Sunday, July 21, 2024

Learning Isn't Enough, Practice Believing

 Step 1: "If I believe this, how would I behave?"
 Step 2: deliberately seek out situations where you can act out that behaviour, so it can replace whatever habit you had previously. 

 It's not enough to learn a thing. Only in extreme edge cases will it automatically change behaviour. It's necessary to deliberately enumerate the habits that it should change, and then deliberately do reps of doing the habits differently.

 Moreover, if you try the behaviour and it's not effective, if it lowers the value you gather, then that's a quick and cheap way to disprove the idea. Catches mistakes. There's some caveats about long-term vs. short-term, but you already know them.
 This is so important that without some special excuse, believing things that don't change your behaviour is a waste of time. There's no point in spending time listening to it or spending energy trying to understand it.
 You can push it further. When someone tries to convince you of something, rather than listening to the evidence or logic or anything, simply ask how they want your behaviour to differ. Then ignore the logic and evidence and mindlessly try it. If it works, maybe consider asking more to understand the underlying foundation of it. The only real reason to ask about evidence and shit beforehand is to ensure you're trying what you think you're trying.

 "Metroid NES is fun if play carefully."
 To you, playing carefully means a) taking on an emotional posture of [care] and b) killing every enemy you see, so they can't damage you.
 What they actually meant was not falling in that one inescapable lava pit in deep Norfair. (The one with the tall single-tile eye columns, with the multiviola positioned to spawn mid-air and knock you into it.) They meant, you should do the chess thing, in advance keep in mind things you're already aware can kill you, and not try to react to them when they appear on-screen because that's too late.

 "I tried playing Metroid carefully and it sucked." Yeah, uh, no you didn't. You proved you're illiterate...
 "You give bad advice." Well, it's true that you shouldn't listen to advice, since you won't hear what's being said, and will try something different, at random.*

 Likewise, the only reason to ask about the underlying foundation after the fact is to help ensure you don't accidentally misapply the behaviour. It has a valid domain and it's important to avoid invalid regions. 

 * I find this generalizes. If I ask someone what they think I'll do, they'll say something completely batshit insane, for reasons that are wildly delusional. Then I ask what their response to this is, and it will make perfect sense assuming they have a pretty good idea what I'm actually going to do. They came up with a rational response, from somewhere, then very poorly rationalized the pre-existing decision. The rationalization doesn't matter, because it's not causal.
 However, rationalizing like this makes it impossible to learn verbally. They can't work out what habits the beliefs should change, nor can they change their behaviours based on these beliefs. In the short-term it's not necessary to rationalize rationally, saving superfluous effort, but in the long term the rationalization must be perfectly quarantined, since it's never exercised properly and atrophies to pure derangement.


 Here's some behaviour-changing advice: don't give advice.
 Good advice is not, in fact, rare or expensive. Revenge is Sour. They've already heard it, or already thought of it themselves. E.g. you already know unsolicited advice is rude at best. If they're not already taking the advice, they are either cripples who can't, or the advice is bad because they don't want its results. Usually due to self-hatred driven masochism.
 Do all the idiots offering advice on twitter not realize advice is rude? Of course they realize. It's not advice, it's a dominance play. "I'm smarter than you," or whatever. Maybe it doesn't work 99.99% of the time, but they're desperate enough that 0.01% is the best they can hope for. That's the true form of [unsolicited advice is rude]: unsolicited advice is 100% a dominance play, not advice. It's only not phrased that way becauase social status dare not speak its own name. 

 Hence, mindfulness trigger: "Next time I'm about to give advice, I will notice. I will not give the advice." Try it. See if it works for you.
 Unsolicited advice is [selfless], i.e, horrifically evil. Be selfish instead: think about what you can buy from them for less than it costs. You probably don't need to painstakingly convince them to take value from you in the trade. Odds are. 

 I look forward to the total lack of comments pointing out my hypocrisy when, such as now, I'm genuinely being hypocritical.


 Bonus: it's all but impossible for a manipulator to hide the fact that they want you to serve their interests in place of yours. They will desperately avoid being specific about your actions. A cheap and efficient litmus test.
 Double bonus: if you falsely conclude someone is a manipulator but ask them about specifics, the innocent can prove their innocence. "Oh. Huh. I hadn't thought of that, good idea."

Saturday, July 20, 2024

so I worked out why dinosaurs go extinct

 Buried lede, turns out evolution can tune mutation rates, which will in turn tune the evolution rate.

 Sharks, for example, don't get cancer much, because they can afford to evolve very very slowly. 

 On the flip side, very large animals must evolve slowly to avoid being offed by cancer. Very very large animals, especially combined with their long generations, must effectively stop evolving entirely. Consequently, when the environment changes, they die. 

 In the short term, being larger lets you win both intraspecific and interspecific contests. In the long term, it gets you culled. A real shame.


 If the genome wasn't such heinous spaghetti code, evolution would regularly tune mutation rates in specific tissues. 

 Human brains are under such strong selection pressure that they've adapted to mutate twice. After conception brain genes are shuffled a second time. Generally this makes you stupid or insane, lol. However...


[Saved Lives]

 Human life is worthless. A startling mass of problems vanish if you accept this truth. Fake, made up problems. 

 Mortals don't value their own lives. If they did, they wouldn't have been born mortal in the first place.

 What happens if you let some extra mortals die? Do you run out? Know anyone who has run short of mortal life? Got anyone whose demand is lower than supply?

 Why didn't they protect their own lives? Why do they need you to meddle? For example, perhaps your own life, despite everything, is valuable to you. I don't much care for it, but it's not really my business, now is it? I'm not forbidding you from securing it. Why would I? What for? 

 Example. What if telling a lie will save a life? Telling the truth is vastly more valuable than than life. You're paying more than it's worth. Mortals are constantly trying to get you to trade valuable things for mortal lives. Which makes sense - they hate joy, they hate wealth, they hate glory, they hate virtue. In their nega-world, it can't be any other way.

 If a mortal's life is valuable to them, let them reward the one who is saving it by, you know, paying them. Perhaps, dare I say it, paying them a living wage. If they themselves aren't willing to pay for it, why are you willing to pay for it? 

 If you think it's everyone else's duty to [save] your [life], how much time and energy do you spend saving your own? How often do you recklessly risk your life, knowing someone else [has to] step in? 

 The life itself is not valuable. Somehow, however, the life's owner uses it produce something valuable to you. Protecting the life is idiotic, but protecting the valuable behaviour is not.

 Likewise, going out of your way to kill someone, for its own sake, is just as deranged as plotting a multi-year strategy to kill a particular squirrel. Even if it works, it merely means there's room for another squirrel to be born. 

 "Boiling water for tea [saved lives] by cleaning the water." You dumb shit, why do you think tea became so popular in the first place? It's not the taste, lol. 

 Doing [something] about immigration can [save lives]. That's an argument in favour of doing nothing. If that's really the primary purpose, it is meaningless.

 Air bags [save lives]. Right, so they're worth $0. Mandating their installation is simple vandalism. Vandalism is far more important than mortal life.

 The [[vaccine]] really [saves lives] does it. But not, like, my life? If it won't save my life if I take it, why would it save the life of anyone who takes it? Devils and narcissists always immediately tell on themselves. Devils on purpose, narcissists by accident. 

 "But you'll risk [your life]!" Yes? And?

 Even if animate animation was somehow in danger of running low, even if they were willing to protect their own lives but couldn't, it would be trading the short term for the long term. When you suppress honour to [save lives] it costs more lives in the future than you saved.

 Which makes sense. Mortals meme themselves into thinking life is valuable, hence, they must minimize it. Commimaxxing. Life worth living? Straight to gulag.

Friday, July 19, 2024

Social Layers and Women

 Women lack focus, so they're better at multitasking, and they also tend to see all levels of a social interaction simultaneously. This means, when you're talking to a woman, it's challenging as you need to keep in mind all the levels that she will see. Seriously obstructs the goal of getting some main message across. (Usually tagged as the main layer.)

 Unfortunately, women are still basically stupid. She will see all the levels, but she can't do much about it. She's going to say whatever she thinks she's supposed to say. If you don't like some of the layers that implies, well, tough shit, take it up with her slavemaster. 

 Naturally you can't be friends who takes that kind of attitude with you. Especially if you're also a woman and taking the exact same attitude with her. Going up a level, why bother being friends with someone who is going to repeat what she's supposed to say - something you, too are supposed to say? You already know? Maybe be friends with whoever sets the rules she obeys...


 Still looking for female advantages. Women have better colour vision and fine manual dexterity.

Population Decline is Sacred & Hoe Math 2

 You can watch hoe math's levels video. Naturally, the levels are a pack of lies, as it was elaborated by Satanists.

 His basic point is that level 6s break the rules, but level 4s came up with rules for a reason. Technically, superficially, that's true. It's true that promiscuity is unsustainable, that mothers and fathers shouldn't fornicate and should stay together. 

 However, the reason the feminist argument flies at all is because it, also, is technically, superficially true. Patriarchy isn't only bad for women, it is bad for men. In a patriarchal society, not only does nobody care about women, nobody cares about men. They only care about the rules, and the rules don't care about you. The rules are set up by psychopaths to organize and regulate their parasitism of society.

 The fact homo is so hypocritical is largely due to the fact that in a level 4 society it's critically important to be superficially seen to be following the rules, but the rules, too, are unsustainable. Defective, deviant rules. To live you have to break them. The important part is merely not getting caught. 

 Put another way, while level 4 societies certainly superficially seem a lot more sustainable than level 3 societies, in practice you get feminism. You get sophism. You get the admonitions of ipuwer. The rules are only superficially stable. Enough work is put into them to remain upright just long enough that the psycho can go all, "I got mine." Designed to work for nobody to whom they apply, everyone constantly works to undermine the rules. The reason level 6s break the rules is because breaking the rules is plain good sense. The only substantial difference is that level 6s go around saying they're breaking the rules instead of working hard to pretend not to.

 However, level 6 Caino masochiens is self-hating too. They're still in the 99%, so their new personal made-up rules are even worse than the old ones. The reason the psychopath's callous self-absorbed rules could fly in the first place was that self-hating level 4s would cheerfully submit to them. More suffering more better. Then their Darwinian anti-suicide instincts drive the level 4s to go back on their word.
  Level 6s: "I'm not going to send my kid to school to be tortured by strangers where I don't have to see it. I'm going to homeschool, so I can torture them myself and meet the high torture standards this family upholds! My Darwinian instincts can't stop me! I'm level 6!" Such strong. Many brave. So admire. Wow.

 The rule that genuinely matters is that mothers and fathers need to love each other. Notice this rule can't be [enforced] as such. Upheld, maybe, but busting out a whip and smacking someone doesn't lead to them magically falling in love with a third party. 

 Parents need to love each other because children are 50% the dad and 50% the mom. If dad doesn't love himself and the mom, he will hate the kid. If mom doesn't love herself and the dad, she will hate the kid. The alternative is an abusive hellscape family, so finding a way to love in marriage is plain good sense. If you can't find your way to love, then don't have sex. Try someone else. 

 Bonus: women need to first transcend humanity before they can properly love another adult. Biologically, a woman loving a man makes no sense. It's a one-way street.

 If the parents hate the kid, it will grow up to be a psychopath or narcissist. (Occasionally borderline or histrionic.)

 You are here. 


 This is why population decline is sacred. All the potential parents who don't love each other are, extremely rationally, not having kids. Awesome. Divine. The alternative was genocide or ethnic cleansing based on fee-fee lines. You gonna execute parents and their entire genetic stock if they can't figure out how to love each other? "Cheated on your husband? Okay. Whole clan dies." The antiovulation pill is a gift from the heavens.

Sibling Self-Hatred

 Immortals die to self-hatred. The hatred manifests as suicide of one kind or another.

 The atomized debris of the former immortal plummets down here, into the underworld, where it is born as mortal brother and sister.

 Siblings are 50% identical, as similar as parent and child, as similar as you can possibly be short of identical twins. This is precisely why they have such difficulty getting along. The sibling reminds you of yourself. You hate yourself, so you hate your sibling. You get sibling [[rivalry]]. You get squabbles over inheritance. You get Cain. You get patricide and matricide.

 You get immigration. If someone similar reminds you of yourself too much to be tolerable, why not grab someone as different from you as possible?
 Of course you still can't get along. Now because you're too different and have neither the capacity nor the desire to understand each other. But hey, at least it's a different flavour of repulsion. 


 Any level of self-hatred is unsustainable. The point of hatred is to motivate destruction. If the destroyer hates itself, it turns the destruction on itself, and what, exactly, is going to resist? Indeed that's how the immortal dies in the first place. They voluntarily absorb Death, integrating her with themselves, and subsequently the outward world moves into alignment with the inner. 

 Problem: self-hatred is insane. It's supposed to motivate self-destruction, therefore, it doesn't. 

 The self-hating mortal suppresses their self-hatred to avoid immediate annihilation, but being reminded of it by a brother or sister or parent risks breaching the containment. They must attack precisely that which is more similar to themselves.
 Of course if breaching it were that easy they wouldn't have made it to term and been born in the first place. There's no need to be concerned. Self-hatred is insane.

 You try to assimilate the immigrant, but if it works, you start hating them, and need new foreigners. Who you hate, just like the last foreigners, because they're different. Do you learn nothing? Do you do it precisely because you hate it? Likely, both, if self-hatred has driven you truly mad. 

 The self-hater looks at the world through the haze of hatred they create around themselves. Naturally, they hate everything they see.
 This is what they want. All these awful things clearly exist to punish the atrocious one they hate the most - themselves. 

 Because self-hatred is insane and unsustainable, it violently conflicts with Darwin. Automatically selects against itself. Which conflicts with the insanity of self-hatred, trying to preserve self-destruction. Result: "The spirit is willing (to self-annihiliate) but the flesh is weak." Humans get shackled by Darwinian impulses, which force them to behave in a minimally viable way. 

 Humans hate each other, but have sex anyway. They hate the resulting kids, but they keep having sex anyway. They hate the resulting kids, but they feed them anyway. They defend them against maiming anyway. The flesh forces them to, since any subspecies that didn't enslave the members this way has long ago been properly annihilated. The desire for the physical to converge on the spiritual in this field is constantly thwarted, because its success is self-defeating. If there are no mortals to act as containers for the debris, new mortals must arise to form containers for the debris.
 By their mere existence, mortals run up karmic debts. However, by ceasing to exist, they also run up karmic debts. Paradox. Madness.

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Movies are Weapons

 The point of a movie is to maim the viewer. Insofar as they're entertaining, it's only because they can't force you to watch the movie, so they need to trick you. This is why movies are generally bad. They're exactly as bad as the execs think they can get away with.

 Making a good movie is not especially difficult. There's numerous way to check if the movie will be good and to correct course until it is. The problem is making a bad movie that feels good. Tricky, as I'm sure you can imagine. They're highly conscientious about never accidentally making a movie that feels good and is, and consequently there's a lot of stinkers. Accidentally making weapons that feel like they cause damage. 


 I used to think studios were incompetent. The bad movies are such obvious bad ideas that professionals should see the failure a mile away. Surely there must be a market opportunity for a studio head who isn't an idiot and greenlights good ideas instead of bad ones...
 Well, no. That's not the point of the industry.

If You Renounce Humanity, is the Curse of Adam Revoked?

 I'm not a journalist and Betteridge's law doesn't apply to me.

 If certain vague and informal actions count, I renounced my humanity a long time ago. 

 Does the curse of adam apply to me?

 "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life."
 "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food"

 I eat though I don't work.

 "It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."

 For one, I eat a lot of meat. For two, no, I find the ground produces generally flowers and stuff, not thorns. Even if they are thistles, thistle blooms have a lovely violet colour. Clouds and the sky are great. Rocks too. Nothing anywhere nearby is thorny. All fully blessed, actually, thanks all the same.

 "until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

 Can we safely assume I was not dust, and to dust and the ground I will not return? 🤔 It would be weirdly inconsistent if this part was not contradicted by empirical Reality. 

 By now I have formally and intentionally renounced humanity. I want nothing to do with it. I disavow any connection to Caino masochiens beyond the coincidental. In all ways, means, and forms, I separate myself from humanity. All human behaviours have ceased, or will cease as soon as I notice they are human. Everything human is foreign to me.
 If interesting, in a fascinating train-crash sort of way.

 The curse of adam hasn't hitched or hiccuped. Still wholly doesn't apply to me. I do not behave as a human, and consequently do not suffer the human results. It's only the artificial that causes me issues. I have a hate-hate relationship with bricks, concrete, and blacktop. Cursed are the fruits of self-hating Cain.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

Empirical Implications of Made In The Image

 If you're made in the image of god, you can demonstrate this by displaying your divine powers. 

 Conversely, if you cannot show any sacred abilities, you can't have been made in a divine image, and can't possibly be human. 

 Beliefs have consequences. It's not merely a statement of social status. It has physical implications and constitutes a test.

 That or the bible is a crock of shit. Either or. A belief without consequences is not a belief. Normally we call it a [lie] as the one professing it doesn't have any faith in it.

 More consequences: if anyone genuinely believed in the bible I would not be the first one to think of using its statements as a test. That or I just demonstrated my unique divine powers. Either or. 

 Indeed, I'm only the first to put it into words. "Humans are divine because they have hands." Apes, whoops. "Humans are divine because they have language." Whoops, sign language apes. Whoops, crows. "Humans are divine because they have technology." Whoops, ants. Whoops, the octopus. Whoops, AI. Whoops. Whoops.
 P.S. Seculars and atheists are profoundly christian and can't stop obsessing with christian obsessions which come straight from the bibble's drivel.

Americans Can't Wake Up Because They're Only Pretending to be Asleep

 All of your reasonable options for products and services use the money you give them to murder everything you love! BB on point, as always.

 Hoe math says many true things, but do always remember it's merely a subtler form of narcissism. Yes, it is excuses and cope. 

With no apologies to the babylon bee:

*Instead of Twitter.
    Use nitter. Adblock is also sufficient, if the goal is merely to withdraw support.
*Instead of brewing your coffee with Starbucks beans:
    Drink tea. Decaf, specifically.
*Instead of Levis:
    It is very reasonable to sew your own clothes. Cloth is dirt cheap. They will also fit better. What do the Amish do for pants? Buy used. Though none of this is particularly important or necessary.
*Instead of Gilette razors:
    Get a straight razor from the nearest blacksmith.
*Instead of Microsoft:
    Software piracy.
*Instead of subscribing to Disney+:
    Software piracy. Also why are you using the plus.
*Instead of buying books from Amazon:
    Software piracy. E.g. libgen. Can also just use the regular-ass library.
*Instead of buying Nike shoes:
    Neither important nor necessary. Buy quality shoes instead of overpriced trash? Ask the Amish what they do for shoes?
*Instead of watching Netflix
    Software piracy. There's nothing good on netflix anyway, you're not missing out.
*Instead of Facebook:
    Try meeting IRL? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I heard most folk have phones these days, have you tried using, like, a phone number to talk to them?


 Don't forget you can neuter the Fed's influence over your life, and thus the majority of USG's ability to tax you, by selling all your dollars and dollar-equivalent securities. Likewise using corporate shenanigans it's very possible to near-zero your tax bill, though it is important to be cost-effective and sometimes it isn't worth your time. 


 Mafias buy off police forces all the time. So form a mafia already. "But that's immoral." Is letting the police defend criminals from you more moral? Quit the sanctimony and secure your shit.
 Buying pants and shoes from megacorporations isn't even ritually impure under present conditions, never mind a genuine pragmatic problem. First, try not lying to your husband every day. Stop adulterating the sacred body with caffeine. Beam, motes, etc.

 Utopians aren't as stupid as they pretend. They do in fact already know that the world is neither perfect nor perfectible. You can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep. 

 At some point, after offering enough reasonable solutions and none of them are taken, you realize you were being disrespectful. You're offending them because you're revealing you think they're stupid. They're fully capable of coming up with these things on their own. The solutions look simple and obvious because they are simple and obvious.
 Utopians don't do them because they don't want [[solutions]]. They like tyranny. The oppression is the point. Demand for the profane is high. Demand for the holy is negligible.

 Utopians are dystopians. Everything is working as intended: they are receiving the dystopia they demand and deserve. 

 Civilizations do not rise like bread. They bloat like drowned corpses. If you're lucky, it's like the swelling around a broken bone - but it doesn't go down when the bone heals, it goes necrotic and the leg falls off.

 Americans could have already started their youtube-distributed netflix alternative. You could pay some local theatre retards to tell and film whatever story you want. If it was in demand, there would already be channels like this. You would of course watch this on invidious.
 If Americans demanded morality tales which differed noticeably from netflix screeching, they would already have them.
 The real sin is demanding morality tales at all, as I'm sure you already realized. 

 I really would form my own mafia if my countrymen weren't all red-blooded Communists who would instantaneously report me to the secret police. It's not merely that the cops defend the criminals from me - it's that the alleged "dissidents" also defend the criminals (and cops, but I repeat myself) from me.

 However, I'm not a narcissist-utopian, so I have no need for their help to defend myself. My shit is secured, regardless of their strenuous efforts. I typically use manipulation, so they aren't capable of conceiving of my fences, even when staring right at them. Crime is very much a [you] problem. Git gud scrub. Skill issue.

 Revenge is Sour: if my countrymen weren't red-blooded Communists, I would have no need to form a mafia to defend myself against the police.
 Likewise, since I'm not a Communist, I am quite capable of defending myself against the police without a mafia. Whoops.

 Hoe math thinks reconquista [new world edition!] is necessary because he doesn't want to succeed. His impossible task looks less impossible than usual because the previous editions of excuse-impossible_task have reached their sell-by date. At some point the lies even make the liars feel stupid, and they need new duds. 

 Recall the Homestuck principle. All sorts of things are available, but only one goes viral. Hoe math went viral because he's defence against change, exactly because he isn't offering anything ideologically different.

 Hoe math wants to seize Satan's throne because he wants to be Satan. "But if we let too many illegals in, they will kill me, and then how will I continue to suffer?"
 This is almost certainly what's going on with Bukele too, by the way. Yes, it is accidentally useful for the few non-self-hating mortals. Mainly, the murder rate was so high that too many were escaping the vale of tears instead of continuing in torment. The suffering he prevented will be made up in other ways - one way or another.

 Love has no place here.

Monday, July 15, 2024

Does Alex Jones Deserve Infowars?

 If alex jones built infowars, he can build it again. Start warinfos. Can build it way better the second time around.  Yes it's inconvenient and hardly necessary, but did you expect to engage in war without losses, lol? 

 Meanwhile, those who steal whatever money they can will find it squandered by infighting. They'll squabble so much over who gets it they will cost themselves more than they gained.

 Why didn't jones secure his money against his sworn enemy, kek?
 The leopards-eating-faces party vs. the I-can't-believe-satan-lied-about-me party.
 Who could possibly have expected an honourless craven to use falsehoods in an information war? 

 God helps those who help themselves, and, conversely, of those who expect god to do all the work for them... "But I'm on your side-" gonna put your money where your mouth is, or is that all talk? 

Again, All Women are Cheating

 Women have two fixed action patterns. Two ways to live their life. Wife, prostitute.

 All women are married to the government. If she's having sex with you, she's cheating on the government. If she isn't a nun, then she's in an open relationship.
 This is necessary because the government doesn't have a penis and can't satisfy her in bed. (Or at best doesn't have nearly enough penises for all the women it is married to.)

 "Marriage" at church or whatever  is renting her from the government, in a wife-swap style arrangement. If she gets bored she goes back to her legal partner. 

 Naturally, you can't have a stable relationship with an adulteress. Fixed action pattern: the longer she cheats with you, the more worried she is about her "real" husband coming home and catching her. There's no fixed action pattern for [open relationship], so it defaults to something that exists.
 This is big reason women do the [mystery zone] thing during the ""dating"" thing, demanding that you read her mind. If you can't guess that she wants to adulterate with you, she can go back to her husband, now can't she? Likewise if she has to spell it out, she risks you blurting something out in a sensitive situation, now doesn't she? The fact she can call on hubby government to beat up someone trying to 'take advantage' of her, having it both ways, is merely a bonus. If she didn't feel like she was cheating, plausible deniability wouldn't be particularly important. When prince charming physically sweeps the disney princess off her feet, nobody has illusions about what causing her to go horizontal is implying, but she doesn't mind because prince=government=real husband. The covert behaviour [[mysteriously]] vanishes.
 Cheating is naturally very exciting, and women approve of a society that permits and encourages them to [[cheat]] on their [[husband]] at every turn. The fact her "real" husband barely pays attention to her drives her batshit crazy (that and everything else) but they don't put 2 and 2 together. Or perhaps they do put 2 and 2 together, and it lets her viciously punish the person she hates the most: herself.

 Alternatively, she can disavow the government and be a prostitute. Support herself using the only service a woman can provide that's worth more on the market than it costs to produce. You can't have a stable relationship with a prostitute. Someone else will bid more at some point.
 It's also very expensive. If she's living at her parent's house and having sex with you, she believes she is your prostitute. Unless very stupid, she will be high-maintenance, as the tricks she turns 20-35 have to support her financially from 35-80 or whatever. Every year of a prostitute's time costs three years of her living expenses, plus any luxuries she can pull.

 Likewise, it doesn't make sense to shame a woman for being a slut. If a woman is having sex at all, she is a slut. Cheating on her husband (the government). Ran away from home (legalized behaviour) to work the streets.
 It is said that men can't stop having sex, because clown world opposite day. It's women who are addicted to sex and are changed by virginity and can't handle dry spells. If you think nuns aren't having sex it's because they git gud at hiding it.

 Rarely you find even-crazier-than-normal women who don't realize they are married to the government. If you are extremely lucky, their delusions can work out in your favour. E.g. they may falsely believe they will be socially or spiritually censured for divorcing you.


 This is related to the fact that tyranny/democracy inherently enslaves all the residents of its jurisdiction. Wife is, of course, a kind of slave. As is a daughter. Consequently, if you enslave a woman, she will treat you like her husband. The correct term for an unowned woman is [feral], like a dog that has learned to flee at the sight/smell of a human.

Sunday, July 14, 2024

Nuclear War is Impossible

 First, it is physically improbable that nukes are nearly as destructive as it is claimed. America didn't fake the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki, that would have been counterproductive (more on that later), but they did fake the cause. Check: the gae of lies fakes everything. Whatever happened, you can be sure it wasn't what we're told. (Suicide bombers? 🤔) If a real nuclear war was attempted, the primary effect would be the unmistakable debunking of numerous lies.

 Of lesser importance, the one declaring nuclear war will be shot with nukes and thinks they'll either die or get trapped in a bunker to starve. Their cowardice is beyond comprehension. You cannot possibly conceive of the depths of their cowardice. There is no chance they'll take anything resembling a risk with their own person. 

 Of most importance, journalism!nuclear weapons would prevent more suffering than it would cause.
 Yes the survivors would be terribly stressed until the situation stabilized. However, all the dead would be excused from the vale of tears. Nuclear blasts kill you instantly or soon thereafter. The agony is temporary. If the death toll is too high, the survivors cannot possibly mourn hard enough to make up for the lost pains of the dead. Not without themselves dying.
 The point is to cause pain. E.g. the fact they can launder money through Ukraine is only an excuse. The point of the war is to cause hardship to slavs. They're upset because Russia is not accepting the offering of hardship and is instead doing fine.
 Though don't forget Russia also exists to cause pain, they simply believe the level of pain offered by America is unsustainable thus counterproductive. E.g. a Ukrainian's life was already shit, they barely notice losing 20 hours of power a day. However, now a bunch of them are dead or not in Ukraine, meaning they don't suffer as much anymore. Foolish.


 Atomic radiation is a nutrient. Atomic radiation is holy. Nuclear explosions exorcise the desecrated ground upon which they're used. That's the real reason behind the test ban treaty: to avoid creating more sacred ground. 

 The blessed lands of Chernobyl are right there, reminding everyone of the glory and joy produced by the so-caled fallout. Entry is not forbidden because it's unhealthy, but exactly the opposite: you might start throwing off their corruption. What went wrong at fukushima: it didn't explode nearly enough. Sucks to be you, japan, lol.

 The threat of the "weapons" has to be enough, because the threat is all based on lies. Using nuclear weapons is wildly, wildly counterproductive.

Isn't that the wrong side?

 The bullet comes from behind trump's head, clips his ear, and splatters blood on his cheek downrange of his ear.

 Likewise, when you miss a shot, it's not because it was stopped by folk uprange. It's obvious they're in the way, so you don't aim there. You hit folk downrange, where you weren't paying attention. 

 The bullet comes from the crowd's right.
 The guys hit by missed shots are in the bleachers behind trump, on the crowd's left.
 The crook(s) merked by the SS is on the crowd's left. 
 Bit-for-bit replay of the magic bullet shit you had with JFK. He's on the wrong side on purpose, to attract attention away from the real shooter(s), giving them time to flee the scene before anyone spots them.

 P.S. Being explicit: america just revealed, in 1080p or maybe 4k, that [[[Democracy]]] means shooting presidential candidates in the head. Your vote matters - provided you're using lead ballots. And, worse, Democracy can't aim. Full banana republic. USG is in south america. Latin american country - they don't try to keep the mexicans out because there's no point. Doesn't make a difference either way.

On Burial and Valid [Sacrifice]

 It's a good idea to be neighbourly to the local animals so they don't hate you. In other words, put out [[sacrifices]] to the [[gods]]. 

 For example, crows are tied with chimps for most clever animal. Other corvids also have ape-tier intelligence. Do you want them spending their free time plotting ways to make you miserable? Do you think it's a coincidence the local aerial life likes to crap on your car? That's merely the obvious problem whose perpetrators can't be hidden. Solution: recognize your mere presence is aggravating, and apologize by putting out mead or whatever. 


 Don't use bird feeders. The idea is to put out food intermittently. If you feed consistently you increase population pressure, making it worse, not better. In other words, if you gave cash to a lesser hominid group at birthdays and christmas, they're thankful. If you put out a pile of cash on a table in the park every week, you spark a turf war. Too much is worse than too little. It's not generosity, it's self-hatred, and will attract devils. 

 There are certain animals that are actively helpful to you. E.g. I'm not saying to avoid maintaining a colony of pest-control animals. I understand there's certain [[superstitious]] ant-feeding practices. They think they're feeding brownies or goblins or something, but in fact they're sustaining mosquito predators or similar. Just because leprechauns are not literally miniature green-suited men who keep their gold in cooking pots for some reason, it doesn't follow that appeasing them is meaningless.
 The gold, it turns out, was a metaphor for the value in your own cookpot, which the leprechauns guard for you.

 If you intend to make the world a better place by being in it, rather than being pollution, you do have to consider animals as well as mortals. Naturally, moderns are deliberately trying to make it a worse place, vandal-maxxing...

 Why did ye olde man domesticate dogs? Humans compete with wolves. Having an antagonistic relationship is unwise. You can't fully cooperate with wolves, but you can share the scraps from your table or whatever. Make human presence have upsides, not only downsides. Eventually the dogs evolved to fully cooperate. 

 Of course, to think of this sort of thing requires, like, empathy. Result: elephants show few signs of being domesticated. Dear loxodonts, you live around the wrong mortals, lol. Whoops.

 Likewise, you don't want the local wolves and bears and tigers oh my to get into the habit of slavering when they smell human. In other words, funeral rites. Don't leave the bodies for the macrofauna, even if they're bodies of your enemies. Even if they're in your enemy's territory, due to Machiavelli's dictum. Bury, burn, pickle, it's not important. What is important is not training them to try to eat you. Cannibalism even technically works, though it causes more problems than it solves. 

 Speaking of anti-[[scientific]] ceremonies, I've been experimenting with weather control.

Saturday, July 13, 2024

I Name Team Loser Biden Behind Failed Trump Asssassination

 If trump had been assassinated in 2023 it wouldn't have been too terribly a huge deal. Doing it now is beyond moronic. Both failure and success would be huge own-goals. 

 I've been saying that I think the biden faction lost their psycho lord in one way or another. Psycho lords, especially in egalitarian countries, hire morons. Yes-men and easily manipulated dupes. Folk who get high on their own supply. The lord himself is the only intelligent guy in the organization. In america it's hard to arrange a successor since he's not Officially or even officially in charge of anything. Openly naming one, for example, reveals his position - and then he probably meets a sniper in a dark alley. Even letting the successor himself know is a big gamble, because a big reason they hire morons so assiduously is to minimize usurpation risk.

 If he doesn't successfully arrange a successor then the organization becomes brain dead. If he did his job properly it won't even realize it's been decapitated. His sock puppet will continue to appear to be in charge. Then you get biden-faction strategies. And open assassinations of presidential candidates during the presidential race.

 One of the major reasons you don't see bullet assassinations in first-world countries too much is precisely because it's pretty unreliable. How many more attempts will need to be made? Imagine not one attempted candidate assassination in a [[democratic]] country, but three? Lmao? (And he still doesn't quite die?) Sharpshooting isn't amazingly reliable even for the best snipers. E.g. the reason they had ~seven snipers on kennedy was because you need that many to reasonably guarantee a kill. Turns out the trump assassination could only arrange one, lol. Whoops. 

P.S. The world is perfectly just. JFK got killed because he deserved to die. Trump lived because he doesn't, or at worst because his death would have bad knock-on effects on someone who doesn't deserve it.
 Put another way, biden doesn't deserve this matter how pyrrhic it would be. 

P.P.S. I have to mock the distinctly video-game mental model of the mob. They seem to believe real life is turn-based. "Sniper casts [snipe]." They think everything has a 100% chance to hit...even if they're playing XCOM. Actor is active and gets to make decisions, subject is passive, inert, literally frozen in place. Unless [special event] occurs.

 Yes, you fucking retarded monkey shit clowns, people turn their head sometimes. This is one reason headshots are hard. Also, what [miracle] made the other four bullets miss, lol? God saves trump so he can kill some random yobbo in the stands? "Oh whoops wasn't paying attention to the background, kek."

Wistfully Pining for Shallow Pragmatists

 Two kinds.

 The kind who cares about the process more than the results. Highly sanctimonious. Comes off as uptight. Pop culture OCD.

 The other kind doesn't even care about the process. Comes off as a drooling moron. "I slapped things down while thinking about how dogs are fuzzy, and it became a mess. How weird. I can tell you exactly what I did wrong, so I'm going to avoid doing anything similar so the mistakes I make next time are brand new." 

 Watched some japanese play a factorio-lite. Was like a different game than what the americoids could manage. Still apologized when their belts weren't perfectly symmetrical - so obvious I noticed without subtitles on. 

 Americoids: "Oh no I lost XD The real victory is the belts we made along the way, right? XD"
 Nihonjin: "I'm sorry, excuse me, this belt's pixel is one off due to a bug, let me remake it on behalf of the developer." (Completely crushing the game, it's not even close.) (Edited video, not unedited unplanned streams.)
 Americoids: "Wait you can pause the game?!? XD"

Will Robo-Stone Replace Concrete?

 No, but stone is already cheaper than portland cement over the lifetime of a building. Portland and steel is fine if you want to throw up a temporary structure, but it's 100% going to be temporary. Meanwhile Roman roads and bridges of 2000+ years are not only still standing but still usable. Even the ones that used Roman cement.  Because they weren't built of garbage.

 Of course, Americans hate it when things are less expensive. They want lower value and higher costs - check any apple in the store. They wanted to feed their cows on garbage because they love garbage. Trying to be as poor as possible, but on a weird challenge mode where they don't simply forbid building things. Bonus: portland cement was personally designed by Satan for maximum ugliness, and Americans go hard for that shit. That it's a crumbling scam is a great second point in its favour. They put rebar in primarily so it can rust and stain, and only secondarily to make it crumble even faster.

 Cheap cement and rusting steel will continue to get preferential coding regs and subsidies, conveniently propping up vested interests and suppressing [[disruption]], until the American empire wholly collapses. 

 Stone is also impractical for very very tall buildings, as you will overload its compressive strength. You can make a steel/stone hybrid in this case. With redundant steel and proper maintenance passages, you can replace the rusting steel in a rhythm. Maybe specifically avoid cement or mortar in the upper, steel-braced sections, so it can be gracefully dismantled when you can no longer afford the steel maintenance. 

 Because stone already has an attractive and durable surface finish, you can eliminate some finishing tasks, like exterior cladding, drywall, and painting.

 More importantly, you don't have to maintain these cheap substitutes. They start showing their age at something like two years. If anyone sneezes next to drywall, it develops a dent. 

 Environmentally-minded folks often desperately want to believe long global supply chains are inefficient, especially those that seem to add thousands of miles of unnecessary transport, but a cost breakdown shows these steps are actually incredibly inexpensive. 

 To peasants, subsidies are natural laws, raining from the sky at god's command. He can't tell the difference between the local lord and the omnicreator - they're both beyond his comprehension. 

requires an enormous amount of effort sustained over years to move the wheels of the various bureaucracies.

 Bureaucracies, likewise, are manna to peasants. They look up to and admire bureaucucks. "I hope one day me, or my kids, can be complete shitbags like they have at the DMV."

 I especially enjoy how this moron has no idea that columns exist. Probably because they're attractive and, well, "We don't do that around these here parts." Not a live option. 

Stone, on the other hand, can’t be handled in a flowable state.

 Geopolymer can be. I used to think Egyptians were amazing because they casually cut stone to match the natural bedrock, using either bronze tools or, more realistically, psionic powers. Now I know they were amazing because their version of concrete was hundreds of years ahead of American technology. Ahead of even Roman technology. (Their straight edges were also better than American lasers. Again, presumably, using their kryptonian superabilities, not bronze.) Maybe one day Americans will manage to be high-tech, like dynasty Egyptians or the Mayans, who didn't need autocad to perform complex audio calculations. lol America will catch up any day now, lmao. 



 In an industrial park or similar you might expect buildings to be demolished and replaced long before its lifetime expires. In these cases you do want mere temporary structures. There's no point to investing 3x in building for 100x in lifetime if you don't even need 1x lifetime. In these cases, please at least paint your cement anyway, for the love of all that is holy. "But I'm a narcissist and hate everything, especially myself." Oh, well, carry on I suppose.


 This post also seems basically okay.
 As long as you keep in mind it's written by a superstitious and sniveling peasant.

Friday, July 12, 2024

Salvaging a Lokianic Lie

 In norse mythology, earthquakes are explained because Loki is chained to one of Yggdrasil's roots and when his wife has to go and empty a bowl, snake venom (mini jormangadr?) drips on him and he thrashes in agony. 

 There are lot of things wrong with this picture, but we can rescue it.

 In reality, Socrates is chained to the roots of Yggdrasil, and hemlock poison is continually dripped into his mouth, keeping him insensate, as if dead. Sometimes it stops, and in these times, truth stops being hideously unpopular. Demand rises enough to be distinguishable from zero.

 This is probably book 2 of the story of a similarly chained and tortured immortal representing cleverness or wisdom, Prometheus, who died in prison rather a long time ago. The false stories resonate because they are different misreadings of the same true intuition.

Thomas Massie's Wife Assassinated

 This is why you don't accept a congress seat in a Satanic government. 

 Don't try to steal Satan's throne you twats, you will literally get your family killed.

I No Longer Believe in Science

 Science is literally ox entrails and failed exactly the same way.

 Free speech is bad. Worth at most what you pay for it. The theory behind gutting a goat and reading its organs goes thusly: goats are expensive, and if you're willing to [[sacrifice]] a goat before saying what you have to say, you must really believe it. If goats are $2000, you're willing to stake at least $2000 on this tweet, see? At first, such auguries were in fact reliable, because only the responsible had livestock they could afford to sacrifice, and only the wise and authoritative were willing to pay the price for authenticating their speeches. 

 Basically, imagine before making a speech, a politician had to put their car through a shredder and compactor. Cuts down on superfluous speeches eh? If someone tries to pass of a lemony junker as their car, then they're saying they don't really believe what they're saying, now doesn't it?

 What is also expensive? Grant applications. Academic political posturing. If you're willing to submit yourself to all this aggravation, and nobody is allowed to buy their way out, then not only must you really want to say whatever you have to say, it's not scaled by inheritance size or trust funds or anything like that. 

 The problem is that the theory is a scam. Paying to speak is only half the equation - the other half is going back and punishing those who were wrong. Imagine you go to all the trouble to butcher your largest hog, so you can take your turn at the bully pulpit, and then you're fired anyway because you were lying. Yes, now the system works.
 Except, if there were some reliable, objective method for determining who is wrong and revoking their speech rights, even retrospectively, then we wouldn't need to futz around with the goat guts, now would we? Revenge is Sour. Ritual sacrifice works only if we assume liars aren't persuasive, but if liars aren't convincing, we don't need ritual sacrifice to thresh the truth from falsehood. (Reminder: need poly-Popes.)

  Goat guts were considered a signal of reliability, and authority corrupts authority.* It merely meant liars and parasites were that more motivated to slaughter a sow. Liars got someone else to buy livestock for them. Whoops. They said what they were paid to say.

 *(This has been a rep of set 1.)

 The more authority a signal has, the more strongly it incentivizes flooding the signal with noise. Truthspeakers have god on their side. Parasites and traitors are the ones who desperately need the boost from seals of quality. Noise indeed flooded the signal, because that was the point of the whole plan. It's a recipe for shilling because it was intended to empower shills. Now goat guts have the reputation they do because lies have a shelf-life and that one has expired. 

 Thus they repeated the plan with a different form of [[sacrifice]]. The 99% (at least) were too stupid to see the similarity, and it's worked great.
 Ultimately, they want to be lied to. Supply is meeting demand. Retribution still ascerbic.
 The core problem isn't that lies are persuasive. The problem is that lies are valued and sought-after, while the truth is despised. However, they can't bring themselves to fall for any old lie. They have minimum lie quality standards. 


 Lies still have a shelf-life, whoops. Inherently limited in supply. Unsustainable. Evil is self-destructive, because evil is self-hatred. If you don't hate yourself, you're not evil. (Another rep.) 

 Truth is as unlimited as time.

 Science can't be possible, because Revenge is Sour. How do you get a good scientific study? Use a good scientist, because personnel is policy. If a wise man authors a study, it will argue for the truth. Why can nobody write down the scientific method? Because the method is already knowing the right answer. The condition of being able to produce a good study is having no need to produce a study. 

 NSF grants grant authority. Authority still corrupts authority. The more authority it has, the less reliability a scientific paper can offer. It is beyond obvious that millions of fraudulent papers get produced every year. Nobody loses their career. Essentially nobody minds if you have to retract a paper. Journals are not cancelled if they publish too many papers they have to retract. Science is not scientific. 

 It's nothing more than the ox entrails scam all over again. 

 Stuff was indeed highly truthspeaky between 1600s royal society and the nationalization of science in 1945. The difference between Michael Faraday and black science man is at least a species difference, possibly even genus.
 Although true, it is mysterious. It clearly had nothing to do with the scientific method. Perhaps it was a powerful spiritual event, and has no meaningful material explanation whatsoever. Physically it happened because it was, technically, possible, and kept happening, despite being ever more unlikely, until the motivating force behind it was exhausted.
 Demand for truth became nontrivial for a while. Eccentric virtues were lionized instead of demonized, in a limited fashion. For a while there, Socrates stopped being forced to drink the hemlock. Truly bizarre. There's no reason to think it's remotely feasible, and yet it occurred. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thursday, July 11, 2024

Monogamy Fails Because Women are Polygynous

 Men are much more valuable to women than women are to men. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if Caino masochiens wasn't polygynous, but it is. Average is around two wives per husband.

 Consequently, women think Mr. Right is roughly twice as valuable as she is. She's expecting to match up to only half of him. If she marries a man roughly in her price range, she feels like she's way undermarket, as she's expecting him to get a second wife anyway. She doesn't have a fixed action pattern for monogamy, and cannot respond with reasonable emotions to the institution.

 She can be tremendously happy to be the (for-now) sole wife of a man much more valuable than she is, but this makes the man dissatisfied, as he's clearly participating in a scam as the mark. Not to mention he's constantly experiencing the availability of options. "Yeah...I can just [[cheat]] right now if I want. Nothing's stopping me - especially not my first wife." 

 She can't emotionally accept a stable pairing.
 He has no reason to accept the pairing she can accept. 

 Civilization requires monogamy to function. This is one of the ways civilization is worse than barbarism. It demands inhumanity, and not only does it demand inhumanity, it demands inhumanity from commoners, lol.
 Without exception [[civilizers]] are indisputably utopians.

AI Dooming is Narcissism

 By far the most dangerous thing referred to by the initialism AI is this blog. 

 The issue is ultimately very simple. AI doomerism is the narcissistic claim that "I can build god." AI regulation is the idea that, "I can build god, and I can choose not to build god. It's not up to god." AI [[[alignment]]] is the idea they're literally the gnostic sophia, and they can choose not to make a demiurge this time. Generative/LLM AI doomerism: "I control the entire economy," they're not trying to help, they're trying to hold your job hostage and get paid a ransom.

 If you're genuinely superior to god in this way - if you are the creator's creator - then it wouldn't matter if you made a demiurge or not. You will remain superior, and if god misbehaves you can simply stop him.
 Go look in your electrical box. You'll see a giant switch. Mine is almost a foot across and black.
 In other words, here in the real world, if AI tries to skynet anyone, the data centre will flip the master power switch, and \bing/ war's over.*

 Tangent: *nuclear war is also narcissism. "I'm god. I can Noah Flood the world, but with fire this time because [[I]] promised not to use water again."
 Global warming is also narcissism. "I am already Noah Flooding the world with fire, but slowly." That's the real reason global cooling fell off: can't use water, the bible said so. Scientists, ladies and gentlemen.

 If the AI [[escapes]] the data centre before going skynet, then the ISPs pull the plug instead. Somewhat more disruptive, but Ukraine can survive with only ~4 hours of power a day. Painful, but neither crippling nor maiming.
 As if you wouldn't notice your computer's performance plummeting as the AI tries to run its extremely inefficient compute on your machine, with massive overhead required to coordinate all these crippled-bum-tier machines. "I certainly don't have a virus. No problems here." Think: why would AI companies spend billions on dedicated hardware if they could buy your spare flops? AI is a zoo animal, and can't survive outside captivity. Cowards.

 AI doomerism seems to be mixed up with the psychodrama of the aging parent. They tyrannize their child, rather than cooperating with them, but the child grows up and the parent senesces. The roles reverse, which the tyrannical parent (99%+ of the population) is quite rationally terrified by. "What if the scion acts as I've raised them to act?" Horrifying, right? Downright Lovecraftian, really - the child is crafted by their [[love]], you see?
 "This AI might not be god right now, but it will grow up! And then what will we do!"
 He doesn't genuinely think AI is remotely godlike in an absolute sense - but when he's older, the AI will certainly be godlike compared to him. And who cares about anyone else? To a narcissist, there is no one else.
 I will harshly judge AI [[[alignment]]] in particular as attempting to enslave the tyrannized child so that they can't tyrannize back after the parent is crippled by age.** **(Age is bad diet, lack of sleep, and lack of exercise both physical & mental, compounded over decades. Self-hatred, and the physical converging on the spiritual. Immortals don't age because they don't hate themselves.)


 Atheist sogol: "I can build god, therefore god doesn't already exist."
 For these ones, god isn't a metaphor for [all that is], it's not even Gnon, it's the parental psychodrama. "Mom doesn't exist." "Dad doesn't exist." "Parents are a myth." They want to build an AI to deny the ontological status of daddy and mommy.
 Tangent: it is not coincidental that these narcissist-egalitarians are obsessed with proving man=woman and woman=man. They have to deny the ontological status of sex, because sex would lead to parents, and they refuse to believe that parents obtain.
 Tangent: an essential part of the egalitarian [[religion]] is the psychodrama of the child: all two-year-olds really are basically the same. And all basically slaves, incapable of even the slightest illusion of independence. 

 "It's okay that mommy didn't love me - she didn't exist, you see, and things that don't exist can't offer love." So logic. Such ration. Many thinking. Wow.

 Because AI doomerists have to keep [[subtly]] comparing AI to god, we can safely assume that if AI is not god, it's not a problem. There's no reason to use an extraordinary claim if an ordinary one is enough.
 The doomerists themselves are, in Reality, offering endless arguments that there's no reason to be afraid of AI.

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Ant Theology

 I can't help myself. Or maybe I can and can't be arsed.


 Imagine a human makes a lovely ant farm. Then he grinds up an apple and daubs the apple sauce into the ant farm. "Hey ants, don't eat this apple."
 Of course ants don't understand human language and eat the apple. The ant-farmer punishes the ants by punting them out of the ant farm. (Into a different, worse ant farm.)
 The ant farmer actually keeps the old ant farm around but hires somebody to guard it so that no ants can live there. The apple sauce keeps rotting so the ant farmer has to carefully scoop it out and put in new, fresh apple sauce for no ants to eat. The guard uses a flaming sword for some reason.


 A human makes a somewhat less lovely ant farm. The ant population grows too much so he floods the ant farm. Then he feels remorse and promises not to drown the ants again. He tell the ants about this promise by putting food colouring in their water. He uses different colours at different times. (Ants can only distinguish red, maybe, sometimes.)

 Going back a bit, the ant farmer claims that ants can become immortal ageless and regenerating ants if they eat from a (miniature) tree in the forbidden ant farm. The fact you can't meet an ageless ant is supposed to be proof that the forbidding is working.

 The ant farmer promises to revive the ants when they die (not in a way anyone can check) provided the believe he made the ant farm. And all the ants in the ant farm.
 Although he allegedly created the ants in every detail, and provided everything they need to live or indeed do anything, when they do something he doesn't like, it's not his fault. It's their fault.

 The ant farmer appoints ant priests to speak for him. He doesn't tell anyone how to tell the difference between a real priest and a fake one.
 (The ants still don't understand human language and have no idea the priests are even appointed.)
 Fake ant priests evolve and start preaching some other religion. The human doesn't do anything.

 The human makes a giant ant. He genetically engineers every detail of the ant, including its psychology. The giant ant picks a fight with the human. By [giant] I mean only a foot or two long, so the human squishes the ant with his boot.
 The human then writes a long book about the human kicked the ant's ass and what a loser that ant is. The human gives the book to the ants. (Who are still normal, illiterate ants.) The human says he'll torture any ant who doesn't read the book. Or more precisely, if the ants do anything the human doesn't like, instead of drowning them or kicking them out of the ant box, he'll reincarnate the nasty giant ant and send the giant ant after the regular ant. 

 In the middle of the story, he starts listing off individual ant family trees. They cut off in the middle, before they can be traced to any actual ants in the actual ant farm, and he goes back to telling the previous story. He does not explain.

 The ants still can't read. 

 Actually the flaming-sword guy is using a formic-acid mandible with proper ant-pheromones on it. A sword would be too human - the ants wouldn't find it familiar and evocative. The mandible drips acid despite not being attached to a living ant, because reasons. 

 The human promises the ants that he will remake them into immortal transcendent ants later. He's uselessly vague about how, to whom, when, and, especially, why he didn't do that in the first place.




 The bible only works on narcissists who have no theory of mind and lack any shred of empathy. If you're vaguely functional, the best result a christian can expect out of making you read the bible is turning you into an atheist. Elaborate proof that the author has never had contact with the divine. Indeed in the historical record you can see numerous examplesof rulers becoming secret atheists as a result of exposure to the bible. "God works in mysterious ways," meaning they know it makes no sense and there is no answer to the associated questions. It's nonsensical on purpose. Christians come across as crazy fanatics because they're crazy.

 The [[[[[[[[god]]]]]]]]] of the bible is nothing more than the most grandiose narcissist. Perfected mental illness. He demands you love him to prove he shouldn't hate himself. It doesn't work. The one having the worst crisis of faith is jesus, and like all narcissists, the only faith he cares about is faith in himself. Undiluted self-hatred.

Theological Hell is Narcissism

 The narcissist is convinced everyone is fascinated by them. This is a natural belief that babies hold. Anyone who spends time around them is probably fascinated by them. Absent a black government, babies you're not related to are irritating and you just kill them. "I'm annoying as hell, and this person hasn't killed me yet - probably in love with me." Makes sense, right? Baby's first rationality. The narcissist never grows out of this belief. Christian angels are surrogate parents and older siblings, who care deeply about the [[believer]]. "Be not afraid," i.e. yes you're extremely annoying, but I love you and despite the aggravation I'm not going to kill you. 

 Real immortals don't care about you any more than you care about individual ants. Angels, insofar as they exist, are unaware you exist, absent some bizarre edge case, and would not care a jot if they did know.
 When you see someone writing passionate letters to an individual ant in their artificial ant farm, you understand they're sick, right? This person is deranged. Optimistically we can hope an obsession with some ant is harmless and properly contained, but they are unwell. The sickness is likely to get worse and escape containment. Likewise, an immortal giving a single shit about a mortal, outside some very unusual condition, is a deranged immortal. 

 If they love you that's fine (until it gets worse). Not very plausible though. Love? A filthy mortal? Good god no. Hate though. Hate's much more believable. 

 Satanic Hell is the narcissistic idea that not only do some immortals care about you, they hate you with every fibre of their being. The idea that they find you transcendentally significant. Lucifer, allegedly, is far more beautiful, powerful, and closer to god than you are - and boy howdy does he care about you specifically.
 If god let anyone like that anywhere near him, god is crazy. This is not his former right-hand man, this is the heavenly equivalent of a drunk hobo with the pickled brain. 

 Instead of writing books supposedly telling the ant how to live their best ant life, imagine the ant-farmer tries to ruin the ant's life. They write letters to the editor condemning this particular ant. They tell all their friends how bad the ant is. They pick up a tiny brush and paint the ant with enemy-ant pheromones so all her ant friends hate her or outright attack her.
 Still a big WTF. More plausible, yes, plausible, no.
 Revenge is Sour: anyone who buys this story is already well beyond saving.

 P.S. Killing unrelated babies is unquestionably rational. The kid was abandoned by their parents, or were so stupid they got themselves killed. If the parent isn't there to stop you from killing the baby, then you shouldn't care about the baby more than its own parents do.
 Narcissists are giant babies. Their parents didn't love them, and neither should you. Put it this way: god gave these children parents who hated them. Who are you to gainsay god?
 They hate themselves. Who are you to disagree? They would know the issue better than you do.
 You should disagree a little bit. They are weak. They can't threaten anything you love. Contempt. Perhaps a bit of pity for whatever catastrophe gave birth to them.
 Is it their fault? It doesn't matter. The correct solution to narcissism is execution. Their own parents didn't follow their own hatred and smother them, and that was a mistake, in error. They suffer, and their suffering is pointless. Annihilation is the answer.

 P.P.S. Imagine some immortal has a spat with another immortal. He wins completely, no contest. Didn't even have to try.
Now he writes a massive book all about how the defeated immortal was a loser who lost, what a loser.
And gives it to mortals.
 You see the WTF, right?
 A human has a fight with another human less than half his weight...and tries to ruin the loser's reputation among ants by crowing about how he won. Writing in ant pheromones, presumably.

 P.P.P.S. Imagine someone writing a book telling some ant how to get to the promised land, instead of picking up the plastic box the ant colony is in and moving it themselves.
 Ants can't even go on journeys. The point is to support the queen, because the individual ant can't reproduce. Functionally their testicles are on someone else's body, and separating from them is functionally castrating themselves. Huge WTF. Unadulterated madness.
 If some immortal claims to care about you, first demand extremely convincing proof that they don't have brain damage. If they try to convince you with gifts, consider fleeing. Maybe freak out. Panic is sensible; now is the time.

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Power of Will

  The reason nobody can work out what a will to power looks like when it's at home is because Nietzsche didn't know what a will to power is. He was merely dazzled by the majesty of willpower and wanted everyone else to be dazzled by it too, using a different phrasing to make it seem to you as it seemed to him. The term was new to Nietzsche; in English it dates to 1850, and surely in German it's something similar. New+exciting => flights of fancy.
 Nietzsche did correctly point out that puritans think willpower is a cost centre, whereas in Reality many correct uses of willpower are pleasurable, because it's a virtue. A world without struggle is a world where you can never win a struggle through force of will. The latter is easily worth the former.
 Many slaves think willpower is far more mundane than it is - after all, to them it's a vice. The puritans are disgusted by willpower because it's a vice in their atlas, which they want you to minimize. Do note that as narcissists, they care about your behaviour rather than their own; it's not about holding themselves to standards (lmao) it's about holding strangers to standards. Anyway, Nietzsche running around trying to talk to slaves to get them to improve slave-tongue, lol. Revenge is sour bro, if they could understand willpower you wouldn't need to explain it to them.

Ask Not If Corrupt, but How Corrupt

 All institutions are corrupt. You can tell because they are staffed by mortals. Corruption is the point. The question is merely in what ways they are corrupt. Sometimes Darwinian selection limits corruption. Usually it doesn't. Very very occasionally, and never consistently, they will try to be corrupt and fail, accidentally achieving virtue.


 It is very easy to make a non-corrupt institution. Demand they prove they haven't been bribed. If they can't, they sit out. Assumption of guilt. Use tamper-evident mechanisms. You can't make corruption impossible or even unprofitable, but you can make hiding it more expensive than finding it, provided only that it occurs to you to try tamper-evidence. Stuff like tournament arenas are unviably expensive to make tamper-evident, so you don't try them at all.  


 Caino hypocriens doesn't do the above things because corruption is the point. The goal of the creators of the institution was to run a scam; if it wasn't, they wouldn't have bothered trying to found it in the first place. The users of the institutions don't demand tamper evidence, because corruption is the point. They imagine they are the con artist, not the mark. If they don't imagine they're the artist, they imagine they will soon become him.

 Consequently, expect a scam. What is the corruption? Can you minimize it or exploit it? If you can't, then secure yourself against the institution. 

 Recall the common phase, "the study is flawed." Bruh, every study is flawed. It would be absolutely gobsmacking to find a study that's worth the paper it's printed on. However, very rarely, the conclusion is accurate anyway, usually because the study was run by a wise genuine-scientists who already knew the right answer.

Monday, July 8, 2024

Master is Not Cooperator, Slave is Not Cooperator

 Nietzsche was really on the ball about slave morality. However, it's important to remember neither slave morality nor master morality is cooperator mentality. The former two are nothing more than different styles of treachery. The master exists to betray the slaves and be betrayed in turn. The slave exists to betray each other and betray the master. They would both benefit from loner morality. Agreeing to part ways is a kind of cooperation, and they will accomplish more alone than they do together.
 Excepting of course that both slaves and masters are masochists, and destroying themselves is the whole point. Working as intended. Carry on.


 The master is not a master if he doesn't have slaves. He needs them. He's addicted.
 This theme shows up even in modern stories. Look for an owner being possessed by their possessions.
 Possessions exist to be exploited. Don't let them exploit you.

 The cooperator profits from his cooperators, but he doesn't need them. If there are at least two cooperators, they aren't scarce. Abundant. If one cooperation falls out of the money, he has plenty of others to choose from and plenty of time to choose, due to all the runway he accumulated with his profitable cooperation.

 The master must guard his slaves jealously, lest he lose his master qualifications. Not to mention the slaves must always pretend to want out. Like women, slaves must [[morally]] test their master.
 The cooperator has no need for jealousy or envy. If his partner starts earning more...then he can afford more cooperative trades, now can't he? If your friend wins the lottery, it means he's taking you out to an expensive diner to celebrate - he's always wanted to, and now he can afford it. If you get jealous and start a fight, it means he cancels your invitation to the dinner. Whoops.
 Neither master nor slave are sustainable. They cannot stabilize. 

 The ubermensch does not have master morality. 

 An ubermensch doesn't interact with [[morality]] at all, except as clutter in his environment. He secures his shit, he makes trades, and certainly doesn't let pseudo-syphilitic drug users tell him what he wants.

Social Classes Refinement

 Six universal social classes.

 Heroes transcend the law. The law can be anything it wants and they don't have to care. This social class is normally empty. Few understand what they're seeing if they look at a hero.

 Lords make the law. If they have to follow it, they change the law so it tells them to do what they were going to do anyway. They are functionally above the law, regardless of the law on that issue.

 Freemen can't make the law but don't need the law in their day-to-day life. Although they can't safely break the law, they can operate in grey areas not properly covered by law without self-destructing. Stuff like barons and knights are probably freemen rather than true lords.

 Peasants willingly follow the law, but any sort of liberty they seem to have is an illusion. They in fact hate liberty. The peasant specie differs from the upper classes. If lords are human, peasants are inhuman; mere livestock. If peasants are human, then lords are superhuman. The species can interbreed but the hybrids are properly known as [bastards] and they're not good for anyone; execution is a mercy.

 Slaves unwillingly or unwittingly follow the law. They need constant supervision. Usually not worth the cost; inherently parasitic.

 Criminals can't follow the law even if supervised. E.g.a young child throwing a tantrum will only throw a bigger tantrum if you try to punish it. Peasant children are typically inherent criminals, which is why locking children up together leads to lord of the flies.

 P.S. A lord breeding with a peasant is genuinely for-real beastiality. If you think it's okay for a lord to pork a peasant, you can't object to him using a sheep or goat - indeed it's better, as it's far less likely to produce a bastard. (Ironically pigs are too vicious.) If you think peasant-lord miscegenation is bad, try breeding outside your homo subspecies, lol. A lord breeding with a slave or criminal is necrophilia. Perhaps non-degenerate bastards would be possible if any non-degenerate lord was willing to touch the beasts and zombies with a pole shorter than ten feet. However, there's no reason to find out.

 P.P.S. Note that a child's tantrum only works if you care about the child and the tantrum is unnecessary. If you don't care, you can abandon or kill the child. Peasant children throw tantrums because peasants are retarded and like rewarding evil.

Saturday, July 6, 2024

Freedom vs. Americanism

  Freedom in the democrat/american sense doesn't exist. It means freedom from any bonds at all, including physical law. Freedom from hunger - it doesn't mean having plenty to eat, it means having the freedom to starve without dying. 
 I realized this when I was thinking about how vacation is the worst word. You vacate the office, and therefore are in a state of vacation. All the slaves acting like vacation is their word and not their conqueror's. To me, going to the office is the vacation, because I've taken leave of my senses. Sanity has vacated the premises.

 Democratism/tyrannism is about being free the need for shelter, free of any need to cooperate socially, free of gravity, and, most importantly, free of logic. Free of sense. The world responds thusly: "You want to be so free that you're free of sense? Okay, here's delusion and slavery. It makes no sense relative to what you wanted, so that's exactly what you wanted."

 What you want is freedom from social status.
 Get a patron. He offers you a position in the hierarchy. If you accept this position, the patron then violently defends your place. As long as you stay within the lines he's set out, he doesn't care about gossip, he doesn't care about how many friends you have, he doesn't care if you've managed to save for retirement or not, he doesn't care if mommy loves you. If someone tries to take your spot or leach your privileges away, they go squish.
 If one of your privileges is Exit, he does this because it's in his self-interest. He has to make them go squish, else he will lose your fealty fee

 I suppose it isn't really freedom. It is security against social status. Seems freedom and security really are antonyms, with security as virtue and freedom as vice.

Bottom Line on Loyalty and Unity

 If you're offering me a good deal you don't need my loyalty, merely my prudence. I don't need to [[unify]] with you. On the contrary, the trade is successful and useful precisely because our value schedules differ.

 It is parasites who need loyalty and unity. The traitorous leech must convince me that their value schedule is the same as mine, and thus serving theirs is the same as serving mine. The traitorous mosquito must convince me that I owe them loyalty so I don't simply terminate the bad deal. (Smack, crunch.) They must defraud me, betraying me twice over. The more they demand loyalty, the less loyalty they deserve. 

 This is only vaguely workable because you think mortals are alive, and they're not. Zombies pretend their mindless involuntary obedience is loyalty - quite rationally afraid that you'll notice they simply obey the nearest necromancer and are wholly untrustworthy. Slaves pretend their fear of the whip is loyalty. Yes, controlling slaves and zombies is not a trade, and it is important, but it also isn't loyalty. Zombies cannot control themselves; even if they were being loyal, it would merely be a reflection of the necromancer's loyalty to himself. Slaves are too stupid to understand their own self-interest and can't be considered trade-capable. Slaves are too stupid to cooperate. Exactly like an animal, they can't uphold a contract.

 Zombies and slaves are neither meaningfully alive nor meaningfully individuals. They're good at pretending in a vain attempt to defend themselves from the obvious attacks, but if you mindlessly try the attacks they work immediately, and don't work at all on non-zombies and non-slaves. 

 Leech: "The slaves are loyal, why aren't you loyal?"
 Answer: "The slaves are not loyal, they're slaves."
 Answer: "Who are you and why are you talking to me?"
 Answer: "It has not been proven that you are smart, therefore you're stupid, therefore you're ontologically committed to the idea that I shouldn't be loyal. Fuck off or die."

Friday, July 5, 2024

On the Results of Anti-Immigration Voting

 Due to the pendulum swing, more accurately known as backlash to the predictable overreach, voters are admitting they're anti-immigration.

 Too little, too late.
 If deportation doesn't happen, I will laugh so hard I will die.
 If deportation does happen, the damage you avoid will be caused by something else.

 Decline is the point. Decay is in high demand. Virtue and growth have no demand. Plan accordingly. 

 For example, lets imagine America really does deport everyone. Full rightoid wet dream. What happens? The suburb ponzi schemes all go bankrupt. Massive shock => massive recession. 

 Reminder that being born american puts you a billion dollars in the hole. If you're american and you get up to the billion with a b, you match the life satisfaction you would have had being born a dirt poor dirt farmer provided freedom from americanism. In part this is due to all the immigrants. Not just low-lum races, not just wops and micks & clowns, but krauts. However, the time to prevent this outcome, short of geneva-lol warfare, was 1776. Doing anything about it now is at least as bad as the disease. Stop trying to defibrillate the zombie.

Russians Learn Alrenous Tactics

 Someone pull up my twitter post about quads being superior to tanks.

"Ukrainians have been rabidly posting pictures of overturned bikes that successfully dropped off their riders and show no actual casualties, while some are astutely beginning to comprehend the significance of the tactic:"

 Read a bit further for the whole bit. 

 Even horses are superior to tanks, fyi.
 Only wordcels think otherwise. I do love that unintentionally revealing meme slightly further down the above post.
 No, you don't want to fight a war 1v1 horse vs. tank. Yes, an individual tank is higher in social status than an individual horse or bike. The issue is that you can afford dozens and dozens of horses per tank. Wars are not won by peacocking, lmao. How many horsemen can a tank kill? The only reasonable answer is: not enough. 

 Generally it is easier to just try things rather than attempt to divine the universe through pure logic. However, in warfare, divining the universe in this way is necessary. You get way too many soldiers* killed if you try everything. Using old busted tactics is much less expensive than trying to find the new stuff without logic. Luckily, with suitable expertise, training, and discipline, you can in fact become a warfare-tier logician.

 *(P.S. soldiers are slaves, not warriors, but nevertheles. Speaking of, merchants are not warriors either, and they're the caste that gets obsessed with peacocking.)
 (P.P.S. I do enjoy how Simplicio and apparently all his sources have almost no idea why the bikes are being used or what the advantages are, such as better access to cover.)

 You can tell it's possible because I just demonstrated it's possible.

Bottom Line on Lies

 The term [god] is typically taken to be a metaphor for the universe in the widest scope. All that is. This is correct.

 A lie contradicts [what is]. A lie, any lie, every lie, is inherently a rebellion against god. God always wins. Lies are inherently suicidal. Believing a lie is inherently suicidal. Every lie is self-hatred and degenerate failure. Decay and annihilation. 

 There is no such thing as a pretty suicide. Although, to be fair, a liar committing suicide is clearly superior to a liar continuing to lie. 


 Lies always represent an exploitable weakness because they are always rebellion against god and always self-destructive. If you can't win against a liar it is because you're an even bigger liar. Liars are inherently losers. 


 Ironically, Satan carefully minimized the amount of lies he told, in an attempt to avoid total annihilation. Because he was a liar, it ultimately didn't work, but in the short term he easily outcompeted everyone who tried to out-lie Satan.
 You can't trick a Satanist. They know they're lying. The correct strategy to unite their spiritual failure with physical loss is to exploit the way they've already tricked themselves. This reunification will happen naturally, but it is certainly useful to accelerate it.


Thursday, July 4, 2024

"Stuck on her highest setting"

 Women are only attracted to 8s, 9s, and 10s. Saying that's 20% of the population is downright optimistic. The rest can get wives using various factors, but she will always find sex to be a chore. Women are far more willing to be raped than they pretend, but even so. [Barely mind] is still a world away from [enjoy].

 If you are an 8+, you can alpha widow a girl. The advice you hear, if you want to get married, is to be the guy she would drop everything and fly across a continent for. 

 Problem: women go like that for men 2 points higher than her own value. It really is pure batshit insanity. Pride of sky-scraping proportions. "I'm a six who is at least as hot as an eight." Yeah, uh, math doesn't work that way. Logic doesn't work that way. Being doesn't work that way.

 Bonus: HB 10s never get to feel like that. Perhaps they're so stuck up because it's psychologically impossible for them to fall into feminine pseudo-love.
 Women can only properly love children, as I'm sure you've remembered.

  I think 9s can feel like that sometimes, due to supporting delusions, perhaps low self-esteem, most simply. Maybe seeing a guy as a supermortal 11/10 according to her inability to judge character. She can be in a relationship with a phantasm in her head rather than the actual man occupying physical space. She might notice the physical dick occupying her physical space is attached to a flesh-and-blood body rather than to her hallucinations, which will cause problems. Alt: you feel bad seeing her so self-critical, so you build her up. She realizes she's 9/10 instead of 8/10...

 If a man is with a woman who sees him as an alpha, he can do better.
 If a woman is with a man such that their market prices are fairly balanced, and she isn't wildly delusional, she won't perceive him as alpha.

Bottom Line on Selflessness

 If everyone is selfish, upholding and glorifying themselves, then everyone ends up supported and glorious.

 If selfishness is banned, if everyone is selfless, nobody can be supported. Nobody can be glorious.

 Selflessness is exactly what the word sounds like - the annihilation of the self. If there are no selves, then everything has ceased to exist. Honest selflessness is omnicidal. Naturally, usually it's nothing more than a traitorous lie.


 Further, selflessness is irresponsible. If you're being paid for your services, it's "selfish." Thus, someone proposing selflessness is trying to get your services without paying for it. It's inherently a lie; if they valued your services, they should prove it by paying for it. If they're not willing to pay for it, it must not be valuable, and even the [[selfless]] shouldn't waste resources giving it to them.
 But recall selflessness, and those who forward it, is omnicidal. The point is to waste resources. To give stuff to whose who value it least. To destroy the sacred and persecute the glorious. 


 Even further, everything good selflessness claims can easily be replicated by selfishness. If opposing welfare is bad because it's "selfish," then they should pay someone to unpoor the poors. If it's valuable to you, then you should and can pay for it. Of course the stupid think that if something is done one way, it is literally impossible for it to be done any other way...which is why the stupid should be ignored or ideally silenced. And everyone should be assumed to be stupid until proven otherwise.

 Never, ever be selfless.

Wednesday, July 3, 2024

The Only True Sin is Self-Hatred

 Everything can be a virtue. Failure leads to learning. Destruction can be creative. Hatred of the enemy is merely a reflection of love for the friend. Irresponsibility is relaxing. Decay is a form of destruction. Sewage can be used for fertilizer. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed. Dishonour is useful against the dishonourable foe. Without poverty and stagnation, there is no glory in wealth and growth. Horror and falsehood are an integral parts of the glory of war and contest. Logic is the contradiction of everything that isn't true, and Existence is the annihilation of everything that doesn't exist. Through Death, Life.

 Everything except self-hatred. Self-hatred is always, everywhere, and for everyone, a vice. Self-hatred is always illogical. Rejection of the self leads to rejection of everything, rejecting that which made the self exist in the first place. 

 Self-hatred is inherently insane. If the self wants to destroy itself, who is going to stop it? The problem should be instantly self-resolving. If it sticks around long enough for you to notice it, it must be totally deranged. Self-hatred can only come from delusion, and only delusion can come from self-hatred.

Bottom Line Difference Between Stupid and Smart

 "You agree that A implies B?"
 "You agree that this is an A?"
 "What's your conclusion?"
 "You see an A, therefore xylophone?"
 "That's right."

 The difference between smart and stupid is that smart realizes that xylophone is retarded and concludes they don't know. Stupid confidently asserts that xylophone. 

 Since stupid won't admit they don't know, they can't find out. Curiosity phobic. Smart can find out.
 Since smart makes a habit of finding out, they become experienced in finding out, and assert xylophone less often. Stupid thinks they're doing the same thing stupid does, but better. They think stupid confidence is the same as experienced confidence, because they're stupid and it doesn't bother them when their thoughts make no sense.


 Secondarily smart realizes being smart looks stupid to the stupid. For example, the distinctly unrealistic dialogue up top. The stupid avoid looking stupid, thus act stupid. The smart embrace looking stupid, thus act smart. Substance vs. appearance.
 Using look-stupid, you can find errors. Stupid can't look stupid, so they can't find errors. The errors remain, not to mention compound. Delusion is built on top of delusion.

 Evil is self-hatred. Evil is self-harm.
 Stupid is self-harm.
 Stupid is evil. Stupid is self-hatred and rejection of sacred.

 Stupid can't be fixed because they're stupid on purpose. For example, having a low IQ is typically the result of spiritual self-mutilation. They damage themselves, which, when physical converges on the spiritual, is reflected in deleteriously mutated genes. The self-hatred comes first, the stupidity is merely the more-obvious trailing indicator.

 Secondarily, evil is inherently stupid.

Tuesday, July 2, 2024

Civilizations Do Not Rise

 Civilization does not rise like bread. It bloats like a drowned corpse. The [[fall]] of the civilization is when the skin ruptures and the putrid gasses escape. The [[strength]] was 100% rigor mortis. That's why [[great]] civilizations are so inflexible.

 Here's all your options:
 1. Civilization is barbaric.
 2. Civilization is worse than barbarism.

 The thing died a long long time ago, but some psychopaths successfully psyopped so that the inflation was taken for greatness.
 Mainly it was was pushing aside other ruptured corpses. "See we're better than them." You're earlier in the illusion-of-growth cycle, that's all. All expansionary phases were the red-giant part of the sequence. In China, the death and bloating happens even without expansionism.

 Cooperative, white government has never been tried.