Immigration as Afterlife Feature

 You can't grow food in the underworld. Growth is a feature of life. In the underworld, life is wildly unnatural. All food in the underworld is found on the recently dead, if they manage to cling to something still alive when tip and  fall into hel.

 Nations are attempting to accrue metaphorical sustenance by gathering immigrants and looting them. However, the other nations are also in the underworld, and the immigrants are also already dead, already starved. It's an irrational reflex driven by mindlessly repeating a spiritual resonance. To get sustenance, you need to do better than symbolic immigrants, it has to be genuine living tourists.  

 The only reliable source of food is the pockets of underworld travellers. The living need to carry preserved rations to survive a trip through the sterile land of the dead. However, the living fight back, and the dead are weak...

 The dead can try to resist the spiritual pressure, but it's unsustainable. The dead accrue a karmic debt simply by existing, they can't afford even more debt. To change their situation, the dead first have to be alive, so they can act...

Openly Satanic Gangs Crushed After Satan Executed

 January 2022: https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2022/01/news-from-heavens-satan-condemned-to.html

 "The Salvadoran gang crackdown, referred to in El Salvador as the régimen de excepción (Spanish for state of exception)^[3] and the guerra contra las pandillas (Spanish for war against gangs),^[4] began in March 2022 in response to a crime spike between 25 and 27 March 2022"

 Do you think this is a coincidence?

 "The real turning point in his war on organized crime came after the gangs went on the offensive in 2022."
 https://www.theamericantribune.news/p/el-salvadors-bukele-miracle-shows

 The gangs started losing to Bukele because they worshipped Satan openly instead of using a Namelessness variant.
 The gangs finished losing to Bukele when they lost their patron. Satan would have told them not to provoke this response...but he was no longer capable of doing so. 

 I should have no way of knowing about unEarthly events. Yet, when I try it...

 And the queen of england died.
 And the vaccine mandates got axed.
 And it's become possible to openly support deportation.
 And Musk went after twitter. "Musk began purchasing Twitter stock on January 31, 2022." 10 days...
 And...

 At what point do you admit there's nothing unscientific about the supernatural? 

 

 

 Meanwhile that big jesus statue they have in brazil is acting like a satanic battery, shielding them from the consequences of satan's execution.

 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1829625536777277754

 Yo. Shit works.

On Faustian Nihilism

 A big reason voters cling to social status is to distract themselves from the knowledge that they have nothing else to even try to cling to. 

 Essentially since the greeks got Sophist'd in the face, things have been done out of sheer inertia. Doing them for the sake of having something to do. Over the centuries, eventually the doers realized it was silly and pointless, and not only that, in recent centuries, when everyone stopped believing in the spiritual, it has been verbally (and correctly) been proven to be pointless. E.g, refer to the existentialists. 

 Why do you eat? Because it hurts if you don't eat? Is that it? If you had a suicide button in your house, what justification do you have for not pressing it? Generally, the true answer is: no reason. Voters don't like having no reason, however. "La la la la I can't hear you." They seek distraction. Diversions. 

 Uphold god? Nobody really believes in god. Nobody strategically appeals to god to solve problems. Also, what does that even mean? Uphold the race? Uphold the country? Okay, for what purpose, though? What are these tools for? Eating to uphold something that lets you continue to eat? 

 Civilization has been pain. Nobody lives a life that's more pleasant than unpleasant. What's all this effort for? To uphold the very thing inflicting all this pain?

 First hint: if you embrace the pointlessness, and likewise embrace the dislike of pointlessness, a point reveals itself: investigating why you don't like it. 

 Imagine that as a political platform. "Life is pointless and I don't like it. If elected, I will make the purpose of this country to discover why pointlessness is unpleasant." Most voters wouldn't even be able to understand the plank, let alone decide to support it...

 There are numerous ending-less video games that make it particularly clear. Mine resources, to build tools, to mine more resources. They can't imagine doing anything except for the sake of doing things. It's all buildup, no payoff. 

 From this, we can work backwards and see that even the games with endings are the same. It's a series of obstacles. Work, not play. What is the ending? Is there a single VG ending that can even approach being as rewarding as entertaining as running down a hill? So many games punish you by...making you play the game more.
 They could make games that were inherently rewarding. If they knew anything that was inherently rewarding. Instead, they make them punishing, and dangle a fake reward. A trick, a manipulation. Only by accident are games actually fun.

 From these games, we can work backward to real life. If you still need to. 

 

 Going to work your whole life, maximizing output, to support your kids, so they can grow up to work their whole lives? Ref: inferential horizon and clogged mental RAM being confused for the whole world. Get rich, so you can leave an inheritance, so your kids can get rich, so they can leave an inheritance to the grandkids, so that....

 Have to support your nation so it can win wars, so it can be a great nation, and win wars, so it can...what? 

 The zero-decoration, soulless-looking buildings you see reflect the state of the empty, soulless husk of the culture that built them.

Of course the real reason is Caino masochiens. Yes, the point of civilization is to be painful, to inflict pain upon the citizens. The pointlessness is part of the point - yes, because it's uncomfortable. Voters seeking divertissement only to prevent their Darwinian instincts from whining so hard the voter has to address a root cause. Everything working as intended. 

 It has to be this way. The solution is stupidly straightforward. Discover something  you personally find intrinsically rewarding, and try maximizing that. Try shit, see what happens, either it works or you learn what to try next. Completely normal prototyping behaviour. Every engineer knows how to do this, as in if they don't know, they don't count as an engineer. While the conventional payoffs are all not payoffs for various reasons, there are lots and lots of payoffs that haven't been tried.

 Interesting architecture is inherently rewarding. Worth the expense purely for its own sake. New technology allows totally novel actions. For example, hang gliding. Novel actions imply novel feelings. Novel sensations, adding to the great library of consciousness. The problem is the opposite of difficult. 

 P.S. A [meaningful] action is merely one that's more profitable. When the romans build a bridge that stays up for 2000 years, it seems very meaningful....because 2000 years of amortizing the cost is a lot. Per-profit cost of that bridge is effectively zero. Free bridge, too cheap to meter. Something extremely profitable but short-lived is equally [meaningful].
 The bridge lets you reach a hill that you can run down. So to speak. The bridge frees up money for making better buildings.

 P.P.S. The urge to be part of something greater merely means being profitable to the tribe, so the local bigman likes you. Being explicit: you can do the falsification thing by identifying a bigman and seeing if contributing to his pack in ways he appreciates feels [meaningful].

 Caino masochiens acts as if the problem is difficult, acting out a cosmic play where the conceit is that they're cursed by the heavens. They let the black government define the purpose of life as upholding the black government. (So it can do...what?) If you accept their ludicrous premises, such as the idea that money and fame are worth amassing, you'll get dragged into their intentionally self-defeating delusion.

All wealth is envy, isn't it

 The classical forms of success are pretty women, political power, and ostentatious wealth such as gold. 

 Intuitively, these are all in fact the same form of wealth. Or rather, they are illth, since they're bad for you.

 It seems strange. Having a beautiful wife is far from inherently unhealthy. If you have gold or silver you can buy joy and discipline and glory.

 Political power is inherently criminal. That part makes sense. It's a game where everyone competes to see who can betray whom. What if treachery and dishonour are bad tho...

 Then you realize it's mortals corrupting the glorious wealth.  The point is inspire envy and resentment.

 The wealth isn't the pretty women or plenty of women. The point is that someone else can't have the women. Hence the focus on harems, which inherently deprive some man of all female contact.
 The wealth isn't the coinage or the decorations or the big statues and buildings, it's the fact that you don't have them.
 The wealth isn't the political power. The point is that you want the political power but can't have it. The political power can be used to take away the things you do already have.

 Envy. Resentment. Illth. Sin. 

 

 Like everyone else, I have a perception blocker for envy. When I see it, even in someone else, it's normally transmuted to something else, to ensure I'm never aware of my own. On top of this, for my past service, I enjoy the privilege of feeling envy weakly if at all. Combined, it is easy for me to forget it exists. 

 While I feel dumb for taking this long to notice the envy thread, especially as I've specifically pondered the issue before, I can't see any way I could have reasonably found it. Even after finding it, I'm not sure how exactly it was done.

 Regardless...

 

 The wealth is incidental. Which is why these games reliably destroy the polities which engage in them. The point isn't to have the toy, which means the absolute level of toys doesn't matter. The point is to ensure your brother wants the toy, so that it bothers him when you take it away.

 

 The point isn't to have the stock to retire. The point is to have stocks that are doing better than yours. 

 It's all so tiresome. My fault for expecting better, of course. 

 

 Having been locked out of competition for money or sex or political office, you're tempted to take your ball and go home. This resentful impulse is nevertheless an opportunity to realize illth was never good for you in the first place. It's not something worth resenting or envying.
 Moderns do no such thing. They compete for likes and follows on fucking twitter. "I produced mindless logorrhea, and someone clicked a gay little heart icon more on mine! ENVY ME!" The competition is that much more vicious because the stakes are so low...

 The newer forms of illth are the same thing as the old with one additional layer of sophistication. Vows of poverty are supposed to inspire envy due to being so rich you don't need to value coinage. Signalling evolves to counter-signalling. Vows of chastity are supposed to signal being so rich that even as a total incel you would inspire envy. Etc. Displays of crass materialism in rap and hip hop are all like, "Lol you admit to being so poor you need money lmao." Being contemptible, rather than resentible, is what makes it crass. Stalin was, on paper, poorer than dirt. He got away with it due to having the political power to ad-hoc loot whatever he damn well pleased. That's what you get for having such a crass materialist form of accounting that can't figure in Stalinesque assets...but of course, accounting can't be anything else. Nobody with political power will let it become legible like that.
 The fact it's illth instead of wealth would become too obvious.

Empathy is Manual

 Mortals excuse themselves by saying that when empathy is automatically triggered, they feel empathy.

 Being properly empathetic requires transcending humanity. You must habitually stop, then intentionally ask yourself: what will this look like not from my perspective, but from the outside? It demands training and discipline, meaning Democratic Man believes displaying empathy is actively dishonouring God. For preference, they want it to be illegal. 

 For example, journalist headlines regularly read stuff like, "Is it worth it?" They will not answer this question. Instead, during the course of what it pleases them to call their research, they will answer the question to their own satisfaction, then forget that their readers have not seen their [research] from their first-person perspective. I believe it's answered, therefore, everyone believes it is answered, see? Makes perfect sense. Everyone is identical, after all.  

 This is why scientific papers are supposed to have abstracts. The goal is to answer a question. Summarize the question, summarize the answer found, and why it was found to be that way.

 I found empathy is useful for predicting how someone else is going to behave. (Question implicitly summarized.) If I know how things appear from their perspective, and I know how they think and what they value, I can safely predict they will pursue the highest EV action they are aware of, with respect to those values. (Falsification criterion precisely implied, in turn implying how to answer the question.) I found it was not useful for getting paid, because I refuse to enable masochism, and supporting non-masochism goals will not be rewarded.

 P.S. Women in particular confuse sympathy with empathy, deliberately avoiding any knowledge of what words mean to ensure the confusion continues. Viewing a situation with someone else in it makes them vividly imagine how she herself would feel in that situation. She speaks and behave as if the other person is feeling what she now imagining she would feel. In part this is due to cognitive overload - all that emotion in their own mind consumes neurons, leaving none left to model another mind. However, if you are the other person and mention you're not feeling what they imagine they would feel, they will, typically violently, try to force you to behave as if you're feeling what she imagines she would feel. This is especially amusing when it's another woman who is revealing by example that the "empathic" woman is imagining incorrectly.

Global Warming Orgs Avoid Lowering Temperature

 The government-funded NGOs will never do anything to risk lowering global temperature. Solving the alleged problem would cause a problem related to their ongoing funding. It's not like the government would mind giving them infinite money, but that level of blatant corruption is too embarrassing for everyone involved. 

 They oppose nuclear power precisely because it would lower carbon footprints.

 The Paris agreement had no chance of passing at any point. Purely performative.

 They are upset carbon per capita has gone down in the west, but luckily china is making up for it so they can go on blaming them. 

 Etc etc.

Cult Leaders More Correct

 A cult leader claims everyone is full of shit except for himself.

 Non-cult members claim only cult leaders are full of shit.

 The cult leader is right more often. Everyone, including the cult leader, is full of shit. 

 

 Cults are vaccines. Sophisticated Satanic vaccines.

 Although heroically rare, it is not physically impossible for someone to be born into a humanoid form, then not lie literally every time they open their mouth. When this person tells the truth, claiming everyone is full of shit except for himself, they sound like a cult leader. Preemptively countered.

 Perhaps I shall call them truth-traitor vaccines. Betraying the truth by lying such that its reputation is ruined.

 

 Of course, separately, even should someone claim this truth, only exceptionally deranged individuals join cults. Even when it is true, even if it were believable, it wouldn't be useful to say it. After all, the fact lightside society is 100% full of shit is the point. Non-cult members are getting a diet of 100% sewage, which is exactly what they want. What's the problem? Everything is working as intended? Joining a truth-cult is wildly counter-productive. Only masochists who are too stupid to understand their pain will go down would join a truth-cult.

 Notably, the scientific revolution was based on, roughly speaking, the above fact about cult leaders. Ad verecundiam is a fallacy. It really is necessary to individually evaluate every claim. Just because every other cult leader was inefficiently full of shit, it doesn't mean this new cult leader is full of shit. Note for Democratic Man: it is not necessary for every individual to individually evaluate every claim, it is only necessary for one member of the pack to evaluate the claims. 

 More precisely, it is necessary for society, or rather the pope which defines the society, or one of his deputies, to individually evaluate every claim the pope intends to reject or accept. Disregarding a claim is always valid, provided disregard is strictly separated from rejection.

Combat Epistemology

 “(T)wo propagandas, far from canceling each other out because they are contradictory, have a cumulative effect. A boxer, groggy from a left hook, does not return to normal when hit by a right hook; he becomes groggier.” (p. 181) 

 A combat epistemologist does not become groggy from a left hook. A combat epistemologist deliberately wades into a boxing match, ideally provoking both fighters to form a three-way, and punches his way out healthier than when he started. Despite hearing nothing but lies, he walks away with the truth. 

 This is not only feasible, it's not especially difficult, below some threshold of reliability. 

 Only a few edge cases demand especial skill. On the plus side, mastering the edge cases produces a true warfare logician. Logic, wielded properly, is a weapon of mass destruction. Provided anyone is alive enough to listen to logical argument, or healthy enough to confer authority upon truthspeakers.
 The philosopher-king can conquer your country. He can begin preparations whenever he wants. The only thing stopping him is the fact you don't have anything worth the effort. Only an idiot would want to own your country (check: look what they do with it after the conquest...morons...).

Zombies Diagnostically

 The key feature of fake-alive mortals is they cannot see anything new. They can only dream of things they experienced when they were alive. 

 They suffer Plato's anamnesis, meaning anything they can't un-forget is something that's invisible to them.

 If what they need is something they have not previously eaten, then they will starve. If the solution is not to a problem they have already solved, then they have no choice but to tolerate the problem. 

 Sometimes it appears as if they're fooled by appearances, but if you radically change the appearance, they will continue to see the same phantasm in their mind. To them the substance is ontologically inaccessible. At best, they can swap the old coat of paint on an old idea with a different old coat of paint, to make something superficially novel.

 They are wholly cut off from external reality. You may recognize the resonance with narcissism. They can't see anything that isn't an image projected from inside themselves. They are blind. They are deaf. They cannot smell or touch or taste. Anything which doesn't already dwell inside them functionally doesn't exist to them, except that it can kill them. 

 When I meet a zombie I instantly intuit the things they cannot see. What sights do their cataracts block? I already know. Necromantic skills.
 If you can't perform necromancy and need to test more manually, I'm not sure how you would feasibly do it. Perhaps serendipity: be aware that if someone seems resistant to an idea, it might be because they're already dead and cannot read it. If they cannot acknowledge that the idea is new, if their mind keeps snapping back to the nearest pre-existing thought, then you've found a zombie. Stop trying, it is impossible for them to hear speech. 

 Another necromantic skill: catalogue the zombie's finite list of brain states, and induce it to pick the one most personally convenient to you. It cannot think the truth, and consequently it can't not be deceived. Cooperation is  impossible, so choose defection. That said, zombies stink, even the ideal brain-state is worse than the zombie not being present at all. Don't build a herd of zombies, induce the zombies to leave you alone.

 Conveniently, all black government agents are zombies. Seems to be karmically guaranteed. They always have blind spots. Rather, whole blind fields, across which you can safely cavort. 

 Corollary: being unable to think anything new, they can't change their behaviour without a vampire or necromancer.  "And stuff that he doesn’t like about me is also never gonna change, like leaving coffee cups all over the house."

 How hard is it to pick up a coffee cup when you're done with it? Maybe take it with you? Even a dog could learn to do this. For zombies, however, the [learning] part is insurmountable. A necromancer can force a rearrangement of the dreams - you've picked up other stuff, pick up this stuff too - but the necromancer will regularly have to use a whip to accomplish it. 

 

 These features add up to making the zombie seem noninteractive, unless you count shutting them down, lol. You can opening up the back panel and fiddle with the wiring, and just like a nonalive game NPC, they will start up again with no self-awareness of the change. Unless you deliberately wire that in, I suppose.

 Conversely, non-zombies take a penalty on IQ tests. The correct answer to a raven's matrix is, "This is stupid and nobody cares." Noticing this answer takes time, and IQ tests are timed. Forgetting the real answer and trying to work out what the question is trying to ask takes time. Only zombies can mindlessly follow orders, meaning, properly speaking, the tests have to be normed differently depending on whether you're testing a zombie or non-zombie. IQ tests are created by Nameless worshippers, meaning they assume everyone is identical. Except for IQ, because Nameless worshippers can't into consistency. Most mortals are zombies and consequently IQ test-makers assume everyone is a zombie.

I Miss Saging From 4chan

 I've only used 4chan enough to know what it's like. (Conclusion: don't.)

 I do miss saging. Lots of threads only deserve a shitpost, but they get bumped if you shitpost in them. Saging should be a universal feature.

The Accent of Self-Hatred

 I've mentioned before that leftists and less-leftists have a barely distinguishable accent. You don't even need to be able to understand what they're saying to know how they vote. Subtle, but not subliminal.

 There's also a status-anxiety and/or self-hatred accent. Less subtle. I've heard folk speaking without this accent just long enough to know it's not impossible. When nothing they do matters, all their social bonds are temporary, and they have nowhere to be, they can finally relax for what might as well be the first and last time ever. It can also happen with altered consciousness. When someone is so sleepy they forget to hate themselves, or when blitzed out of their mind in just the right way.

 In particular, everyone recording themselves has an extremely thick self-hatred accent. Likewise, you can't post on twitter without the accent, it would seem. It's thick enough to show up in text.

 Naturally, monkey see, monkey do. Viewers adopt the accent as in-group, which in turn triggers the self-hatred fixed actions patterns if they somehow weren't already running.

If Global Warming Was an X-risk, Leftists Would Love It

 They're just lying, entry #9807234390679-8567.

 Leftists clearly hate global warming because it's good. The medieval warm period was a period of extraordinary wealth. Warmer = better. E.g. a big part of the reason Canada is so poor compared to America is being cold.  

 Liberals don't think global warming is an extinction risk. If they thought it was an extinction risk, they would be trying to turbocharge it, the same way they turbocharge every existential risk to civilization. 

 Come to think this logic also applies to AI. Liberals think the technology is good. They think it's opposite of terminator, which is why they're trying to terminate it. 
 Though perhaps having Fundamentalism'd AI so badly, they'll like it again. No risk of it going antiDemocratic.

Bottom Line on Class and Race

 The peasants are revolting. The nature of peasants is to be revolting. 

 Angle 1: peasants point as the lesser races so as to excuse their own behaviour. "They're worse, so we must be angels."

 Y'all send your kids off to pedophiles to be tortured. Morality isn't real, but if it were, you would both be so far beyond the moral event horizon we would need a telescope to confirm you're even on the map. Here, at the foundation of reality, lewontin was right: the differences between the distributions don't matter.

 You torture your kids. You torture anyone who can't violently stop you. Your sons torture flies and frogs. Your daughters torture each other. The nature of peasantry is incomprehensibly vile.

 Angle 2: the [[uncivilized]] races have unsustainable methods of torture. Some of them die and can no longer suffer. The [[civilized]] races ensure the victim lives as long as possible. The [[civilized]] races spare no expense, even holding back on torture, to maximize the number of victims. 

 I keep thinking that it surely can't be as bad as it looks. This [surely] has never been correct. It's always exactly as bad as it looks.

All Equalities are Tautologies

 There are some moments of truly shocking intellectual incompetence. I have a hunch I shouldn't be shocked, but nevertheless. They're moments like the following.

 Every true equation takes the form A=A.  E.g, let's imagine B=C, an allegedly meaningful statement. But, if it is true, we can do the substitution: C=>B, therefore B=B. The fact it's true is what makes it a tautology. All true statements without exception are some variant of the statement that 0=0.

 The only way for a statement to avoid being a tautology is to be false. It's a wholly useless distinction, a wholly useless idea, and a wholly useless word. Furthermore, the issue is not complicated. Furthermore, it doesn't turn on some tricky distinction or a recursive feedback. If you just check whether your favourite statement is isomorphic to a tauatology, you find that it is. 

 How did this ever become a famous issue in intellectual circles? Do they all have bus-tunnel-sized holes in their brains?
 But, if they do, how did they ever produce the slightest sliver of anything worth reading?

Bottom Line on Last Psychiatrist

 Change is defended against because the status quo is fulfilling. Parents adore sending their kids off to be tortured by pedophiles. 

 If you offer them a worse alternative that doesn't get them killed, they take it immediately. Tinder: "I get sex without even the simulacrum of a relationship? Sign me up! The more soulless the better!" If you find someone avoiding this dissolution, it's due to inertia. They'll get there eventually. Facebook: "I can meet my pabulum and ritual repetition quota without travel time and without seeing my friends faces? Neato!" You'll find that right less-left-wing groups are not primarily banned for heresy, they're banned for trying to pervert the social app so much it lets them socialize.

 "I can vote for a incestuous pedophile who has gone senile?!? Hot diggity!" More worse more better.

 The status quo is the status quo because demand is stable, not because it's the status quo. When change satisfies demand more deeply, the change is adopted swiftly, not defended against. 

 When the Pope in Harvard wants to change the messaging, it changes instantly. No fuss no muss. 

 Conservatives. Great joke, right? Hilarious.
 Anyway, conservativeslol didn't oppose gay marriage because it was bad for marriage, they got high on their own supply and opposed it precisely because they thought it wouldn't. When it was rammed through anyway, they found out it made things worse, so the opposition evaporated.

 At the end of the day, children grow up to be the kind of parent who sends their kids to be tortured by pedophiles. They deserved it. The first two acts of minority report are a documentary.

Why I Feel Stupid Today: I Want Butler Gloves

 I was today years old when I realized I want butler gloves. Rather than cleaning the grime off doorknobs and cupboard handles and keyboards and all that stuff, have gloves, just clean the gloves. Probably in a washing machine.

 Also it took a painfully long time to realize [the gloves of the kind butlers use] are called, get this, butler's gloves. Amazon has them. 

 It's almost like butlers used gloves of that kind for a reason. Even if you have a butler, you can save him time by wearing some of his gloves yourself. Proper doorknobs need polishing daily...or you can just not touch them with your bare hands. 

 Take 'em off for going outside or merely when cleaning is less inconvenient than the gloves.

Lovecraft is Made of People

 Speaking of powerful and destructive entities such as paperclipping AIs, Lovecraftian deities exist in real life, we call them Homo sapiens. 

 The key features of Lovecraftian deities are incomprehensibility and indifference. 

 True malevolence is flattering to the narcissist. It upholds anthropocentrism, or rather, egocentrism. Wow Satan really cares about you in particular. 

 To a narcissist, the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. Lovecraftian gods don't kill you because they hate you. They kill you because they don't notice you're even there. One stretches its arm, Earth goes kablooie, it gets a bit of an itch, scratches the itch - incidentally squishing anyone who managed to survive - and goes about its business. To them you are bacteria and less than bacteria. 

 Lovecraftian cultists worship their god, gain powers through profane rituals...and then the god sneezes, and they're BTFO. The sneeze probably wasn't even caused by them in particular. Even the dust irritating a Lovecraftian god's nose is vastly more glorious than you in particular. 

 Even if they did notice you, they wouldn't care. "I'm killing Earthlings? What even is an Earthling, lol? Anyway..."

 

 Sapiens are barely not indifferent to each other, they can't muster the slightest care for beings such as gophers, moles, and worms. 

 People often freak out seeing the more basic things. I don't dig a hole, chop or remove wood, or build something without pouring offerings to the earth and wights.
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1807075453405900805

 If you dig a hole through a rabbit or gopher den...do you even notice?
 Can the gopher possibly understand what happened, let alone how you did it? 

 When your spade chops the worm in half, the rusty, battered metal driving dirt and grit into the open wounds...do you care? Vegetarians sure don't...even if they know the worm is there. Try telling them, see what happens. Point out the writhing body of the dying annelid. 

 If you chop a tree down, do you count the birds whose nests you smash? Do you look out for the chipmunks who lost their hollows? 

 The questions are, of course, rhetorical. 

 What Lovecraft was largely railing against was himself. As per usual for narcissists, he projects this self outside and pretends it is other. 

 Americans find Lovecraft so evocative because they're incredibly narcissistic. Lovecraft makes them feel seen. They project, just as he did, and see exactly what he saw. 

 The universe isn't indifferent to you. You're indifferent to the universe. This upsets you because it's a major problem. 

 P.S. In a full-blooded Lovecraft tale, the protagonists lose. The cosmos - the indifferent actor in the dynamic -  wins. For the mortal equivalents, this is not quite accurate.

 Certainly earthworms can't call on their extended family to start a blood feud with yours. Nevertheless, this indifference has consequences. Nature starts to feel hostile because you've made her your enemy, and her hostility is far from impotent.

 Apologizing for being a bad neighbour through [offerings] or [sacrifices], ideally more than making up for the caused harm, does in fact work. What if the local crows didn't hate your guts. What if.
 Unlike a human, defecting on animal, refusing to let it mind its own business, doesn't make it like you more. Have to contribute more than you cost them.

 If you do a big consecration ceremony before building or chopping, it will drive off most of the inhabitants, minimizing the harm for which you'll be held liable. 

 P.P.S. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents" -H. P. Lovecraft.
 No HPL, you're just a pussy. Not even hard enough to think your own thoughts, lol.

I Did a Dumb When [They Don't Come Back]

 Sometimes stories have a bit where, [folk who head out that way don't come back], and my instinctive response is always, "What if they don't come back because it's better there than here?" E.g. if someone who dies ends up in heaven, why would they return? It could be fine. You don't know.

 No, actually, you do know. I'm being plain stupid. My instinct is insane.

 You have to get very contrived to prevent folk from coming back. Has to be a law that says nobody who leaves again is allowed to return. And nobody just makes a mistake and leave anyway. Or they kill everyone trying to leave, and again nobody makes a mistake. No smuggling. 

 Yeah, if nobody comes back you can go ahead and assume they're dead. If there's a heaven, it doesn't work the way you're told it works. They can't come back because there's nothing there to come back.

 

 In my defence, the stories themselves are usually about a guy who went there anyway and didn't die. Turns out I'm imperfect and don't ward off blandishments 101% of the time. Who knew. 

 Have to come back and check. Audit.

Social Status is Paperclipping

 The grey goo scenario already happened. It was actually green, we call it the oxygen catastrophe. You are not smarter than Nature. Nature thinks slower than you do, it is true, but Nature's brain includes yours. Even if it didn't, it's much, much, much, much, much bigger. 

 Likewise papperclipping AIs are already here. We call them Homo sapiens. 

 Social status is zero sum. Not to mention, net worth is a genetic trait. This means all effort put into social status is a complete waste. Any nondegenerate amount will lead to exactly the same hierarchy. [Zero effort] is only probably degenerate. 

 Paperclipping is in fact better than social status. At the end of the day, you can fasten paper with paperclips. It has more utility than a social status display. If the world isn't only the paperclipper, you can melt the clips down and reforge them into something else, taking advantage of the clipper's mining operations. The clips don't have zero value. 

 A virtue signal has zero value. Negative value, in fact, because it consumed something that could have otherwise been used profitably. 

 I exaggerate slightly. Caino masochiens can sometimes be tricked into competing at doing something useful, and in these cases genuine creation occurs. However, the social status system itself assigns more status to non-useful activity. Production is noise in the system. It is rebellion and perversion of the system's nature. 

 A proper paperclip AI is supposed to be hostile to all other life. Let's check a newspaper, see how that's turning out...

 The idea that long-term human habitation produces deserts is suspiciously plausible. Africa and the middle east. Mortals have already turned everything in the regions into social status. Even the weather... City dwellers in particular find rain nothing but a nuisance, and it, too, gets fed into the furnaces... Southern africa is only not bone dry because the mortals were inefficient and ended up turning their own societies into social status when the environment could no longer support them.

 AI cannot be aligned, reason #60987: a paperclip AI is mortally hostile to all other AIs, and Caino masochiens cannot be aligned.

No Free Lunch Rendered Mythologically

 Aladdin is punished for trying to take something from the cave of wonders on his own behalf.

 Persephone is punished for attempting the delectable fruits of the underworld. Likewise, trying to help yourself to Pluto's treasury will not work out for you.

 There's a bunch of others, all trying to moralize against greed. It all feels terribly profound.

 Even the dragon's hoard, in implying there's always a dragon.

 

 It's not profound.

 It's nothing more than the fact that you have to buy things, you can't get them for free. TANSTAAFL, as rendered by foggy-eyed writers who don't quite get it, and/or Nameless parasites. 

 If greed is trying to buy things without paying for them, I guess greed really is a sin, but capitalism has nothing to do with greed. Pigs can't be greedy, if they can access anything, it means they already paid for it.  

 Theft bad. Theft not wise. Wow, so deep. 

 Monkey's paw. The Wish spell.

 "Hey, uh, shit isn't free, yo."

 You can have the dragon's hoard, if you want, provided you're willing and able to slay a dragon. Have as many dragon's hoards as there are dragons.

 You can have all the treasures of the cave of wonders, provided you're willing to pay it in treasure for the privilege. 

 Want the treasures of the underworld? Neato. As long as you're willing to live in the underworld with them. For some value of [live]. Put another way, you can even take them out of the underworld, provided you're willing to give the underworld your life in exchange, or something of equivalent value. 

 Let's also do Fafnir. More generally, the myth that taking the dragon's hoard will turn you into a dragon.

 Well, uh, kinda, no shit. If you have a dragon's hoard, then aspiring knights will see you as a dragon they need to slay, so they can take your hoard. Whether you're legitimately a dragon or not. Pending specific definition of [dragon]. 

 Fafnir became as asshole, but actually he didn't. Fafner was a jagoff to start with, he didn't [become] anything. There's nothing special about hoards that make you vicious. However, it is true that the vicious will try to claim hoards without paying for them. Which they will regret, plus or minus some masochism. It is likewise true that the vicious will portray anyone with a hoard as a dragon so as to justify slaying them.
 Remember only the vicious need justification at all. Even attempting it is self-condemnation. 

 If I have a hoard, my justification is: "Can you come and take it, bitches!?" Gives me an excuse to increase my body count. IRL knights get roasted by dragons. Losers. Shit status: secured.

Turning on the Axial Age

 Naively, humans see wealth, political and personal power, and lots of sex as indicators of divine favour. 

 

 The axial age was about noticing these things have a strong tendency to make you less happy, rather than more. Take care of the parts that were venal revolts of the scholars, but don't worry, I'll get there.

 For example, Epicurus noticed that good food, good friends, and a productive day is quite enough - better than alexander the great, for example. "Get out of my sun." Groping toward the hunter tribe lifestyle, without being aware of anthropological history. 

 The sun is clearly the most glorious thing, even if you don't know how truly immense the thing is. Humiliatingly dwarfs anything mortals can offer. 

 It is from this time that this cycle's substance vs. appearance dialectic comes from.
 E.g, would you rather appear to be wealthy and have unlimited access to all the sexy women, or to genuinely be immensely wealthy and sexually appeased? If, to achieve the hottest girl in town, everyone had to think you were a dirty, lonely loser, would you do it? 

 Wholesome wisdom is far more valuable than some petty, parochial wisdom about accumulating mere gold coins. Narcissism: I found the substance of wisdom is inherently opposed to the appearance of wisdom. Displaying greater wisdom makes it look like I'm ever more insane. Each submission to Logos grants me exponentially more personal power, and likewise makes me exponentially more unpopular. Persuasiveness is diametrically opposed to truth. Even if a realm were ruled by a philosopher-king, you wouldn't notice. He would never be able to assert his true beliefs; he would have to disguise himself as an absolutely regular king. 

 So, like, what if you tried to be a likeable person and went around making friends with other likeable folk? Imagine if both you and your neighbour both decided to live in such a way as to be good for your neighbours? Like, damn, why did it take thousands of years to think of that one?

 It was the axial agers who noticed man looks for excuses not to cooperate. Many refuse to deal with anyone who isn't part of their family. If you deliberately push all your pollution onto neighbouring families, it doesn't work out for you. They're doing the same thing to you, and you have more than one neighbour.
 Family is a crutch. It's disturbingly universal that folk don't like their families either, they're merely being manipulated by a Darwinian drive. If you take someone with identical behaviour but different blood, they won't like them - often, will dislike them especially - revealing that the only thing they truly appreciate is genetic overlap.
  The christian races, of course, can't even live up to this low bar. Especially notable in americans or brits. They especially hate anyone who shares their blood. 

 "The mad can speak wisdom, the ugly can be satisfied." E.g. hunchback of notre dame. These tropes date to the axial age.

 I mean, they can be, but it's not the way to bet. The jester is only more reliable than the king when he's the king of clown world. When everyone has gone crazy, they claim obvious truth sounds insane.
 A diamond in the rough, a lowborn aristocrat, isn't a diamond. They will never be properly classy, and that goes for their children as well. A topaz or amethyst in the rough, maybe.

 Because it is possible to enrich yourself at the expense of society, using an excess of examples, it is possible to convey the impression that all self-enrichment comes at the expense of society. 

 E.g., if you misuse the idea of [society] you can show that anyone paid for their work is taking more from [society] than they strictly must. Society gains more if it can get it for free, see? Same as any discrete entity. Then a rising tide lifts all boats...right? And the fact you just proved Communism gives nobody pause, apparently. If you didn't already see it: if the craftsman is not being paid for his crafts, then he's not part of society, and that's why he starves to death rather than rising along with [[[society]]].
 Hence vows of poverty and so on. Rich man, eyes of needles, etc.

 For the record, stolen wealth looks like vast wealth, but it is costing the owner more than it is worth. They're pretending to enjoy it; or they're not even pretending.

 

 Pre-axials thought the purpose of life was to accrue divine favour.

 Axials thought the purpose of life was to accrue divine favour.

 Existentialists think the purpose of life is to accrue divine favour, but they're atheists and think the divine doesn't exist, whoops.

 

 For the record, this genuinely is dumb. [Divine favour] is mommy's love, but after putting on hollywood makeup so it sounds all profound. "I'm not a toddler, I'm a big sophisticated city-dwelling grownup." Yeah, uh, nope.

 Gods have things. You want the things. [Accruing divine favour] is in fact accruing a wage from the heavens, because they have more stuff than you. To really get how dumb this truly is: whose favour do the gods want to accrue? How does mommy per se learn what to approve of and what not to approve of? Where do the heavens get the stuff you want them to give you? Mommy will approve of you self-aggrandizing, but why would the heavens pay you for, e.g, working out?
 Normal mortals cannot follow Socrates' dictum, because they already know they don't like the answers to the questions.

 

  Existentialists noticed that wealth, sex, health, beauty, and power feel good.
  The purpose of Socratic or Epicurean wisdom is, also, to feel good. All not merely selfish, but self-absorbed. A toddler, also, seeks to feel good. Nameless christoids claim that forgoing material rewards (and giving to the church...so they can go to hell, I suppose...gotta curse your pastor and heap coals on his head...) will have infinite returns later. Just stuff. But you get paid after you die.

 Surely, divine glory can't be nothing more and nothing less than...gud feelz?

 Existentialists noticed the rewards of axial age virtues are nothing more than the lotus eating the axials explicitly condemn.

 The only reason to be awake rather than dreaming is to make the waking world into a pleasant dream, because you wake up from dreams, ending them, while you can't wake up from real life. Long term, short term. Hence, a regular good dream that it happens you can't wake up from is axial utopia. The instinctive repulsion for [[fake]] dreams over [[real]] life is based on a contingent. Mere hysteresis. 

 The above is overly charitable. Most of the the time axials are all about piously cooperating with your neighbour even when they refuse to cooperate with you. "Return the cart," even if you're the only one doing it. Buncha nerds telling you that the highest moral principle is: never beat up the nerd. The best kind of warrior is: the pacifist.

  The problem is not genuinely hard. Mortals simply don't want to solve it, thus always find an excuse to avoid solving it. Anyone who notices the solution conscientiously keeps it to himself. I'll go ahead and betray the conspiracy and my fellows, such as they are. 

 

 The purpose is to uphold divine glory (insofar as you can) and to become someone who enjoys upholding divine glory, so all signs point to doing it as often and as intensely as possible. To make selfishness and [self-sacrifice for the greater good] the same thing. There's no need for a disharmony. If there's a tension between long and short term, learn to enjoy the short-term company of things with long-term benefits.

 Yes, it should feel good.
 Wholesomeness is called wholesome because it covers all 360 degrees.

 We can go further. The purpose is not to receive divine favour. The purpose is to create divine favour. To bask in the presence of the sacred, forge the sacred with your own hands.

 You can find out what counts as divine glory via curiosity. That is, ask. We do a little cooperating with cooperators.   

Politics vs. Civilization

 Moldbug correctly notes the false distinction between democracy and politics. Extension: note the false distinction between politics, of polis, and civilization, from citatem and civis. 

 Technically there's a difference: polis is greek for city, whereas civis is latin for townsman. Demos is greek for plebeian, thus Democracy refers to the city or town less the patricians, excellence, or arete. 

 Words secretly retain their intent. Unless someone is going full strategic Satanist, they're used because their original meanings apply to the referent.

 Woke more correct: politics is indeed bad. However, due to the lack of boundaries, this means cities are bad. Anything which condemns politics condemns civilization itself. We find, again, civilization is worse than barbarism.

 I believe this is because anything which is recognizable as a civilization is based on black government, not white government. As per plato, civilization always degrades into democracy, because black government is dysgenic and otherwise degenerative. The deviant inherently trades away the long term for the short-term high.

 This is not to suggest a solution. As always, revenge is sour. The condition of a natus being able to set up a non-degenerate larger-than-Amish society is that they already have a white government. The peoples degenerate themselves because they're already core-level sinners. The loss of their Earthly virtue is merely the physical converging upon the spiritual. I would say they deserve it, but it's more like it already happened.

Women Don't Like Masculinity

 While I'm sure there must be a situation where rage isn't simply the flip side of fear, I can't find one. At least, when Democratic Man shows anger, it is always terror that's pretending not to be. Signs of weakness.

 Women love rage. Women love "men" who lose control. She doesn't want a husband, she wants a neurotic monkey. Zero-discipline chimp.

 Nothing makes women respect and want a man more than seeing him go apeshit over her 

 Get violent as you need to
https://twitter.com/AJA_Cortes/status/1826482907310882838

 Lusting after monkeys was never adaptive for mortal females. I attribute these things to millennia upon millennia of genetic drift. In the short term arranged marriages is a good idea, but in the long term it ruins half your species. It took millennia to get here, and breeding women back to a (breedable?) state would also take millennia. The other option to go whole hog and take them all the way to mindless drones. Maximum dimorphism. Reverse of the angler fish situation. 

 Either way, the state of mortal women in the present is horrifying. Only a Satanist would do that sort of thing on purpose. Only the worst weakling would let it happen by accident.

Apropos of Nothing: Jasmine Did Not Run Away

 She's not going back because she logically can't go back. She never genuinely left. Any appearances to the contrary are deceiving. Check: look at that resentful expression, that's the lie's tell. Wrong emotion for the denotation.

 If the above doesn't make any sense, that's okay, it's not supposed to. Everything working as intended.

They Want To Be On Fire

 it's like the people are on fire, and if you throw water, they try to have you arrested.
https://twitter.com/ItIsHoeMath/status/1827092376864579874

 Well, yes, exactly. They want to be on fire. If you put them out, they have to go to all the trouble of plausibly-deniably lighting themselves on fire again. You bastard.

 If immolation was not in demand, immolation would not be supplied. 

 Where's your empathy? High-level consciousness, lol, great joke.

 Turns out if you want to be on fire, you deserve to burn to death. Throwing water on them not only pisses them off, not only pisses the cops off, but pisses god off. It's unjust.

Canard: Nonverbal Communication

 They say 90% of communication is nonverbal. This is probably true, if you're a child and don't know what words mean. If the intended payload has to be discarded 90% of the time, yeah the successful payload is going to be largely nonverbal. 

 Being inarticulate or nonfluent should be restricted to children, but is not. If 50% of the adult population is generally nonverbal, that would be an optimistic estimate. That's the floor. Can't be lower.

 Most humans learn to "talk" exactly the way a dog learns tricks. You drill them on a call-and-response ritual. "Hello, how are you." "I'm fine." The dog doesn't know what "walk" means, the dog only knows the sound is associated with going outside. The dire ape doesn't know what "how are you" means, they know it's associated with meeting and with saying [I'm fine]. A dog with a bigger hard drive or better audio compression scheme.

Being Explicit: The King is Irrelevant

 The king has power. Indeed a king's realm is defined by the territory over which he has absolute power.

 Except, revenge is sour: the king has power only over that which would have voluntarily done it. The realm can only get the king it deserves. It gets the king it prays for, the king it demands. If you're king, it's because you're going to order them to do what they wanted to do anyway. 

 They say the king and realm are one. Yup. Exactly one. Realm comes first, grows a king to help you understand what kind of realm it is. E.g. america has secret kings because it is a Satanist realm; a realm of Namelessness, where you can't Name the king. 

 

 When a king appears to be in conflict with the people, it can only be substantially true if he's not the king. A king can no more be in conflict with his realm than a circle can have corners. If he's truly the king, then he's committing offences against his people because they want to be offended. If a tyrant did not exist, they would have to invent him. If the domestic tyrant refuses to oppress, they will seek oppression from foreigners, and they will get what they desire.

 

 A realm can only get the hero they need, provided they need justice. Degenerates can get the leader they need, provided they need to be tortured and destroyed.

How To: Immunity to Propaganda in 3 Easy Steps

 Step 1: don't want to be lied to.
 Step 2: see step 1.
 Step 3: see step 2. 

 If propaganda works on you, it's because you want propaganda to work on you. Stop wanting it and plus or minus inertia it will stop working. That's it. 

 See also: manipulation. 

 You can't con an honest man. Give up lying, and you can't be lied to. 

 Everything has a price. The price of propaganda immunity is difficulty communicating, since propaganda-guzzlers will now sound insane. (This is because they're crazy.) In their world, night doesn't follow day, conclusions don't follow premises, and consequently without special preparation they look like random number take generators. RTG.

Asymmetry of Purity and Contamination

 Virtue does not need vice. Vice does need virtue. 

 I can't say why, but I'm forcibly reminded that vice regularly pretends that virtue needs it, in an attempt to present the situation as symmetrical. 

 Vice is weakness. Without a virtue-fuelled rocket booster, it can't go anywhere or do anything. Vice has no power on its own, but it can borrow the power of virtue.

 Glory has no practical limit. A little glory is a little great. The more glory, the better it is. The rich get richer; the more glorious you are, the easier is it to create more glory.

 Vice has a limit. At or beyond 100%, you die. You are annihilated. 

 This is why a small amount of glory does not contaminate or undermine vice, but a small profanity can contaminate almost unlimited amounts of virtue. 

 A small amount of virtue in a sea of vice feeds the starving abomination.
 A small of vice in a sea of virtue turns the virtue into a giant booster for the vice. 

 That said, there is a solution. Perfect purity is unnecessary, which is good, as perfection is contrary to existence. Vice is weak, so weak that merely deciding to oppose it can be enough. Intending to become less vicious is sufficient. Security, as always, is affordable.

 To avoid writing a whole doctorate thesis here, let's say vice is okay if it's decreasing. If it is not taken for virtue, it cannot cooperate with virtue, and can't devour the glory in its environs.