what to do and having them copy you.

 The barest touch of the whip is all that's needed to keep this slave in line."Oi, back to work." "Oh, right, work. Whoops." Going further is pointless, as you can't whip someone smarter.  

 Pretending these slaves aren't slaves produces useful camouflage for anyone who wants to go to the washroom and "forget" to come back to work. "Oh sorry I got distracted (lol)." Works due to broken window fallacy: it's easy to forget someone who's missing, whereas someone slacking next to all the hard workers is someone who stands out. Sadly minimum wage laws have pushed almost all of these slaves out of the workforce. 

 The final type of slave is incredibly prideful. They think they know better than everyone else, but can't distinguish better and worse, they can only distinguish same and different. Hence, to prove they know better than you, they will do something that differs from what you said. Hence, if what you said was right, they're guaranteed to do it wrong, unless someone violently forces them not to. If you deliberately say something wrong, they will only get to right by chance, and anyone who isn't this form of slave will be doing it wrong on purpose. They can't hold a normal job because they get fired for incompetence. It's not that they can't understand what they're supposed to be doing - it's that they deliberately choose not to do it.

 This kind of slave loves to post of web fora. "Look at this herd of sheep," they think, "I'm better. I'm different." Yup, they're certainly different all right.

 When this kind of slave inevitably fails, because they're trying something dumb, they blame someone else. 

 Even if they stumble across a good idea through heavens-defying luck, they won't keep it, because they even need to be different from themselves. "I'm always improving!" Still can't distinguish better and worse, so it will be worse. 

 Sometimes these slaves will coordinate on a forum A, saying they're all better (different) than some forum B. This obscures their basically contrarian character. It shouldn't work, they should notice they're now conforming, but they're stupid so they won't notice until the above "always improving" dynamic triggers. "I used to visit forum A all the time. Now that I've grown..."

 At least, unlike the first kind of slave, they can be terrorized into obedience. This is the kind of slave 'encourager les autres' was invented for. However, they will ultimately fool themselves into thinking they can get away with disobedience, "stupid boss, I'll show him," and you'll have to whip them again. The longer they go without showing they're "better" the more desperate they get and the more force will build up behind their self-delusions. "I''m not a slave! I'm better than this!" They cannot accept their lot in life. When defeated, they always delude themselves into thinking it's a temporary setback and one day they'll show us, show us all.

 

 Although the underlying causes differ, slaves have very limited training capacity. They have to be re-trained constantly. They can't accumulate complex skills.

 Children also. You can send them to school, but they're going to forget anything they learn. If they need to know they'll have to be re-taught later, in a short enough time window that they don't forget before they use it. 

 Using chunking a peasant can be trained in almost arbitrary skills, but remember they will never be able to deal with novel situations. You're lucky if they can even identify a situation as novel and notice their training doesn't apply. Equivalently, you get peasants who regularly see superficial meaningless differences as totally novel situations and freeze up. If they could produce healthy responses to novel situations (and novel responses only to novel situations), they would be lords.

Sociology Bottom Line

 A society which praises bad things and despises good things will be a bad society. It will succeed only to the extent that other societies are even worse, via taking out debts it cannot repay.

 For example, a society which despises joy and excellence while praising illness, crime, lies, and failure will be both a terrible place to live and terribly weak to any form of pushback.

Nobody Believes Commoners are Adults

 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

 If banning noncompetes is a net gain for employees, that means employees were regularly signing contracts that were a net loss for them. Like, you can just not work in an NCC industry. If you get a job offer and they want an NCC, decline. Or: if someone demands an NCC, then demand a 25% higher wage than you normally would. Clauses have costs. Either they stop demanding NCCs or they go out of business...unless employees are too stupid to not sign bad contracts. 

 I mean, yeah? In fact, employees are stupid enough to sign contracts that hurt them for no benefit. (Meanwhile employers are smart enough to offer such unconscionable terms, because unlike dumb employees, dumb employers go out of business.)

 Commoners are irresponsible children who simply cannot take care of themselves. Commoners are physically incapable of being reasonable or informed. Every contract with a commoner is unconscionable.

 Tangent. We can see why women don't want to be married to commoners; a male commoner can't take care of himself, let alone a wife or his children. No wonder commoner women keep cheating or getting divorces. Problem: commoners and below are 99% of the population at the best of times. Good luck finding a husband lol. 

 For context, a 1% IQ is 137+. The term 'gifted' applies to 130+, but that's still midwit at best. Given my current estimates, a proper super-commoner IQ starts at 149. This isn't because 149 is terribly high, it's because 100 is dumb like a bag of rocks. Not a joke 100 is a seriously dysfunctional, damaged/mutated brain. It's horrifying that 85 is even possible.

 Since commoners cannot take care of themselves, they have to be attached to a grownup - a lord - who is reasonable and informed on their behalf. Note that grownups found it easy to evade noncompetes, it was only commoners that were ever affected. 

 A lord doesn't necessarily need a 150 IQ, but they do need some kind of arete which is as rare as a 150 IQ. These excellations ultimately come from a baseline (adequate) level of health; stuff like IQ is a symptom of virtue, not themselves virtues. If your IQ goes down, it merely frees up stress on the chassis to support a different excellation.

 A society where commoners make their own decisions will be eroded by their commoner's sense until it collapses. Peasants and children create problems, and without paying a lord to solve those problems, they accumulate, like cancer, and kill, like cancer.

 

 The FTC wants to be the proxy lord for the voters mortal livestock of America, but even in the unlikely case that they want to benefit the livestock, there's a bandwidth issue. The FTC itself cannot possibly be informed about all these peasants. They're not even aware that most of the issues exist, let alone know enough about the issues to wisely adjudicate them. Even if they did magically know about the issues through omniscience and genuinely wanted to adjudicate them, this quantity of peasants creates more problems than there are hours in the day. The FTC couldn't solve them faster than they arose even if they wanted to. They don't have enough personnel to physically communicate the solutions faster than the problems arise.

 If your job is impossible, you should quit. Indeed, lords will quit such a position. They find guaranteed failure unpleasant, especially since they see so many opportunities for success. Thus, the position selects for imbeciles and psychopathic parasites. 

 We can prove the FTC doesn't care about trade or about employees. Using their own - incredibly biased, highly fudged - numbers, the gain is expected to be $500 a year, or about 1.2% of a wage. A rounding error. Sure the commoners were harming themselves for no reason, but at a rate that's hardly noticeable - below the commoner's threshold of legibility. If you want to benefit workers, you can, guaranteed, get a much higher return than this by abolishing the FTC. It's $300 million of parasitism gone just for a start. 

 Mandatory or forbidden: before the FTC banned NCCs, they functionally endorsed them. They could have chosen to ban them at any time before, but only did so now. Tacit approval. Without an FTC, NCCs wouldn't have been endorsed. Maybe the FTC is solving a problem, but they caused the problem in the first place. You're getting back to the starting line, but less $300 million in budget. 

 How many problems is the FTC causing but not attempting to fix? Why, almost everything it does is a net loss. Why would any of it be to the benefit of trade? Does the FTC chairman own trade? Does his stock go down if he harms trade? Is it, in fact, none of his goddamn business? Is he, in fact, an irresponsible child (or criminal parasite) just like every commoner? lol

Sockpuppet for Comments

 Clearly the smart thing to do is fake a commentariat. Deliberately write incomplete posts, then "discuss" it with myself using incognito browser windows or equivalents.

 Makes commenting seem normal. Fakes an audience - views are private, I can claim they're whatever I want. Sets tone and norms. 

 Really, if you value blog comments, you have to be an idiot not to do it.

Accidental Vice & Democracy

 Democrats will tell you that commoners declared war on the aristocracy and won. Like everything democrats say, this is a lie. Reminder: the aristocracy was underpaid and quit. Commoners created too many problems and not enough wealth, resulting in the profitability of open leadership going negative. The option went out of the money. Only fools and deviants remained in openly ruling classes.
 While it is true that during the transition many lesser aristocrats got killed, they did so as a result of being left behind. They thought the commoners could be reasoned with, or thought they could 1-v-all the commoners and win, or otherwise had distinctly common thought processes, resulting in commoner-like fates. 

 France and Russia in particular went down to royal dysgenics. They thought they were breeding for virtue. The breeding was highly successful, as expected of the upper classes. However, it turns out compassion for strangers is a vice. Loius and Nicolas had great compassion for the serfs, meaning, when the serfs defected on them, they cooperated. Anyone with genuine arete had fled the dynamic years or decades beforehand. That is: when Ukraine has a Maidan, you flee the country then. You don't wait until Russia is driving tanks across the border, unless you're an idiot who deserves to get trapped. (That or you hold a counter-coup, but why bother? You can't coup the peasants into being less troublesome.)

 Louis should have just used the grapeshot on the commoners. "Hint: nope." Nicolas should have quit when it turned out he had less than half the trustworthy administrators he needed. Attempting impossible things doesn't make you noble, it makes you a loser. Nicolas' fine facial structure reveals glorious ancestry, while his lazy eye and stunted stature reveals he was a highborn commoner. Deadbeat kicked the can, ran up a debt; such a debt he couldn't pay it alone and his whole family ended up paying the price. 

 Spiritually, it is clear the serfs deserve to be oppressed. Nicolas and Louis successfully pursued Christian ideals, which caused them to attempt to invert justice, and the result was hideous death. Indeed, it's clear serfs demand oppression; what really gets the mob going is not lack of circuses, not lack of bread, but lack of tyranny.
 At the country level, once the unjust hate-loving pressure was removed, as per usual it turns out karma is a bitch. The physical vigorously realigned with the spiritual. The debt was energetically paid. 

 

 Population growth ensured there simply weren't enough tyrants to fully supply the demand for tyranny, and as is his job, the figurehead took the blame. P.S. Modern empires have researched and developed many ingenious tyranny-amplifying techniques and mechanical tyrant devices, drastically increasing the supply of oppression - although not yet enough to quell the restless lower classes

 Louis, last king of France, and Nicolas, last king of Russia, were not spiritually different from Tarquin, last king of Rome. When commoners become king, the kingship itself is lost. The difference is superficial; Athenian Sophism made Tarquin produce tremendous misery in one step, while Christian Sophism made Louis and Nicolas produce tremendous misery in two steps. Tarquin fed Rome poison, while Nicolas and Louis fed their countries poison that tasted good.

 Of course kingship itself is a form of black government, an inherently doomed, self-hating parasite. While this fatal karma often takes the form of a Sophism infection, ultimately Sophism is merely the opportunistic infection, not the cause of the underlying disease. Even the most glorious bloodline will be corrupted by engaging in traditional kingship forms - more glorious lines merely resist for longer.

Is the Point of Satanism to be Weak?

 Lies are weak. You can't lie to someone who doesn't enthusiastically consent to being lied to.

 Is that the point?
 Has society degenerated into liar exaltation as counter-signalling? "We're so rich we can afford to embrace vulnerability." 

 You're not supposed to see through the lies because of course you can see through them? "Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe..." It's unsportsmanlike, kek. 

 Society trying to suppress non-Satanists precisely because it's so difficult. Attempting to play on the challenge mode. 

 The fact lying to yourself is the apotheosis of self-hatred, the consequence of which is a maximally unpleasant society... that's a mere coincidence, right?

Nietzsche, Mars, Rambling

 "Lou Salomé, Paul Rée and Nietzsche travelled through Italy in 1882, planning to establish an educational commune together, but the friendship disintegrated in late 1882 due to complications from Rée's and Nietzsche's mutual romantic interest in Salomé."

 How Last Mannish.

 Any true man welcomes the contest. Hail Mars and all that. Bring it, bitches. Any true man holds no hard feelings if he loses - hence, no need to fear the contest, you risk nothing but the explicit stakes. Why not? If you and I compete for a single mate, and I lose, I can hardly blame you for that, can I? You didn't make me the way I am, nor the mate the way they are. Whether you're a better person or whether you match them more closely, all of that was true before the contest, and would remain true even if I won (perhaps by cheating). 

 On the contrary, we become better friends by seeing concretely how hard each will fight. We respect the warrior spirit. If you can fight me that hard, it tells me that if we have a common enemy, you won't be a dead weight, see? I won't have to midlane carry. You can make you own last hits.

 Women pretty much are all the same, plus or minus some cosmetic differences. If you take one from me, I can use the practice to take the next one, and it really doesn't matter in the end.

 But, also, only Communists travel with a woman like that. Woman + man travelling => sex. This is also a reason most Lord of the Rings ripoffs are kinda dumb. If they have women, then the woman would end up getting lain like a rug, to the jealousy of everyone who stays celibate. (Or she's a whore who gets reamed by everyone. Her RPG class is comfort woman.) Only travel with a woman and another man if you're intentionally trying to duel that other man. (Or she's already your wife, I guess. Dumb of him to agree unless he's also bringing his wife, tho.) Having a 'falling out' after such a predictable challenge is irresponsible and mutant-like. 

 I'm told you can also do it by locking a man and a woman in a room together. They will fuck out of boredom, then rationalize that they love each other. Meaning, birth crisis solution: regularly lock men and women together in a cell without contraceptives. Highly coercive, sure, but problem: solved. Simple. Straightforwardly breed as many children as you care to. I believe it works because it tricks the woman into thinking the man is the last man on Earth, as he's the last man she has social contact with. De-facto the highest-status man. Meanwhile, of course, most men will fuck anything with a wet hole. "Romance" is a punchline. (One-liner? Pshaw, check out my one-worder. "Romance!" kekekekekekeke, great joke. Have another: "Voting!") 

 

 But yes you can also do the bros before hos thing, and divvy women up in advance. Marriages are supposed to be arrange anyway - primarily women benefit from men fighting each other.
 Friends would be honest about their feelings to each other, and then agree that whoever wants it more should get her. Her opinion would be largely irrelevant, and if she doesn't like it, well, women love complaining and being oppressed anyway. If you can't be honest, you're not friends. If you can't agree on a distribution, you're not friends. Can hardly be mad at a non-friend picking a fight with you, now can you? Just remember to murder the shit out of him if he refuses to fight honourably.  
 If you find he wins but through going around your back... "All's fair in love and war." "Is it now? I bet she'll like me more after I shank you right in the kidneys. Homicide is fair too, lol." 

 By contrast, if we fight honourably, perhaps we can't be friends, but at least we can respect each other. And that's better than the alternative. And, I repeat, through contest, growth. Though avoiding conflict, decay. Only the slave fears the loss more than the lack of contest.

Scam Quota

 When you see a gullible moron you can and should scam them. If you don't, someone even worse will scam them. They won't keep their money. It will either go you to you or to someone who deserves it even less.

 However, this shouldn't be a primary hobby. It should be an occasional thing. No matter how much you deserve their money, scamming constantly is worse for you. Will cost more than it's worth.
 The problem being the world is chock-full of idiots. You will always have more opportunities than you have quota. It's important to scam the gulls, but it's more important to invest time and energy in not encountering gulls in the first place.

 Seeing an imbecile is far less aggravating when you view them as raw ore rather than someone you have to work with. Their stupidity is an opportunity, which you should (sometimes) take advantage of.

Nietzsche and the Midwit & Illusions

 The real world is both simple and complicated. In particular, it's complicated enough that there's no need to make it more difficult than it actually is. That is the midwit error: they keep trying to make it complicated, and in so doing, make themselves blind to genuine difficulties. 

 At base, the elements of the real world are simple. A implies B. As long as you're only looking at A and B, it really is that simple.

 Nietzsche is all about, "In Soviet Russia, Big N reads you!!!!" in infinite variations. Consequently, I don't read Nietzsche, and neither should you. 

 It looks like honest work is not a major component of any major, famous successes. This is because it isn't. 

 It looks like quitters don't win. This is because they don't. 

 If you read midwits or Nietzsche or any faux-profound writer (Plato) you risk losing sight of these very simple basic truths. 

 However, we can already see the complexity: Famous success doesn't come from honest work, but it also doesn't come from cowardly laziness. 

 Nobody ever mentions how visual illusions don't look normal. You can immediately tell something is off. It's not like you see a turtle, it looks like a turtle in every way, you pick it up and spin it around and it feels like a turtle, and then you get the ruler out and it has the dimensions of a parakeet.
 E.g. the arrow illusion, where the one with stretch-out heads looks like it has a longer shaft. This isn't even an illusion; what it's doing is revealing that you're not measuring length. You actually don't know how long either shaft is. Since nobody else has noticed that you're not measuring length with your eyes, nobody knows what you are in fact measuring, but presumably it is more operationally useful. Height, perhaps; how imposing the arrows would be in a fight. It might be useful as a rough proxy for length, but it's not length. Thusly the 'long' arrows doesn't appear 'longer' than the 'short' arrow, it really is more X than the other one, for whatever X is. Not an illusion. Midwits being mid; making a false assumption and running with it.

 Stuff is what it appears to be. However, you can fool yourself into misinterpreting the appearance as something else. If you were measuring length it would be the wrong length, yes, but you're not...so... Indeed everyone already knows that if you eyeball a length, it's going to be rough at best. This is why we invented rulers. The only thing you can eyeball is exact lengths and, to a degree, half-lengths. Assuming the things are right next to each other, or at least the same thickness. It's not a real illusion if nobody needs training to avoid being fooled.
( You can eyeball IQ sufficiently accurately. Though folk lie about it all the time. However, the internal unit system bears no resemblance to the unit IQ, so you can't report IQs without serious training to learn the conversion function.)

 Nietzsche quips are basically a collection of optical illusions, which functionally reinforces the false assumptions underlying the false conclusions. 

 If you get the simple things all mixed up in an attempt to sound smart, you lose access to the complicated things made up of those simple things. 

 Quitters don't win. Folk off getting lost in the weeds don't win either. 

 

 Yes, apologies are for the individual being apologized to. If they won't appreciate it, they don't deserve one.

 Gifts are for being received. If the gift-giver gains more than the receiver, you gave a bad gift. 

 Being "authentic" is very secondary to getting results. (Ref lastpsych.) If you genuinely help someone, it doesn't matter if you're doing it out of agape or doing it for greedy, selfish, personal gain. The results are the point.
 Complexity: those who are flagrantly unauthentic, such as narcissists, don't get results.

 

 It seems like natural talent is a big contributor to prestige. This is because it is. Women in particular want everyone playing the same game, so they can measure length easily. Women get very upset when men won't commit utterly to whatever artificial measuring game they come up with, e.g. public school.  If it's hard to measure they can't measure it at all. Women refuse to invent the ruler-equivalent they need.

 Nietzsche was highly talented, but he turned his talents toward playing woman's game. E.g. he found that making the aphorisms short was a great way to conceal their inherently midwit nature. Plato loses some of his mystique when he tries to explain himself. Solution: don't explain yourself, lol.

 Of course it is not ironic that women also hate it when you commit utterly to their game. They want to submit to you, not the reverse. Nietzsche played the game so well that women hate him, he had no kids, and he appeals only to men...particularly The Last Man. 

 

 Prestige is basically what it appears to be. However, how prestige relates to epistemic quality is not straightforward. You can't assume you're measuring the length of the lines. You're looking at prestige, it looks like prestige. If you want to look at epistemic quality, you have to look at epistemic quality, not merely assume it's naively measured by something else that happens to be naively measureable. 

 P.S. On predictions. True predictions look very useful because they are. However, lots of folk make lots of predictions. Even someone with a track record of good predictions can change at any time, either on purpose or due to alzheimer's. There are ways to validate a prediction ahead of time, but you need to know the underlying supports of the prediction. Even if Nietzsche was right about everything, he was right in a way that was only useful to Nietzsche. (And, not coincidentally, he was personally unable to use these predictions.) 

 P.P.S. Folk go, "It should would be easier if not-everyone was lying all the time." Then go ahead and assume they're not lying all the time. Instead of, you know, trusting those who earn trust. ("But that's haaaard. I don't waaaaanna.") Then complain that trying to reconcile all these lies is super hard. "I can't figure out how to continue believing this gaslighting and also not fuck up my entire life." You don't say. Yes, that does sound tricky.
 Weirdly, when someone is deliberately trying to distort your perceptions, if you don't ignore them, your perceptions get distorted. How strange. "But I like believing things deliberately crafted to be believable by discarding any relation to the truth!" Yes, and you will get what you deserve, as everyone does.

Executive Summary of Quaker vs. Puritan

 As linked earlier, this https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/02/more-christian-than-the-christians/ includes a great summary of Puritan vs. Quaker. "The Quakers settled in what is now Pennsylvania. They were tolerant of other faiths, even for faiths that would not extend tolerance back." and so on. 

 Thus it is easy to show that Puritanism is in particular grandiose narcissism, and Quakerism is vulnerable narcissism.
 Grandiose narcissists have a persecutor complex - they want to prove they can persecute in every situation. "I'm the king and if you try to hurt me I'll jail you." Grandiose narcissists can't get along without strict, violent hierarchies. The one on top will always use their position to tighten the thumbscrews, because functionally they still can't get along. None can accept anything less than the crown.
 Vulnerable narcissists have a persecution complex - they believe they are entitled ("inner light") because they are a victim; they deserve restitution. Being victimized by other faiths only strengthens their delusions. If they can't whine about existing persecution, they will passive-aggressively provoke persecution, or simply lie about it. They like to trick grandiose or malignant narcissists into taking the spotlight, then manipulate them vizier-style.

 

 Jews don't seem to have a not-narcissist phenotype. If they don't have a mind-blastingly terrifying external enemy, they will turn on each other without restraint, all trying to be the most grandiose. Consequently if no enemy exists, they have to invent one. Perhaps through provocation. They're vulnerable or grandiose based on context.
 Every single one has to be in charge. Christianity is narcissistic because it is Abrahamic. 

Being Explicit: Comfort and Maturity

 Who needs praise? Small children. "Daddy daddy! Look at me!" Christianity is about pretending the small child who didn't get enough love is in fact the creator god. This is the veneer which justifies the underlying Satanism. The veneer's motivation is a painfully obvious attempt to replace the absent parents' love. A religion for small, lost children. 

 Christianity is successful because small, lost child is the mortal default. E.g. much of geopolitics is about lost, orphaned, or abandoned children seeking love and support through conquest &c. "Daddy daddy! Look how much land I grabbed!" "Daddy daddy, your son can beat up his son, look!" It's consonant with the underlying tissue.

 This is bad. Children are boring and shallow. Simple. Annoying. Predictable - redundant.
 Wealth? "I can buy lots of toys!" Wisdom? "Haha, stupid!" Piety? "Yeah well I can eat infinity+1 onions without crying!" Nothing but a pile of children pretending as hard as possible that they're not children, except you don't get those charming little absences of mind where they forget to pretend to be cool, and instead like something and are happy to have it. 

 Or is it bad? Setting aside the distinct possibility that the immature find comfort impossible, as long as the immature find their immature comforts, so what? As long as we can find a daddy to praise them, isn't it fine? (Daddy can be a child too - children are too narcissistic to notice a problem as long as he has a veneer of daddiness.)

 Seeking maturity is unquestionably a lot of effort. Yet all it accomplishes, setting aside the set-aside, is going from comfortable immaturity to comfortable maturity. 

 A fortiori: mature comforts are more expensive, more difficult to satisfy, more scarce. Deep, sophisticated stories are more expensive than, "Oh noes, bad guy is bad! Haha, phew! Bad guy get bonked!" (I expect a Nobel in literature. Chop chop.) Even the long-term/short-term tension is unclear on this point. E.g. if there has ever been a society of mature adults, it clearly doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for centuries at least. E.g. when society falls, the children throw a tantrum and then seem to get used to it, suggesting that even decline and massacre are only a blip on the comfort graph, so it doesn't matter even if it really does happen to adults less often.

 THE LORD needs you to praise him because he's insecure and need reassurance....and so what? Allegedly he's willing to pay by comforting you in return, so why not go ahead and do that? 

 If there's a problem it's that lies are uncomfortable. Yet most almost all mortals seem to have extreme resistance to the discomfort caused by lies, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 Even maturity is immature. "I'm a big boy!" "Nuh uh, I'm a bigger boy!" "No way, I'm a bigger boy x2!" You can see it, right: each straining on their very tippy-toes to look taller, staggering and leaning since they can't balance like that.

 

 If, as indeed no one can disprove, all systems of value boil down to comfort, then maturity has little to no advantage over immaturity. Zerg swarms of children overrun the Aiur of adults, story over. IRL is not balanced. ""Bad"" guy get bonked.

 If, as indeed no one can disprove, all systems of value boil down to comfort, then lotus-eating is the correct answer. Wireheading is the correct answer. Brave New World is the correct answer. Just take your anaesthetics, problem solved, never be discomfortable again.

 If the universe as a whole has a purpose, it's the fact the Dao is one, therefore lonely. Loneliness is uncomfortable, so it's about fixing that.

 The only problem is that this conclusion makes me uncomfortable. Thus, the comfort problem. I will never be satisfied with mere comfort. Whoops.

ProTip: Skip Chapter 1

 If there's a prologue, always skip the prologue.

 If there's no prologue, definitely skip chapter 1. 

 Of course the real ProTip is not to read webnovels in the first place. However, if you're extremely bored, it's one of the less-degenerate entertainment options. 

 You're allowed to go back and read chapter 1 if you really, really want to. Very occasionally it's not a complete waste of time - even under the assumption that reading a webnovel is not a complete waste of time in and of itself.

Mandatory or Forbidden, Banned or Endorsed

 Peasants have very simple (for lack of a better word) minds. Remember very few can look beyond the first result of a google search. Not [won't] but [can't]. You might think, "they're right there, how can they not see them," but that's because you're not a peasant.

 A peasant can't even fathom social reality, they have no resources at all to deal with, like, physical reality.

 Consequently, if the lord doesn't criminalize suicide, the peasants think he's endorsing it. They believe they should ram a knife in their own eye as soon as they work up the courage to do so.

 You might think, "shouldn't the dying part of suicide be enforcement enough? Think about who would want to break this law," but of course peasants don't really have desires per se. Their minds aren't sophisticated enough to have identifiable or distinguishable values.

 The only thing a peasant can truly be said to want is to obey. The peasant believes everything not specifically forbidden is mandatory. The idea of 'optional' is too rich for their blood. It would require parsing an if-then statement, which is beyond their mental capacity.

 You can still highly limit suicide by making the peasants unaware that suicide exists. Peasants won't come up with the idea on their own, and thus won't think it's mandatory. Journalists have something to say about that, though, if you live in a country that has decriminalized/legitmized journalism. 

 Humanity is basically evil. A grass monkey won't do anything useful unless he's forced to. Peasants grew up/evolved in an environment where coercion was taken for granted. Consequently the peasant is very poorly adapted to environments where he's not fully enslaved to his family. (Which is his whole society.)

Reminder: Inconsistency is Insanity

 If your ideology has contradictions, you are either deluded or crazy.

 I find working out mentally to generally be easier than working out physically, because you don't need any tools and you don't have to worry about decay. Even a single rep matters. Not very much, it is true, but it is a grain of sand that will accumulate with other grains of sand, no matter how long between sessions. Regression is only measurable using expensive, specialized tools.

 However, set 4 is different. Set 4 is hard. You can still do it anywhere without tools, but it doesn't come in grain-of-sand sizes. It requires concentration and tremendous emotional fortitude. This intellectual weight has a minimum size - you have to have already trained to be able to complete even one rep. Further, the individual returns are smaller. 

 Nevertheless, set 4 is possible. You can in fact do reps of set 4 until you can't do them anymore. Set 4 is what truly cures insanity. Set 4 is the final proof against delusion. 

 The truth is all one thing. If your beliefs are not all one thing, then your beliefs are not true.

The CIA Wants to Spy On You, So Don't Encourage Them

The man who read Oswald’s mail was Reuben Efron, the deputy chief of the CIA’s illicit mail-surveillance program in the early 1960s. The program spied on thousands of Americans from 1955 to 1974, a gross violation of the agency’s charter banning covert operations against US citizens. https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-the-cia-controls-the-past/

 The CIA absolutely wants to read your mail, and mine too. However, we're on a list with literally hundreds of millions of fellow travellers, so they don't remotely have the workers to read all this junk. They primarily read high-priority targets. So, e.g, don't show up in the news. Don't be Microsoft. Don't be Musk.  

 Also, if you post "It's okay to be white" posters, at least wear a ski mask, and try not to pass any security cameras on your way home. Assume a major world power will sic its spooks on you, because they will. The country is a giant middle school, and the teachers are a) teacher-like micormanaging busybodies and b) will take any excuse to send anyone to detention. They would detain everyone if they could get away with it.

The memo showed that Efron had learned that a former radar operator at the CIA’s top-secret base in Atsugi, Japan, named Lee Oswald had returned from a two-year stay in the Soviet Union.

 The CIA spends like half its time spying on itself. You've likely already done this major security procedure: don't work for the government, especially not major three-letter agencies. Nor the [[news]] organizations.

 If you do work for one of these places, they will 100% do basic surveillance such as tracking your movements, and flag you for stuff like visiting the Soviet Union. Or, in modern times, e.g. trying to interview Putin or Julian Assange. 

 They're 100% surveilling that one teacher with the huge fake boobs who pretended to be a tranny. Teachers are supposed to be utterly zealous leftist fanatics, and even leftists think traitors get the rope. Plus he showed up in the news.
 You can't just quit the mafia.

 

 It's important to remain a low-priority target. If the CIA decides you're a high-priority target, it best be after you've already raised an army. Or at least after you've already fled to China or Russia as a political asylum seeker. What [Five Eyes] means is that they let the CIA play secret police for them, or go ahead and play secret police on the CIA's behalf. Outside Russia, China, and the Five Eyes, it's a question of how much hassle it is for them to go after you compared to how much you're like Andrew Tate.
  America accomplishes more censorship of political speech than China does, the only question is whether China's Official censorship groups are more productive than America's. If they can't get you in jail and discredited like Kaczynski, at worst the CIA will assassinate you. The speech will stop, one way or another. The CIA assassinates at least one person a month; America is a banana republic. A South American country. E.g. you don't hear about journalists taking deals from the CIA that much because they get killed for becoming disgruntled, or at least warned by their animal cunning that they're likely to get killed if they spill the beans.
 You can't quit the mafia.

 Being explicit: living in theocracies such as Fascism is unpleasant because the government assumes everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise. Police states are giant jails. (A public school is a kind of jail or gulag.) Everyone is either a guard or a prisoner. America and its satrapies are all police states, except the police are drastically underfunded and can't afford to round up all the escaped prisoners. It's important, so saying it again: they do have the funds to round up some of the prisoners, so don't attract enough attention that you get on that list. 

 E.g. China has (or at least had) wet markets. These are basically outgroup even in China, but China is not a 100% Fascist police state like America, so they don't try to round up and jail every heathen. Indeed insofar as wet markets are being banned, it is likely due to pressure from America. The Chinese still don't mind these outsider enclaves - as long as they don't make China look bad, which wet markets did. Meanwhile if Uyghurs acted up in America like they do in China, they would risk getting Gaza'd. It seems these groups largely know better, however, and keep to themselves.

 It's extremely clear that the CIA launched the Wokeness campaign in 2013 when such domestic campaigns were legalized. However, they were flagrantly violating posse comitatus rules long before that, so it's weird that they waited for permission. Doing illegal things is de rigeur at the CIA, so it's downright bizarre when they're not doing illegal things they clearly want to do. 

 To accurately predict what the government is going to do, you need to know stuff like when the CIA obeys the law and when it doesn't. Luckily the government is basically stupid and there's no need to know in advance what it's going to do. It leaks so much warning and takes so long to complete its actions that half-blind snails have time to dodge.  

 Don't stand where they're looking, do keep a bug-out bag and passport ready for when they introduce the Juden star equivalent, and you're good to go.