Chaos Theory Proves Every Act Profound

 Every act, no matter how seemingly minor, ultimately affects the state of everything in the entire universe. Technically, everything in the light cone, but same same. It also affects everything that can see our universe.

 Every single act is incomprehensibly profound. 

 To be sure, the specifics hows of the effects are not up to us. Those effects will, largely, happen millions of years after we're dead, and that could be considered early.

 Nevertheless, it is true that every act affects everything. 

Auditing Manufacturer Regulations

 Oversimplifying a little, everything is made for California. Zeroth problem: typically the items are unsuitable outside California, because different places have different local conditions. However, the marginal Californian regulation is neither worth making a California-specific factory for, nor does the modification cost so much it's worth discarding the California market.

 So, first problem: what about the gestalt of all California regulations? Some country needs to exhaustively interrogate manufacturers and see how many California regulations it can repeal.

 E.g. fire retardants all exist due to corrupt California fire-retardant regulations. However, many jurisdictions passed similar "quality" laws either so they don't have to think of themselves as out of fashion, or because "oh yeah retarding fire is a good idea." The California fire-retardants don't retard fire. They're little more than bonus  poisons.
 (This is pasteurizing New York milk all over again. If you want non-garbage milk, don't drink the product of cows fed garbage. If you don't like flammable furniture, don't make it out of easily-oxidized foams full of oxygenated air. E.g. springs don't burn. At least seal it and fill it with carbon dioxide so a fire unsealing it causes the fire to get snuffed...)  

 How many of these Californian regulations could a country simply repeal? Probably all of them. Even if one or two is (despite everything) a good rule, the gain from repealing the rest and skipping investigation would be worth the slight cost of re-discovering the good rules via experience. However, that's politically tricky. The safe and muscular-sounding way is to audit the regulations. Go through every product and ask the manufacturer about every compliance feature. Very demanding and alpha and all that. Then, because 99% of the time the feature will be there "because California," make sure to repeal the local ordinance. 

 One or two or a dozen of these would be a waste of time, but the actual number is going to be tens or hundreds of thousands. Products would become dramatically more profitable in that country, almost certainly worth building local production to serve that market. How many car "safety" features are in fact pork barrel projects, which are at best neutral for safety? Ideally, the country would legalize cottage industry (defund the HTF) producing even stronger downward pressure on prices along with greater "product-market" fit. 

 (Oh noes! It's the dreaded deflation! Dun dun dunnnn! If prices go down that means sales taxes go down...or so the government thinks... Come to think, 96% certainty [consumerism] is nothing but tax bill maxxing.)

 California "safety" features 100% cost more than you gain from economies of scale. If folk were permitted to make the stuff at home, it would cost them less. A non-Communist factory would cost even less, sure, but let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 Foreign crime is always an opportunity. Lies are always a weakness.
 If you don't want to be little more than an outpost of America, you can go ahead and unilaterally separate in ways they can't even complain about. You could have not merely products™ but specifically Hungarian products. (P.S. Yet another pro-immigrant lie: if they love foreign food so much, why can't you get sbiten or kvass? Or dozens of other cosmopolitan recipes? The argument is sogol.)
 The only downside of the plan is that it is likely to reduce government spending. All these compliance officers are being rendered redundant. That makes the deficit go down, and we all know you're not allowed to make the deficit go down like that.
 Certain current politicians could do it anyway.

Logiomancy

 Of all the possible terms for myself, I seem to have settled on logiomancer.

 A geomancer divines the future through the earth. A logiomancer divines the future through logic. The present, also. Not to mention the past. All things are subject to logic; or rather, logic is defined as the set of principles under which all things are subject. 

 To determine logic from fallacy, start with easy questions. Specific examples in the natural sciences. Learn the principles that consistently predict the future with regards to fire and heat, or gravity and falling, or distance and mathematics. Discipline these apprentice skills by applying them to more and more difficult problems. When discipline has been achieved, the logiomancer can trust their skills, and investigate otherwise unfalsifiable questions. Spiritual questions, as they are often called.

Bill of Two Rights, Stability, and Acerbity of Revenge

 If you need a dead letter to keep your society from falling into corruption, it means you don't have anyone who can make the correct top-level decisions. 

 If you have someone who can make the correct top-level decisions, you don't need to try to make an unliving immortal golem to rule your society for you. 

 If you don't have anyone who can make the correct top-level decisions, then even if a golem were possible you don't have anyone who can make one. 

 Being explicit: if you need a constitution you can't have one. If you can have a constitution you don't need one. 

 What you want is to correctly address current conditions. Short of a perfect grand unified theory of geography and sociology, this requires current observations. A good leader is one who can make amendments to a constitution at will; if the constitution disagrees with a good leader, so much the worse for the constitution. To have a good leader, you must render your constitution moot.
 By trying to have a constitution, one inherently assumes the leader will be a fool or a criminal. The only suitable constitution for a fool or a criminal is [you can't lead]. The correct form an American-style constitution is very short: [you're not allowed to do anything, fuck off to jail]. Enumerated rights: 0. If you don't have anyone who can be trusted as a watchman, you don't have anyone who can be trusted to watch the watchmen either.

 A written constitution is largely a theft scheme. Maximum group size is determined by the maximum genetic wealth of the leader, which varies a lot. A constitution's coherent purpose would be to bridge the troughs of group size. In other words, allowing subpar leaders to steal group members they can't afford to buy. For the most part, a constitution is a crime.

 A constitution can only not be a crime when group size can vary easily. When the constitution doesn't legitimize retention or "unity" or anything similar. Hence, Exit. 

 

 And that's why Muslims are basically subhuman. Islam does indeed constitute an American-style constitution. These constitutions are crimes, rendering Islam into one big criminal slum. Insofar as they've had competent sultans, it is when the sultans reject Mohammed. (Presumably they do it cleverly, so the laymen don't notice.)

 Hopefully I'm wrong that constitutions can only have two lines. While this is no sociology GUT, there are certain very abstract always-true generalities which are known. Unfortunately, there are three of them.
 Exit. Responsibility. Honesty. Let anyone leave whenever they want, have a Pope, and never lie. Iron curtains are always wrong, democracy is always wrong, and lying is always deviant and defective.

Bears Repeating: Forcing Someone to Lie is Rude and Worse than Rude

 There are many Marco Polo social rituals, which are pure call-and-response. The issue is that Americans allow someone to box you into asserting falsehoods. "No no you didn't do anything wrong, it was all that other guy who I can safely badmouth, without any fear of retaliation, because he isn't here." 

 There's very much something you're supposed to say, but no guarantee it is true. Christianity/Satanism: on the contrary, it is about affirming your commitment to falsehood. The manoeuvres are deployed precisely because the rotsack deploying them knows the response is a lie.

 These are not white lies. It's social extortion. Cowardly extortion. Very much defection.
 P.S. This is why I laugh so hard about JBP's 'compelled speech.' These kinds of 'compelled speech' events are a foundational aspect of American culture. You have to uproot and smash literally everything to remove it. Only starting to have a problem with it when it comes to tranny pronouns is transcendentally hypocritical. Esp. in the root sense, hypo, under, critical, in the sense of analytic. Anti-insight, self-blind. 

 I dunno about you, but I instantly cut ties with anyone who tries to use extortion on me. If they're lucky I won't shank them on the way out the door. This is not some minor peccadillo. Americans delenda est.

 The fact these compelled speech rituals are all based on having delicate snowflake personalities that you have walk on eggshells around is merely icing on the cake. 

 

 I remember in particular someone complaining to me about their ex-husband, and I can't stop thinking about how I would have told them not to take that marriage (I wasn't autistic enough to bother offering this advice out loud). I was supposed to be "comforting" and "reassuring" but obviously a) this person had never met me before (the joke being I was introduced to them when I was a baby) and b) the self-sabotage could not be more obvious, only a drooling moron wouldn't have seen that sort of thing coming.
 Come to think, a de-Satanized convo would have been like this: "He's obviously abusive." "Oh good! That's what I'm after!"
 Not to mention c) if I have the authority to assure you your decisions are good, why don't I have the authority to condemn your decisions? Or rather, the reverse: if you're going to be terribly offended if I condemn your decisions, why would I have any authority to affirm them?
 Just in case you still thought they might just be naive and stupid, they made sure to trap me in a car with them before starting. Definitionally a captive audience. (My fault for giving them the benefit of the doubt. Should have and could have assumed a state of warfare.)
 The problem is you wouldn't take my advice and now you want reassurance that you're a victim? How about go mix ammonia and bleach, then set yourself on fire? Do it because I 'forced' you to; now you really are a victim.

Reminder: Be Someone Your Brain can Trust

 If your brain has to keep you in the dark and feed you on bullshit, it will. Indeed that is the normal mortal condition: they have no idea what they themselves are thinking. Their self-awareness is a fake. Voters aren't trusted even by the voter themselves. 

 The only way to stop this is to be trustworthy. Be someone your brain can cooperate with. It does your thinking for you - it is smarter than you are. You cannot outmanoeuvre it. If you want it to do anything you want it to do, first you have to do things for it. 

 And then it has to buy your plan anyway, so there's that. Still, you can relieve it of the burden of having to craft lies to tell you. No matter how smart it is, it can be smarter still if it can offload tasks to you.

 

Bears Repeating: Christian Virtues are Narcissist Virtues

 Peoples became narcissist and therefore embraced Christianity, which justified and upheld the personality. 

 Prima facie this seems to be a black government issue, as per usual. Parasites are abusive by definition. When abused as children, the most common adult outcome is narcissism. Narcissists, like most madmen, are aware they're insane, and Christianity soothes their troubled conscience.

 It appears as if Christianity violently imposed itself, but this is an illusion. Lots of things try to violently impose themselves on societies; it was Christianity in particular that they surrendered to. (Broken window fallacy.) 

 

 Every virtue that's special to Christianity is a narcissist trait. Lionizing distorted cognition, colloquially known as being delulu. Golden rule: narcissistic egalitarianism. No gods before me: megalomania. Spare the rod: only your wants matter, children aren't people. Render unto caesar: make mommy proud. All are equal before God: (therefore it's okay you can't tell the difference). No one is righteous: (therefore it's okay you in particular are not righteous). God loves you: (therefore it's okay that your parents didn't).

 That one bears recursively repeating. If your parents and neighbours love you, because for example you're not a deviant narcissistic parasite, do you really need God to love you? Do you really need distant strangers to love you? I'm hardly saying it's bad, but you're busy and maybe later you'll talk to God about love. I'm sure God is enough of a grownup to ask you in person if he wants something. Maybe try introducing himself and letting you get to know him first.
 lol
 See also: folk who are happy and successful don't become philosophers. Nobody calls the mechanic when the car is already running. (Although lack of preventative maintenance on societies is a gigantic issue.)

 Of course, Revenge is Sour. If mortals weren't already pining to be parasites, they wouldn't have submitted to black governments in the first place.
 Yet, it's important to keep in mind that Christianity is something that reinforces vice and insanity, not the reverse. 

 On the topic of see also, although Christianity imposed itself through violence, it no more needed to than America needed to violently reject slavery. No more needed to that America needed to defraud Trump out of office. The problem would have solved itself with a little patience. Narcissists are children; they are impatient. But, also, the point of a childish tantrum is the tantrum, not whatever they're throwing a tantrum about. The violence is the point. They probably felt threatened by time pressure and hurriedly used violence before they lost the religious conversion excuse.

Social Media vs. Social Skills

 Social media are anti-democratizing as voters do not have the social skills to communicate cooperatively face-to-face, let alone online.

 Voters need rigidly ritualized social interactions. They need a finite list to choose from, a menu, and they simply choose the one they like best. They need these rituals drilled into them by rote. Call and response pairs. In America, rituals are not drilled into them. They end up lost and confused. This is why they like parroting journalists: it's a Schelling point. Desperately grasping a piece of flotsam, because they can't see any land to stand on.

 On the internet, communication is harder. The interlocutor is likely a stranger with different rules, body language is lost, tone is lost, etc. To communicate successfully requires doing so in a way that acknowledges that not only are they not your best friend you've known for 15 years, but that you have no idea what their background is.

 Which raises the question: why would anyone with 99%+ social skills bother with social media? (Are they sending their best? Is Revenge Sour?) Why wouldn't they dominate their local social scene instead? Much higher potential, more immediate rewards. Even if you have the skills to communicate on a web forum, you won't find anyone who you can equally partner up with. In the unlikely event they tried at all, they've already seen it's a hellscape and quit.

 At most e.g. JBP does not read the replies to his tweets (or even read what he's writing down). At most he uses these things to communicate with folks he can talk to anyway, but does it publicly for some reason. [Parasocial] means [parasitic] or simply [deviant].
 Elon Musk, contrary to appearances, does not have a twitter account. He never says anything on it. You cannot talk to him through it, unless you can already talk to him through other means. Musk in fact has no idea what free speech means and can no more support free speech than a cargo cultist can build a working rocket. Maybe he just really really hated the idea of being banned, to the tune of $40 billion. Perhaps it was a long con: he saw that anti-rocket politicians were organizing on twitter, so he bought it to disrupt their organization. If he can also prevent some of his friends from being banned, that's merely a nice bonus. 

 Theoretically it is possible to use social media for communication. In practice, it can only be used for social violence. Reputational vandalism, and ostracism, and even then, only very marginally. ("What about ads?" "I already said violence.") Insofar as twitter has ever been useful, it is due to authors making mistakes. Noise in the system.

The [[Purpose]] of Mortal Life is High Social Status

 If you make the mistake of listening to a peasant talk about purpose, your [[true]] [[higher]] purpose will always be, they say, to do ingroup things and not outgroup things. To play the game the best, to be the rat that comes in first (but don't forget the local mortals will always verbally claim everyone comes in first).

 You may notice this is feminine conformity. Mildly masculinized precisely because egalitarianism isn't true - not everyone can conform, which produces a conformity leaderboard and thus competitive conformity. 

 It makes them very literally slaves to whoever decides what it means to be high status.

 A status striver will tell you they want to be the queen bee or the madam of the whorehouse, the one who makes the rules. This would be hilariously unselfaware if it wasn't so cringe. The rules they make are also conformist. They try to make the exact rules they're [[supposed]] to make. Whoops.
 You can see this easily in juvenile fiction a lot. Their power fantasy is that they get to enforce the things mom told them to do. "I'm going to go and kill rapists and slavers!" Such subtle, sophisticated social commentary. Yeah attacking universally reviled criminals is really speaking truth to power... I bet you'll really stand up for the downtrodden next by condemning shoplifting. P.S. Why the fuck does English have a three-syllable word for 'theft'; plz let me kill anyone who uses it, I want right of first execution. 

 Strivers won't even admit someone does make the rules. That is perhaps the whole point of the idea of [[morality]] (as apart from local mores) they see rules as external and objective, handed down from some noninterventionist deity.
 As, I mean, duh. Of course one of the rules the status-maker will make is, "There is no man behind the curtain."
 It's sufficiently funny that I can make that universal cultural reference and the strivers still don't get it.

 If you decide what is and isn't higher status, you first have to be the kind of person who can. And if you can do that, then you don't have to wait for permission to determine what is high-status for yourself. Simply make whatever you're already doing higher status. Bingo bango. 

 It should be possible for anyone to do this. It is not technically difficult. "I'm the decider now. I decide the rule is I'm the best. Neato, game over." And yet...

 Well, zombies gonna rot. Brainless undead obviously can't make any decisions except what their necromancer has already decided for them. Zombies cannot cooperate any more than individual fingernails can cooperate. They are nothing more than an extension of another's will.

 

Reputation and Stereotype Accuracy

 Reputations of famous groups vary tremendously from place to place, calling stereotype accuracy into question. (Also calling the positive connotation of [famous] into question. Corruption of English.) One realizes the stereotype researchers are looking at only the broadest groups, and as such they're finding average reputations are typically accurate. Accidentally, they tap into a disinterested observer. As with all proofs, the methodology is critical for knowing the valid range.
 Naturally, locals take these studies as proof that all their local reputations are accurate. Kruger, paging Dunning. Only the brightest and most dedicated have access to reputations beyond their tiny parochial tribe. Naturally, these parochial locals will only talk about the reputations they are most interested in (their rivals) the ones they are least disinterested in observing.  

 

 Used to be Americans would be obsessed with saying, "We should have a better reputation," or the reverse, "Y'all should have a worse reputation." For my sins, recently I've watched a bunch of youtube and found that Americans have now rejected activism for statickism: all reputations ought to be set in stone. Hours of footage, uniformly reinforcing and policing reputations to match whatever the video author's (childish) prejudices already are.

Environmentalism Got Me

 Today I feel stupid. 

 All slurs are true: environmentalists want to drive homo sapiens to extinction for the sake of planeto gaias. I got got by the Satanism. Framing of us vs. them makes us try to figure out which is us and which them. Picking a side. Picking an [[[identity]]].

 Either Nature deserved to be subjugated by Man, or Man deserves to be destroyed for His crimes against Nature, see?

 But the-thing-which-used-to-be-called-science is about varying all the variables. Solomonoff induction requires listing all hypotheses.

 What if both Nature and Man deserve destruction? What if they're both terrible, and deserve to lose?

 Oh. Oh yeah. That's it. Proof by inspection.

 

 *"Who am I?" Rather than, "What am I doing and why am I doing it?" 

 Certain parts of nature are certainly beautiful. Wasps aren't, an exception that illustrates the rule. Most organisms aren't mosquitos. Wasps are probably the corpse of some particularly foul immortal. 

 I believe the planet itself is evil. As is meet for the underworld, it is a dead planet. A zombie planet. It has beauty because Satan™ is an imperfect being. Gaia tried to be unrelentingly horrible, but failed. If she wasn't a loser she wouldn't have died in the first place. Gaia, Satan, Phobos want to suppress the numinous emanations of the divine upper heavens, but can't. 

 Man is Natural. That's exactly his problem.

Founding Mothers Stupid or Evil

 They read their classics. Every writer agrees democracy is the worst form of government, except paid shills. 

 Option 1: they were illiterate. They read, but had no idea what it meant. They saw a bunch of jingoistic buzzwords, then, because monkey saw, monkey did.

 Option 2: "Ah, so democracy runs up huge debts and strips all virtue from the population? Awesome. Yes. Sign us up." 

 Of course, Socrates informs us: stupidity is evil. They are the same thing: weakness or poverty of the soul.

Starcraft Isn't Fun

 For completeness, let's talk about how Starcraft is a badly designed game.

 

 But first, turns out pros were indeed underusing sentries and adepts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS8VcU882tw
 Stalkers are shit units. Adepts with +glaive are, in fact, nearly as beefy as zealots, but mainly plain good against any player employing light units, like zerglings or marines. The only problem with a immortal/sentry army is inability to shoot up...but you have a warp prism, you can get emergency stalkers.
 (Though the solution for zerg is to hold until they can muta flood, then....)

 

 Cheeses are boring. You don't interact with the opponent until the attack hits. You just do the build you memorized, then there's a bit of actual play, then you either win or lose and the game is over. 

 Pros at least harass each other a bit during the early game, but the harass is always the same due to the very limited unit selection, making it still not an interaction. It's a ritual. Basically single-player.

 On the ladder, easily the first 5-8 minutes of every game is tedious as fuck. Then you suddenly win or lose and the game is over. If there's no sudden winner, it will 100% come down to whoever macros better, i.e. faster or more efficiently. 

 Example. Consider a 12 minute game. This is the story of the game: I used templar storm, he didn't move his marines, so he lost and I won. What happened in the other 11:56 of the game? No playing, that's for certain. None of it mattered, except the fact he attacked after I had templar instead of before. Loading the map took longer than the total time that genuinely counted as play.

 You do gain a few things due to leaving the early game open to player decisions, but not remotely close to how much you lose by doing so. Yes, you can finely adjust build orders and there's an infinite variety of cheeses - except both those things are bad games. They are boring and only boring. 

 Starcraft is not an RTS. Starcraft is a real-time cooking game. Imagine you're baking bread, you have to bake from memory, and you get points for getting it baked faster. Only you have to sit there and watch it rise. Every. Single. Time. You lose when, by trying to go fast, you mess up the recipe. That's Starcraft. That's, like, literally Starcraft with bread.

 

 Starcraft "Skill" is overwhelmingly dominated by doing things quickly. It's a somewhat obfuscated game of whack-a-mole, so, whatever genre whack-a-mole is. Cooking whack-a-mole.
 Insofar as there's strategy, you copy someone else's strategy. (As quickly as possible.) It's likely that fewer than a dozen boys or men total interact with the strategy layer of this alleged real-time ""strategy"" game. They make the strategies, everyone else uses the strategies - the strategists don't even get to play the game themselves at a high level, since the skillsets are so disparate.
 The strategy layer is the only interesting part of the game.
 Blizzard consciously, deliberately leaned into whack-a-mole. Units could be dramatically more automated than they are, but are dumb as rocks specifically so players can show off "skill" by doing stupid, repetitive tasks, but doing them very fast. FAL - factory assembly line game. Wage harder, wagie. It's a ""game"" so it's ""fun"" or something. 

 

 If the game goes long enough that a) you might go up the tech tree and see something other than copy-paste stalker/zergling wars and b) the mind-numbing setup phase is an acceptably low ratio of the total ""play"" time, it enters a new and exciting degenerate state. What "balanced" means is that even in Starcraft, security is affordable. You can deter attacks. Hence, it becomes about mining as quickly as possible, until the map is mined out and the players attack each other out of lack of anything better to do.

 Consider this horrible fork: either you can scout and counter your opponent's composition, meaning your compositions will wash out and not matter, or you can be surprised and you lose due to pure chance. Blizzard chose to let players easily scout each other. Skirmisher skirts are not a thing.

 Starcraft is basically an engagement game. It's about manoeuvring armies until you get a position that's favourable to your side. Except fights are balanced around playing on normal, and everyone plays on very fast due to the long, long stretches of utter tedium that necessarily occur before having an army to manoeuvre. Hence no human can react fast enough to meaningfully interact with the engagement. It's down to luck, and if you get the bad luck you have to retreat because it's too late to do anything else.

 

 For example, Mechabellum is a drastically superior design. No mining, meaning no agonizing mining phase. No micro, meaning no enormous premium on your embroidery skills. Just...strategy. RNG starting "race" so the best strategy is unique (enough) to each game - if you can just copy someone's else's strategy, they nerf that strategy. E.g. vulcan+phoenix was a degenerate always-pick, so they fixed it. Bonus: without Blizzard's massive overreactions that have to be rolled back, then undershoot, then...

 Mining in Starcraft makes sense in the campaign, where the conceit is that the enemy doesn't know you're there or doesn't consider you a real issue. E.g. you can challenge yourself to build the smallest viable winning army. Weapon and armour upgrades make sense in the campaign, because you (are supposed to) keep them across maps, creating a long/short tradeoff. As in real life, SC pvp weapon upgrades are a rat race. It's "balanced" if neither race can get ahead of the other, and letting your opponent out-research you is plain stupid. The only thing upgrades do is blunt certain rushes by effectively making the tech take longer. E.g. thermal lance.
 

 For pvp, they moved in the right direction by changing starting workers from 6 to 12. Except it should be more like 90 starting workers and 20,000 starting minerals. Skip almost directly to the part where you have an army and are moving across the map. Perhaps skip bases entirely - just requisition an army pre-match and the game is entirely about manoeuvre. There's no gameplay in, "I built the wrong army so I lose," so just remove the option to build the wrong army.

Islam and the Bill of Two Rights

 This https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/teach-a-man-to-revolt would be ineffective at its stated goal. (Problem: women and Americans are shallow, mesmerized by appearances.) 

 It appears to be praise for Islam, but the buried lede is condemnation. If you create a social order than can maintain order for 1000 years (paging Hitler) you become dead. France or Spain could wake up one day, get a cup of coffee, and simply wipe out the Islamic world. Do Mecca, then start at the bottom of Africa and work their way up until Turkey can fight no more. Muslims exist due to the mercy of Europeans. And Orientals, for that matter - and don't think for a second Muslims aren't aware of this. Muslims would wipe out Europeans and Orientals if they could. They just can't. 

 P.S. Islam wasn't stable before al-Ghazali. It's only Mohammed's religion because Abu here was also named Mohammed. Twice. Of course, Revenge is Sour: Algazel couldn't have cored the vitality out of Islam for all time had Muslims not fundamentally been Satan-worshippers in the first place. Algazel won because he provided articulation for what Muslims had previously been demanding incoherently. 

 What the bill of rights says does matter a little...but only briefly. It doesn't matter what it says above the first amendment. It doesn't matter what it says after the second amendment. So that's it: if you intend for it to be read by peasants, your constitution can have two lines. Any more and it will only matter to scholars, tyrants, and other upper-class types. 

 You have two options:
 1) Islam can have infinity rules because it is primarily by tyrants, for tyranny.
 2) Islam in fact has two rules. I don't know what they are, but if you want you can go and find them. Perhaps [obey the Tyrant] and one other rule. 

 Your polity will become corrupt. It is inevitable. The parasites plain want it more.
 One possible solution is to embrace corruption. If your polity sounds full-throated approval of bribes and treachery, then it can push water downhill. It will push your whole society downhill along with it, but never mind. Aside from being wiped out by superior societies, there is no reason legitimized corruption cannot last indefinitely (India).

 Reminder, my two-line constitution:
    1) Exit. It is legitimate to the extent individuals may leave. The easier and cheaper, the more legitimate.
    2) Have a Pope. Someone must determine who is lying. Know their name and address. 

 If libertarians were real, they would say this: the precise mechanisms of government are none of my business, provided I can leave if I don't like the results. This is because government is not special. I also shouldn't need to know the precise mechanisms of my water treatment plant. I shouldn't have to maintain my own power transformers and HV transmission lines. I shouldn't have to be able to design and build a gasoline pump. I can drink bottled water, light with candles, and move around by walking, which forces these utilities to meet some minimum standard. Government is a solved problem; while it is illegal to use the solutions, tyrants are in fact weak and you can use them anyway. If you have demand for good government as opposed to demand for bad government.

Chinese Innumeracy

 I noticed some Chinese commentators weren't good with math, and now we find the Chinese government isn't good with math. Lol@stereotypes. 

 https://www.straitstimes.com/business/china-wants-everyone-to-trade-in-their-old-cars-fridges-to-help-save-its-economy

 Hey morons, the reason they weren't already upgrading is because it costs more than you gain. 

 Hey imbeciles, you can't legislate wisdom. Perhaps certain members of the peasantry don't realize they can upgrade their windows for net savings within the 2-year rule of thumb, and not doing so is plain retarded...but idiocy is an iceberg. Even if you shave it all the way down to the water line, you've barely done anything at all. The less-obvious ice bobs up and they look almost as stupid as they did before.  

 

 The Chinese aren't as good with math as you've been told, but it's true their v-IQ is even lower. Verbal principles such as 'you can't legislate wisdom' are beyond their ken.

 They can't learn systematically. They can only learn each situation individually, in isolation. They know about point deer make horse, but they don't know about point cost make benefit. Maybe through painful experience they might learn that too, but there's two issues. 1) There's a limit to what individuals and cultures can learn by rote. Once they've learned point loss make profit, they forget about point deer make horse. Accumulation is impossible. 2) Novel situations are a law of nature. If China can only learn through "traditional" methods, China will always be fucked by novel situations. Whoops. 

 Systematic learning is largely about compression. Since you can't reasonably do anything to increase the wisdom cap, each particular bit of wisdom has to become more valuable. Apply to more situations while taking up less space.

 Secondarily, China has clearly drunk deeply of economic laudanum. They believe ""economists"" and, cue Moldbug, it has escaped their attention that when you stop shooting heroin, you feel awful. Government "stimulus" is crack. You need more and more crack to get the same high, and a recession is when tolerance has become so strong that no amount of "stimulus" can keep the crack addict awake.
 Broken window fallacy. In this case, buying new fridges will briefly prop up Haier &c, at the cost of being able to buy anything, including fridges, later. Recession = recession++, nice work FDR 2.0.

 Long term, short term.

 Of course, no black government can employ competent economists. They would tell you to fire the government, as it's easily the largest drain on the economy. Consequently black governments are always taking the advice of morons and madmen - making the government an even bigger drain on the economy. 

 If you don't think in the long term, you can't cooperate. Alchemically, black government are defectors and exist in dissonance with the long term. As you may know, the long-term Laffer maximum tax rate is 0. Anything higher than that causes taxable transactions to decline to zero, the only question is how long you expect it to take. Crime always destroys the source of its revenues, which is why it's important that taxation is inherently criminal.  

 The point of a black government is to be self-hating, after all, resulting in self-destruction and the suicide of the host society. 

Peasant Class Mobility

 Note the Satanism in the way Americoids deal with 'upward mobility.' They look at it at the class level. Some fools might argue peasants can be uplifted as a class, but nobody can possibly believe they can be uplifted relative to higher classes. Whether the class is 'upwardly' or 'downwardly' mobile, you're talking to a sociologist who has no idea what up and down mean. The important part is the upward mobility of particular outliers. You don't want pressure to build up. 

 Downward mobility of blueblood peasants will be solved by assassination one way or another. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Power is too competitive for this to be a major problem. Perhaps try to discourage using them as puppets, because lies are bad mmmkay. 

 Apparently ironically but of course not ironic at all, the middle ages were better about this. Lowborn nobles could move up in life, but it was very difficult to move far. If they wanted more, it was a multigenerational project. "Your father was an X," tells us what mean your children are likely to regress to. There's no point in giving a chandler's son a county, even if he can handle it, because the chandler's grandsons will be chandlers. Keeping the class mobility to one rank limits social disruption after the family loses their position again. Likewise there were several non-hereditary titles which could be used for extreme outliers. 

 

 Seems to me succession has been solved by Capitalism. Issue stocks on the estate, and have a private offering, specifically to your children. Whoever can afford the most stocks can buy out his siblings. Gives 'em something to do before they can inherit. Also encourages dad to step down before senescence makes him step down. Mainly, the dud sons can't possibly keep the estate, but they get a consolation prize and aren't rewarded for patricide and fratricide.

If You Have Peasants, They Are Revolting

 If it wasn't depicting swordsmen as black swordswomen or insisting that Envy isn't a sin and instead racism is the worst, it would be something else. Peasants are always revolting.

 Eating bugs isn't nearly as bad as "rightists" make out. They're politicking because they're bored. Bugs are suboptimal, sure, but not a big deal. Mud houses are in fact a good idea. Using dung for fuel is a big deal. Never do that. It's just a shitty solution. Go cold instead. Eat it raw. These are better ideas. If your mud house uses manure as a binder...find a different binder. Something exists. Use it.
 Peasants do these things to be gross on purpose, not because they have to. 

 London had a Roman sewer system they could have augered out and used. However, London was full of peasants. "What? Do more work so I can be cleaner? Are you stupid?" Go look at the toilet in the house of middle-middle classer. Staying clean is not a priority. Why do church potlucks give you food poisoning so often? Well...

 I low-key expect the upper-middle class trade physical uncleanliness for moral uncleanliness. "My toilet isn't full of brown bacterial mats...better go abuse my daughter."

 They also feel entitled to rule. They keep dying if they try to rule themselves, so they desperately attempt to "rule" a group, by which they mean acting way they perceive nobles to be acting: eating without working. If a peasant is doing anything except trying to overthrow you, it is because you are currently putting down their revolt. Peasants get especially uppity with kind, merciful, and cooperative rulers because they perceive it as weakness. "I would never not be a tyrant, if they're not being a tyrant, that must be because they can't be a tyrant." 

 The issue is when aristocrats are born to peasant families.

 If you don't oppress the peasantry, they will cause tremendous damage to your society.
 If you do oppress the sui generis aristocrats, they will cause tremendous damage to your society. Perhaps they will institute Democracy. "If I can't have it, nobody can." 

 A peasant who refuses to know his place might as well get executed. If you try to execute a lowborn noble, they will pretend to know their place and undermine you while you're not looking. For peasants, Envy is just normal, even if it's occasionally fatal. For aristocrats, Envy is extremely dangerous.

I heard about balatro so now you have to hear about balatro

 They like it because it's boring and easy. Boring and trivial are huge selling points for videogames. 

 Balatro calls itself a 'roguelite' which means you can pretend to yourself you're hardcore if you play it. Even though it's even easier than vampire survivors, which is popular because it does the slot machine thing - it flashes and goes ding. It pretends you've really accomplished something when your autoattacking zero-aim-required killbot opens a chest - and gamers are more than happy to pretend along with it.

 Eternal September. The whole point of a roguelike is that you die constantly. The game actually fights back. It's supposed to be the genre for players who get bored when the game can't take a round off them.
 The genre has now been fully colonized by normies, who get 'frustrated' if they can't go full power fantasy, winning all the time every time. 

 Balatro is poker. It could be more boring if it were roguelite chess, I suppose. Zero creativity, 100% familiarity. AAA parochial navel-gazing rating. It's for gamers who prefer never to have to learn anything, and never want to see anything new. 

 Balatro is very definitely not for numerate players. It seems to be particularly popular with illiterates. 

 I suppose this is another cycle of fashion. Roguelikes became high-status since they were games for numerate literates.  The middle class ""copied"" the idea, except of course they're stupid, so now roguelikes are for stupid players. Some other genre must emerge to mark games worth playing, which will in turn be subsumed by the hylic mass of meat that calls itself the electorate. 

 I find it highly ironic that skillful games are high-status, and yet nobody gives any respect to any genuinely skillful individual. It's a tarp. They keep trying to mimic someone they despise IRL, lol.
 If the loser managed to win they would still transmute it into a cringe fail.

"Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe I have a right to self-defence."

 I find Americans averse to defending themselves. They want mommy or daddy to prove they care. I find Americans are so averse to defending themselves they won't even discard the hope of earning daddy or mommy's love and resigning themselves to self-defence for the sake of keeping their children safe. Who then, by inspection, grow up to yearn for daddy or mommy to finally prove they love them, so they refuse to defend themselves...

 Equivalently: "I have a right to self-defence. Nobody would be stupid enough to think I want to use it, but I sure have the right, gosh darn it."

ESRB is the Hobby of Non-Gamers

 For my sins I was reminded that ESRB ratings exist.

 Consider developers, retailers, and customers. None of these care at all about ratings. 0%. It's 100% about bored housewives and cat ladies who want to hector retailers into preventing customers from demanding the game they demand. When dumb housewives buy AO games for their 6 year old, sometimes because she accidentally off-by-one'd and picked up a different game than she intended to, the retailer can reflect blame back onto the housewife by pointing at the ESRB rating. Scapegoating 

 Naturally ESRB raters go full HOA. It's not about professionally and dispassionately rating the game. Their customers aren't players of games, after all. It's about bullying devs. Smart devs deliberately put explicit sex and horrific gore into their games so the ESRB can object to that and feel like they had an [impact], because raters will regularly do stupid shit if they don't have a honeypot to fall into. Always give execs something to do so they can feel like they oppressed you properly without necessarily harming core features. Trying to sneak one by the censors: not because it's a good prank, but so the bait doesn't look so blatant they catch on to what you're doing. 

 Socialites who refuse to do anything productive, precisely to show off how unproductive they can get away with being. Out of boredom, they make a game where you have to irritate the board but not too much, and naturally constantly changing the rules to punish anyone who just wants to get it over with.

 I just realized that Dwarf Fortress can have bloody dismemberment without issues due to ratings nonsense. I would like at least the option to play a game that realistically depicts the effects of various weapons of war. After all, I can't just go fight a war to see for myself, especially not a medieval war.
 The ESRB system: all games must be made for 8-year-olds. Some of those 8-year-olds can be old enough to have a sex drive, but nevertheless. Of course, in the end, this merely reflects the demands of wider society. The ESRB is voluntary and studios do not have to submit their works for rating. They do anyway.
 Bored housewives want everyone to be 8 years old, because that's everyone they have the social skills to deal with. Especially bored housewives (male), who are afraid of anyone noticing they're not a very good wife.

 

 Naturally the ESRB and all similar bodies are helpfully tuned to help parents know nothing about their children. They don't have to review the artwork themselves, they can glance at the white box and then they've totally discharged their obligations* as parents. *(No American parent in good standing would interact with their child were they not obligated to.) If Betty down the way says, "I can't believe you let** your son play [whatever]," Sally can respond that the ESRB has blessed the choice, whether the game is about pies and ponies or torture and stealing. Sally doesn't have to know any of that. It would take time away from needling her frenemy Betty, after all, and we can't have that.  

**(Naturally sons can't be allowed their own money, not even the allowance. The allowance is just pretend; it's not like America is a free country. The children must be taught early that they can only buy things subsequent to receiving permission to buy it. Americans learn this lesson well.)

 

 Imagine there were two ratings boards, and the parent could pick the one that was least inaccurate. Imagine it was by subscription, so the alleged customer was the one paying for it.
 Of course, we also imagine the parents realize they don't want to pay for it, because everyone already knows it doesn't much matter what your kid watches or plays. Bored housewives(male) politicking with play-pretend to pass the time. The children aren't allowed to influence the decision because they can tell fantasy from reality.

 P.S. Imagine some big publisher decided to eschew ESRB ratings. They make their own store, then stock only good games, making their competitors look desperate. Perhaps they even sticker over the ESRB ratings on the other games they stock.
 They only can't do this because they like the ESRB regime. It upholds their superstitions.

Are All Women Possessed?

 She can't stop complaining because she and her parasite are inherently at odds and can't agree.  She doesn't know what she wants because she can't tell the difference between her own wants and the incompatible wants of the invading spirit. Inner peace is physically impossible.

 Said, optimistically, as if women were possessed by only one entity. 

 Given her inherently conflicting internal structure, she might as well conform and make someone else happy. She might as well submit to a man, who might possibly not be possessed, as otherwise it means submitting to one of the parasites, which will only provoke a fight with one of the other infections.

Welkin Tales: Eightfold Pantheon and Snakes of Orn

 Due to the nature of consciousness and due to resonance with Dao, each heaven is ruled by two gods, and there's supposed to be eight lesser gods. The correlation with the periodic table is not a coincidence; the cosmos runs on binary. 

 Let me summarize a dream.

 Kernel farmers were supposed to make their fields snake-free, and Orn would bless their, uh, breakfast cereal. In particular there were yellow snakes representing the goddess of wild animals, and this decree symbolized their opposition. 

 The snakes would generally get all pied piper'd, being lead away from the fields by flying representatives of Orn, to a environmental sink. Using charm was easier than using traps or poison, but regardless the dogma was a snake-free field.

 Later, the gods all quietly started shagging each other in the back. Turns out sex with your cosmic opposite is very exciting, and it's not like proper immortals have to worry about accidentally reproducing wrong. The true doctrines changed, but the gods didn't tell anyone at first. For a while, perception of Ornite doctrine differed greatly from what Orn internally intended. 

  "The poor man thinks he's a pious Ornite," they said, seeing a dimwitted hoemaster gently and reverently stroking the yellow snake in his field. Whoops. 

 Eventually the decree went out, realigning Orn's intentions with the religion's precepts. Metaphorically Orn discovered a recipe for his breakfast cereal that wasn't incompatible with animals. Perhaps it used to get disgustingly soggy in a herder's milk but he came up with a variant that held up. The gods gave up on discipline and became libertine. Held pantheon orgies.

 This doesn't seem to have worked out for them, as Satan ate them all. All eight seats are currently unfilled. 

 Certainly their opposition was excessive. Ornites would shun Artemis et al, even kill Artemites found in their territory. Ornites would judge each other not by how well they farmed, but how little they honoured the herder and hunter. Not on the glory of the harvest, but primarily on how well the field was cleared of snakes. Not on purity of joy, but on purity of fear, defining themselves by what of the Cosmos they rejected, rather than that which they revered. Almost all Ornites in fact worshipped Satan's consort, Phobos, as opposed to worshipping Orn.

 But, uh, Satan tried to eat Phobos too. From what I can see, it worked, but she gave him indigestion. He couldn't fully subsume the essence. Symbolically he tried to purify the Dao, because duh Satanism is about rebelling against Existence. He tried to be a front with no back. 

 Not only did Ornites desperately worship Fear instead of Orn, they couldn't even manage to worship Fear correctly. 

 Ultimately this didn't even work out for Satan. There is now a new lord of this world. However, things are still wrong. Nine seats are unfilled. There is no consort. In a sense, Satan's prayer for a celibate Lord was granted.

An Example of Resolving a Social-Status Paradox

 America: all kings are tyrants.
 America: egalitarianism means everyone is a king.
 Americans: "Ah, so we should all be tyrants, tyrannizing each other."

 Thus, de Tocqueville's observations. 

 The political formula of a black government is a lie, which produces an inconsistent social doctrine. It directly conflicts with some obvious evidence. This evidence must be neutralized with another lie, which will fit poorly with the first lie. (And chain into other evidence conflicts, thus producing lie-chain artifacts like the bible.) The inconsistencies have to be resolved in some way or another, such as using the above gymnastics. The gymnastics will produce social pathology, because lies are bad mmmkay. 

 Canadians in particular have gone all-in on pretending to be kings, by adopting enormous and capricious egos which must be sated by grovelling. And becoming genocide-level violent when thwarted. "I see one more plain timbit than requested! Off with her head!" As per the reputation. (At least, getting as close to this ideal as they dare. Luckily like all moderns they're enormous cowards. A self-buffering system.)

Welkin of Humanity

 By my count there are fifty heavens. The term god is a good as term of any english word for the major inhabitants of each heaven. Earth is the lowest heaven, meaning despite everything humans are gods. It's why humans have ecological dominance. Physical reality can't diverge too far from spiritual reality. While it's indeed degenerate for a god to try worshipping itself, humans are divine authorities relative to animals. If your dog worships you, it's because your dog should worship you. However, lots has gone wrong.

 Rather than expressing their divinity by projecting it against the world, humans turned to Satan to try to appear to have more divinity than other humans. "I want to treated as if I have more divinity than I have." They became embroiled in the relative rat-race. Even if a human wins against his rival, his rival can simply also turn to Satan, returning the apparent hierarchy to exactly the same ordering as the underlying true hierarchy. In an attempt to subvert this, humans have now turned to competing to be as profane as possible. Revolution: attempt to turn the hierarchy completely upside-down. Naturally it turns out the most divine humans have the most to desecrate, so, insofar as you're stupid enough to play this game, the hierarchy is exactly the same as a Satan-free hierarchy. 

 Great sound and fury, signifying nothing (that wasn't already signified). 

 Farmers generally outnumber hunters 100:1. However, who is the 99%? Of necessity, it's all men who wouldn't otherwise have survived.

 It is not hard to make the case the 99 are all men who shouldn't have survived. After all, look at the state of post-farmer society. Farmers are mutants and criminals; genetic rejects.
 The wag @lolicongress once described Japanese history as a war between the nobles and peasants. What he failed to notice was the result: decisive victory for the peasants. Japanese society is based on pandering to peasant superstitions and atropia. Even their writing symbols are optimized for minimal cognition, and secondly for pointless zero-sum internecine conflicts. "I memorized more kanji than you, neener neener." "But if the words appear the same, how am I supposed to know they have different substances? From context? I can't read context, lol."
 I wonder if the Japanese ever make up kanji and pretend they're obscure, the way Westerners make up words and pretend they're real?
 Even Japanese myths are about how it's fine, good, or at least unavoidable to surrender to your obsolete emotional impulses. The Japanese underworld goddess, Izanami, is a bitch because she can't get over dying in childbirth. Their son the fire god, Kagu-tsuchi, died because Izanagi blamed him for Izanami dying in childbirth. You dumb cunt, who do you think impregnated her? The Japanese apparently can't even imagine anyone noble enough to blame themselves for their own mistakes. In Japan, blame is desperately to be avoided, as accepting blame is considered feminine or even childish. "You were so weak you couldn't force it onto a scapegoat? Loser, lol." "He's down! Get him!" It's amazing they manage to accomplish anything at all. Functional Japanese companies have to come up with elaborate (expensive) rituals so that leaders can change plans without accepting any blame. Have to find some newborn to behead instead.
 The meiji restoration guy must have had some absolutely brilliant blame-hacking. I wonder why it wasn't nihonjin's fault that nihon needed to modernize?
 Note that in this context [modernize] means to adopt Capitalism. Capitalism is about not being Communist; about being responsible instead of irresponsible. Had earlier Japan embraced responsibility without being forced by intolerable humiliation, perhaps it would have been English mercantilists who had their policies forced open by a Japanese merchant marine. 

 Metaphorically, Japan couldn't come up with steamships or cars because they killed off their own fire god. Deprecated their own energy. Atropia.

 Of course, Japan is hardly alone in having issues with accepting responsibility. 

 Europeans have gods who suffer hardship when they try to weasel out of the consequences of their own actions. Cronus also tried to kill his male heir but, uh, it didn't work out for him.
 This is due to the fact pastoralists had better military technology than farmers. Pasture can't support nearly the population densities of farming. This means pastoralist anti-mutant selection is much stronger, like the other protein-enthusiasts, hunters. Europe wasn't nearly as badly flooded by peasants as the Orient was. Not until Rome and Christianity.

Black Government is War

 Black governments cannot declare peace. They are always at war with the host society. Also sometimes at war with foreign societies, assuming they can get their head out of their ass long enough to notice a foreigner exists.

 Politicians are adept at getting in front of trends that are already happening and claiming credit. States are credited with writing and stuff, which is nonsense. Black governments erode sophistication and complexity. They attack everything delicate, then turn their attacks on the hardening structures which resist its trespasses. NASA retarded space flight and likewise, even if we can't nail down the details, black governments have been a lodestone weighing down cultural development. You can't elucidate the principles of perspective drawing when there's cannon shells whizzing over your head. Art requires peace, which requires ejecting the black government. Society happens despite the drag, not because of it.

 If society doesn't win the war against its own government, it dies. Then the government, being a parasite which just lost its host, also dies. Hence the market cycle. Hence the fall of empire.

Wealth Cap and Free Will

 It is not exactly like your choices don't matter. Rather, the fact that your choices are yours, are determined by you, means the choices, and therefore their consequences, are pre-determined. 

 You are who you are. Hence, your choices will be what they are. There's a wealth cap because, to rise above your wealth cap, you would have to not be yourself, in direct logical contradiction.

 "But what if I'm the kind of person who raises their cap."

 That's already factored in. Sometimes, cap-raising folk have already chosen to raise their cap as far as they can. If it's possible to raise it continuously, then at any moment you're the kind of person who has a cap of that magnitude. It's just math. 

 Making choices isn't about determining the future, but discovering it. You are who you are, but even you don't know who you are; nobody else has any chance of knowing who you are until you act and show yourself. And it goes all weird from there.

Amish vs. Decay

 If the Amish didn't exist, you could argue that resisting the temptations of Communism/modernity is a superhuman task. Nobody could possibly be expected to succeed. "Mortals are simply too weak."

 But the Amish do exist. 

 If you live in an aristocracy, and you don't want to decay into a timocracy, all you have to do is say no. Identify decay as a temptation, and decline. That's it. That's all. 

 Mortal societies decay because mortals demand decay. More worse more better.

I can't get over the delusion that there must be someone else who doesn't want treachery out of life

 Really struggling with that one. 

 Surely there must be some way for me to meet such a person, right? Surely? 

 Well, empirically, no. 

 "But...surely...."

 [Surely] is not an argument. Things that don't happen, don't happen. Not understanding why doesn't make them less unlikely. 

 ...I'll stop believing it now, right? Surely?

 "[Surely] is not an argument..."

Elections are Made Up and the Votes Don't Matter

 Reminder: your vote doesn't count. There is no evidence whatsoever that your vote matters. Innumerable proofs. Quick one: there is no black market for votes. You can't sell your vote because it has a value of 0. There has never been a black market for citizen votes.

 This means they defrauded the 2020 elections basically as a hobby. It's all kabuki theatre - it doesn't matter who gets in. They did all that ballot harvesting and dead man cloning and blatant vote-printing solely because they had nothing better to do. "What happens if I try this? Well. Huh. That's cool I guess." 

 ...are you entertained? Hopefully at least one of you was, because...

 

Being Explicit: Wealth Cap Means Don't Worry

 If you trade stress for more wealth, it will always be exactly worth it. If you stop stressing you will lose wealth of exactly the value of the peace of mind you gain. 

 When an action doesn't seem like it's worth it, it's because it's not. If you're preparing against eventualities you genuinely care about, it's not stressful. You don't get anxiety about going to the store to buy food, even though you'll agonizingly starve to death if you don't. You get anxiety about trying to make your boss not fire you, because there's nothing you can do about that, if and only if there is nothing you can do about it. You get anxiety because you've already spent your wealth cap, but hallucinate that you can spend more. 

 You can go ahead and stop hallucinating that.

 Put another way, if you don't have money for food and looking at starvation, you still don't get anxiety. While $food > $bank is unpleasant, there's nothing ambiguous about it. You don't attempt to go to the store anyway. "Why doesn't this fiver buy $10 of food? How do I make it buy $10?" <= that's what anxiety is. It feels like you're going crazy because you have gone crazy. Cue midwit meme. Solution: drop the delusion. 

 It is logically impossible to "miss out" on anything. If you do miss something, it will merely open up space in your wealth cap and you'll be able to allocate it to something else. 

 There's a few things you can do to avoid great divergences of spiritual and physical reality, especially the ones that can kill you. However, you have almost certainly done all these things already. Accept that they are done, and stop trying to buy things you don't have the money for.

  

 Crime really doesn't pay, unless doing crime is your end goal. If treachery is what you want out of life, then of course it's foolish to trade treachery away for anything. Otherwise, it always counts more than double. Crime doesn't just make the neighbourhood poor, it makes the criminal poor. Even if they're the king. 

 You never have to be concerned about the criminal getting ahead of you. Mindlessly secure your shit and don't worry about it. Even if he gets temporarily ahead, turns out karma is real and it will drag him twice as far back. 

 You don't have to worry about life-changing opportunities. They're surprisingly common. Daily for some folk. Revenge is Sour: if you "miss" one, it won't be long before you can make your own. The condition of seeing a life-changing opportunity is having already changed your life. 

 If you get "life-changing" amounts of money, you will squander it. Whether it's from the lottery or from fighting like crazy for a promotion. Don't worry about trying to grasp for every dollar. If your physical wealth exceeds your spiritual wealth, all that will happen is a correction event.  

 The upside is that if your physical wealth is greatly lower than your spiritual wealth, you will start finding $20s lying on the sidewalk. Usually metaphorical, occasionally literal. Karma is real and debts will be paid in both directions.

 Don't worry. I mean, unless you like worrying. In your case worrying more will count against your wealth cap. You will have to spend time and money and ignorance on worrying more, but you certainly allocate all your disposable wealth to worrying if that's your jam. 

 You can, however, allocate your wealth wrong. Trying to get rich for wisdom won't work. Trying to get wise so that you can be rich won't work. Especially the latter - wastefully spending your money is easy, but returning to ignorance is distinctly less so.
 Especially look out for things with proper market prices that you don't crave. If you live in a large house but don't value lots of living space, it's the market value of the house that will be charged against your wealth cap, not the value of the space to you personally. If you buy a flag specifically to burn it or a bottle of libation specifically to pour it out, the fact it has no value to you won't stop it from costing you part of your total lifetime savings, because it's an exclusive good that has value to someone else.

Americans Are Drunk

 I saw a guy. He was really dumb. Then I saw him get very drunk. He acted the same, if, amazingly, even dumber. You couldn't tell he was drunk if he hadn't told you. No novel slurring. Mannerisms identical. Then I realized I had it backwards: you couldn't tell if he's sober. Then I realized he was normal. Americans act drunk even when they're stone sober. Including acting stupid.
 This guy drinks constantly and is probably an alcoholic, but the endpoint merely highlights the trend.

 I never really saw the problem with drinking on the job, because I've never met anyone who acts sober when they're sober. What's the big deal? 

 I never really saw how drunks are supposed to be annoying for sober folk. I mean, they're annoying anyway? What's the big deal? 

 Americans aren't sophisticated enough to approve of both sobriety and drunkenness. Context sensitivity is too far for these simpletons. Prohibition failed, so they approve of drunkenness. Everyone should be at least tipsy at all times. If you can't actually booze up, you should fake it. Hence, they do. It's so common they forgot what it's about, and acting brain dead is just how they do things around there.

 Americans have cultivated a culture that's all but intolerable when you're sober, thus the strong push to get everyone to the bar, so they can bring their norms and their biology into harmony. Everyone is drunk and annoying anyway; might as well be actually drunk. Less annoying that way. Pratchett's Sam Vimes was knurd, he had to get at least a little drunk to reach normal. That is, he was actually sober as compared to an American's sobriety standard; incapable of acting drunk unless he was genuinely intoxicated.

 E.g. Americans aren't gregarious. It's just mimicking the drunk's lack of filter. "I love you man, no homo." "We literally just met." "You're the best." "You're not even listening are you." E.g. Americans aren't easy to scam, they're just too drunk to distrust. E.g. Americans like cars because you're allowed to act sober as long as nobody's looking.

 The only question. Which is it:
 1) "Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe I'm sober."
 2) "Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe I'm drunk."
 Bit of a toss-up.

Social Status vs. the Wealth Cap

 Social status is special. It's valueless wealth.

 You can have great social status, or a great wife, but as 'great wife' is defined as a % of your wealth cap, you can't have both. Unlike money, you can't buy anything with social status. Unlike health, it doesn't feel good. You won't be wise, so the world won't make sense. 

 You can have a marriage, a relationship and cooperation, or you can have a trophy, someone for showing off, but you can't have both. Nobody is that rich; guaranteed, as this is a relative thing. Your competitors are others with similar wealth caps, who can afford exactly as much wife as you can. If you try to underspend on wifing but get a trophy/cooperator combo in that category, she will be less attractive than your rivals' choices.

 Even if you do have money, you won't be able to spend it; it won't be real money. If you have a great house you won't be able to spend time at it. If you have an amazing car collection you'll be too afraid to drive them on the actual road. (And anyway you can't legally drive tanks on the road.) If you can spend it at all, it will have to be spent on maintaining your social status. Rat race treadmill.

 Even if your prestige attracts numerous wonderful scholars, you won't be able to understand what they say. You won't be able to sift the wheat from the chaff. It will be impossible to secure yourself against charlatans without also securing yourself against the folk you were trying to attract. This extends to dieticians and personal trainers. The prestige (or money) on offer will select for scammers who spend time on marketing, not on lorekeepers who spend time on gathering lore.  

 I suppose the wealth cap explains the problem with polygyny. It is impossible to afford two wives of the quality of a singular wife you could afford. If you get a bunch of wives to show off, they will all be individually terrible. Among other things they won't be able to get along. Total wife wealth remains constant. 

 Unlike great friends, you can't spend time with your social status.
 If you get in trouble, your friends will help you.
 If you get in trouble, your social status will attract rivals who will try to kick you while you're down.

 Social status is just there. It is still an allocation of wealth cap, because the holder values it.

 Relative or zero-sum competitions are never worth engaging in unless they have some non-zero-sum side-effect. All you manage is trading useful wealth for useless wealth. Accumulating social status makes you poorer in every way that matters. 

 Perhaps that's a good thing. You should seek huge social status precisely because it's a huge handicap. Take on the challenge, win anyway. Fail and fail and fail to have wealth against social status, so that you can finally succeed in losing all you social status.

 I can't help but say this is still the worst option. 

 

 Other handicaps are useful to others. If I break my back hoeing a row in a farm, others can at least eat the grown food. If I break my back trying a backflip, there is no useful wealth as a side-effect.
 I've said it before: seeking social status is inherently traitorous. It is a crime. As such, social status double-dips. A crime committed is wealth and counts against the cap, separate from any wealth you gain from it. This is why you can't spend the money that accrues to social status. Your social status cap is at most half your total cap, as the other half is taken up by the crimes necessary to build the status. 

 I think I could say that more clearly. If you steal $10, you have $10, which counts against your cap, and someone else is out $10, which also counts against your cap.
 If you sell something worth $10, you have $10 against your cap.
 Not really that complicated, yeah?
 Not only is someone else out $10, their suffering counts against your cap. The stolen $10 is worth less than $5 of legitimately-gained wealth, see? This is why criminals want you to be happy about crime. Relieves the pressure on their cap.

Speedray Works

 I'm somewhat suspicious of selection effects with uThermal, but they do perform as expected. Void ray strike force lets you deny infinity bases.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znop1PJSt3U

 

 If Thermal played enough to understand the speedray upgrade, he could have saved several voids. Incidentally he makes the classic error of making something that's going to die anyway try to run, instead of letting it shoot. Also carriers are dramatically better with the air armour he wasn't getting.

 Selection effect: the opponent did the Mechabellum error where he was countering the old tech while Thermal did new tech, thus constantly one step behind. When opponents don't make these horrible errors, Thermal won't post the game, because he basically just loses. As it happened he tried the void stuff against someone having an off day. 

It's Important So I'm Saying It Again

 Modern countries don't have men and women. Modern countries have women and prostitutes. The prostitutes are allowed to whore themselves to the women if they want, or even, lately, to each other. The women have to (stochastically) pay through the nose for this, however.
 Voter = woman. No exceptions. These days, prostitutes are also allowed to vote, because elections are made up and the ballots don't matter.
 Having a wife is dramatically cheaper than a prostitute, but of course what use would a woman have for a wife? It's not like she can take care of one. Thus marriage is de-facto banned.

Long-Term Consequences of Spiritual-Physical Delta

 Imagine your physical economy is 20% richer than your spiritual economy. Eventually the physical economy will converge on the spiritual economy. The wider the delta, the stronger the pressure to converge.

 What about the meantime? In fact, the physical economy won't converge on losing the extra 20%. The delta incurs a karmic cost. The spiritual reality will continually decay as long as physical reality is not in alignment with it. The economy will have to converge on 95%, 90%, 80%. Only after paying the karmic toll will the spiritual economy rebound and allow the physical economy to reach 100%.

 Czarist Russia incurred a toll. They were richer than they had a right to be. Hence, Russia suffered the USSR years. 

 Net worth is genetic. You can only rearrange the worth. More money or more health. More wisdom or more money. More beauty or more strength. You get richer as you get older because youth is wealth and older folk have spare wealth cap to allocate to money.

 You can also trade future wealth for present wealth. The rates are never worthwhile, but you can. 

 If your physical economy spends ten years 20% above its spiritual equilibrium, it will have to spend forty years 10% below. Or something in that ballpark. 

 The more someone desperately strives for money, the poorer they end up, ultimately. They manage to push themselves above the spiritual mean, and it costs them and costs them and costs them.

If You Can't Sell Yourself Into Slavery, You are Already a Slave

 Q: Why can't you sell yourself? A: You're not allowed to sell off your master's property, obviously.
 There are many good arguments for being unable to sell someone else into slavery. There are none against selling yourself. See also: needing special permission from master to be allowed to die. Killing yourself is vandalism against the State.

 Moderns are the most grovelling, servile bugmen ever to wiggle across the planet. 

 You can't marry a woman. The women are all married to the government, who lets you rent one for awhile, and charges through the nose for the privilege. Megapimp.
 As the women are all claimed by the government, naturally all the women's children are owned by the government, who asserts the right to take the child away and do whatever they want with it, for any duration and for any reason. The biological parents are forced to take care of the government's children according to government standards.
 No matter how much you barter, wheedle, scheme, or plot, you can't own land. The government charges you tax, you're renting. The government asserts the right to tell you what you can and cannot build on its land, as it obviously would. Through "eminent domain" the government asserts the right to kick you off its land at any time.
 You can't have your own job. The government charges your employer a (large!) percentage for renting its mortal resources.
 Etc.
 Etc.

 You know, it must be immensely frustrating for the boot. It's trying to stamp on a mortal face forever, and the mortal is licking and caressing the boot. No matter how hard it stamps, the damn pervert gets off on it. "I love a Strong Central Government! Slave me harder, daddy!"

 Admittedly this boot is pretty soft. Very lickable. I should say no matter how hard it tries to stamp; as the limp-wristed population is owned by a limp-wristed leader who just can't stamp all that hard. "Eh! Eh! Uh! Ih!" Allegedly in the interests of maintaining the ridiculous charade of the slaves not being slaves, massa is downright libertine. "You think for yourselves!" """Yes! We think for ourselves!""" "Very good!" """Thanks daddy!""" The women prostitutes are largely free to whore themselves to whoever they want, provided they're 18 when they do it. Certainly the parents have no say, as is meet for slaves. The government could do all sorts of horrible things to its children, but only does one of them. The government's minimum standards on caring for children are quite minimal. As long as you're not a heretic they won't even bother to check. The slaves can slave themselves out to whichever renter they want, and can even choose not to work and get paid for the privilege. As long as the government isn't currently asserting its right to make you fight and die for it, that is. The slaves are paid a pittance with which to buy any kind of disposable trinket they like. The government will approve of the sale of all sorts of useless tat. The slaves can transfer themselves to a different master...provided the new master will accept the hassle.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your wretched refuse, your yearning to be free...so we can ensure they are wholly divested of freedom." As always, slavery is not particularly profitable. Slave owners keep slaves due to  non-monetary motives.
 I would say it's outrageous, but the slaves are clearly having the time of their lives. You guys have your disgusting fun with that, I guess.

On Failure and Manicheanism

 Like everyone else, I was raised on Good vs. Evil. 

 As I am something the softlings would call a philosopher, I tried to find the correct descriptions of good and evil. What were the correct poles? What is "bad" exactly when it's at home?

 Problem: through Death, Life. Through failure, growth. Through Destruction, Wealth. Through hatred, enemies, through enemies, power. Through power, love. Through injury, virtue. Through despair, glory. 

 I believe the Gods, the true "creative" force of the universe, deliberately create new things through demonic energy. They create a hell, that must be invaded. They create a devil, who must be vanquished. Even ex nihilo must be earned. Creation is accomplished by destroying its opposite. 

 I would do that solely because it's fun. The greater the deterrence of the hell, the more devastating the devil, the more fun it is.

 It's not an accident that evil exists. It's not a punishment. It's a gift. Every evil is an opportunity, both for plunder and for honour. Even dying by taking on a power too infernal is better than refusing the fight.

 If you can't break your oaths, then keeping your promises is meaningless. The harder they are to keep, the more honourable. Friendship is meaningless without treachery.

 Gods, then, are incredibly destructive. A God who doesn't destroy is one that will converge on their spiritual nonexistence.

 Success, through quitting? Yes, probably. I don't grok that one yet, but there's no reason to think I never will. 

 Useful vs. useless? Efficiency is a sin, lol. 

 Permission, through forbidding?

 Through treachery, comrades.

 

 In conclusion, the Dao. 

 Nevertheless, there is something one ought to avoid. There must be something which is...anti-Dao. 

Destruction is holy.
Death is holy.
Failure is holy.
Hatred is holy.
Despair is holy.
Profanity is a gift.

Big wtf.
Where is unholy?

 

 Truth, through falsehood? A devil is an inherently false soul, and creation happens through them, as they have to be killed. Thank the devil for giving you the opportunity to fight it; thank the devil, for putting up a terrible fight, as the most terrible devils are in front of the most glorious divine truths.  

 I believe there is an idea, a fairly simple and even mortal idea, which encapsulates the anti-Dao. However, mortal language is explicitly designed to conceal it as much as possible. 

 You want to lose, but not die. You want to die, but not suffer death. You want to hurt, in service of avoiding suffering. You want to sin, specifically so that you can repent. Forgiveness is merely for keeping repentence score; once you score enough, sin again. Failure is success.

 Well, you want to learn what you want. You want to eschew all mortal propaganda, eschew all social constructs, shed all pressure, and achieve gnosis of your core desire. Thus, you can see how the only way to achieve that desire is to inflict the total destruction and failure of that desire upon yourself. 

 Nirvana is samsara. The more samsara it is, the better. Letting go of suffering makes you suffer more, which is how you know it's working. Unattach, so you can gain more and more and more attachment. Impermanence is grace.

 Revelation, through concealment: perhaps the way to learn of this core desire is to have everyone and everything gaslight you, trying to make you think it's literally anything but what it is. 

 

 To Exist, touch non-Existence. Do the impossible, embrace it, that you might be more and more possible. 

 

 I suppose the Dao that can be worded is not the Dao.
 Likewise, the anti-Dao that can be talked about is not the anti-Dao.
 Somewhat plausible. I will ask the Dao about it.

A Pattern of Mistaken Virtue

 From 585-1085, Europeans embraced a religion they thought was Christian but was radically anti-bible. Thought it was Satanism.

 Due to embracing the bible in 1085, circa 1585 Europeans embraced Science, which they thought was bad because it was anti-biblical. Thought it was profane.

 It occurs to me that Moldbug thought he was writing in a leftist mode. "progressives are generally decent, intelligent and well-meaning people" Clearly, such folk wouldn't be intentionally rejecting the truth, right? They must be accidentally misplacing their faith, not forcefully projectile vomiting at the slightest contact, right?

 Moldbug was no doubt horrified when he attracted a rightist less-leftist following. Hence the pivot to Yarvin. Pseudonymity is less-leftist, Yarvin realized; Voltaire fucked it up. For example. Especially in Communist-ascendant jurisdictions, anyone "good and sweet and true" writes under their real name, see? 

 Autistic nerd, lol. 

 Conservatards are clearly rejecting the truth because they can't handle it, thus if conservatards are accepting your message, it must be wrong. Get it?

 Hypothesis: some folk think Moldbug is a bad writer because they read the open letter and dawkins series, which are overall terrible. Tested this hypothesis by re-reading the first few entries to see if it was accurate. Of course, it was accurate. Yes, these things are a waste of time even for Moldbug fans. Dawkins 1 promises a great post, then stops, and the promise is never delivered. For example.

 In the course of testing this hypothesis, I noticed a) the actual problems with Moldbug's writing, which aren't new to Yarvin, and b) it makes way more sense if we assume it was never supposed to be less-leftist.

On Failure II

 As the softlings say, if you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time in airports. To accomplish anything of true value requires open unmistakable failure. 

 Through Death, Life. The Romans were right: Pluto sat upon unimaginable wealth. Divine treasures beyond beauty and beyond counting. It is only in the underworld that any and every thing can be found.

If you already knew how to do it, you wouldn't prove anything by managing to do it. Plan to fail. The more you can plan to fail without quitting, the greater the scope of the final success. 

 The ideal man plans to fail eternally at the task with an infinitesimal chance of success; succeeding despite everything would have unlimited value. Yet, this can be burdensome, we must also choose the merely improbable, to sustain us along the way. 

 If your society quits in the face of failure, it cannot succeed. It can't even play the game.

 

 Most religions are not alive. They have Popes, yes, but the Popes are shadow Popes. They don't have a goal. They know not what they plan to do. Without a plan, a man is literally nothing. A fleshy breeze, nothing more than a cell of a weather system. 

 Ironically, America, of all places, once had a plan. A purpose. They were going to go to the moon. If they had actually gone there, it really would have been glorious and cool.
 I suspect they could not tolerate failure. They could not withstand finding themselves in a blind alley. They discovered some reason it was impossible...instead of being excited to challenge the impossible, they gave up. They faked it.

 Personnel is policy: Americans are quitters and failures, they couldn't possibly have a real goal. They discovered some reason it was impossible because, deep down, that was what they were truly journeying for the entire time. Physical reality had to converge on purposeless spiritual reality. "We went to the moon, we won, game over, everyone go home now. Nothing else to do here." The destination reached reveals the destination demanded; reveals the character of the journeyman. 

 

 To have a true society, you must exile the quitters. If they ridicule the losers, then they are garbage. Cowards go outside, in the dump. Honour the glorious prey, honour the glorious chase. Thank them for making it hard for you. Nothing that inhibits accepting impossible "failed" contests can be allowed.
 You can't allow the cowards to refuse to fight. Mercy is a sin. Fight them all the way out. Scream, with rage, with fear, with joy, scream and shatter their cowardly souls. Feels them until they ain't real. Let them experience apocalypse and revelation.

 A living society must have a goal. They must have a goalkeeper, who unlike the "sports"man doesn't prevent you from reaching the goal, but in fact spurs you toward it, but more importantly, when the goal is reached, they pick a new one. When the society stops failing at their goal, they need to look at what new failures have opened up to them, and pick one to go fail at. Perhaps call this keeper of goals the Pope. 

 The more worthy the goal, the more likely Reality will brutally inflict visions of impossibility. And praise be. Let black pills rain from the sky, let them grow from the ground, let them drown the ocean. Let the backlash be savage, the pushback ferocious. Show me despair! Show me armageddon itself! The society cannot fold. 

 Remember what 'agony' really means: an agon is a contest. Agony is simply Greek for contesting. Agonizing means to fight. Without fighting, you cannot win. If you cannot win, you cannot journey. If you cannot journey, you don't exist.

 For example, there is a correct goal for families in the present world. It is this: "Parenting reseach project." How do you raise the healthiest, the most powerful children, without spending so much the children have to pay for it? The purpose of each generation is not to parent as their parents did, but to parent better. The purpose of uncles and aunts is to A/B test.
 Contrast the degenerate goal of 'generational' wealth. Wealth to buy what? What is it for? Certainly generational wealth is not a bad means to pick, it certainly isn't a trivial ask, but...this is clearly a fake goal. Satanic. They want social status, not wealth. A petty relative goal, not an absolute physical or divine goal.
 Children of the parenting research project will eventually reach some best practices equilibrium. Imagine a school of expert parents, nice. Now we can ask: what kind of goal would the children of these families set? The purpose of this journey, of this destination, is to buy the right to set off on a better journey. One I myself cannot even imagine.

Remember Both Red and Blue Hate it When Republicans Win

 "Shape up! Keep it together!" That's the red reaction when a red party wins an election. Republicants are trying to lose, and Demobrats are trying to win but make it look like a fight. When red wins, it's like blue picked a fight with a scarecrow and lost. Utterly pathetic. "You can do better!"

 One way to see the Biden thing; "See? We can win against the scarecrow whenever we want!" Nobody genuinely minds the steal since for both sides the goal is that blue wins. However, they lost at the other part of the game: making it seem like a fight. You can rig the election all you want, but you're not supposed to allow it to appear as if it's not a real election. If you can't keep up appearances, what's even the point? Just openly have a despotic dictatorship and have done with it. 

 Republicants are training dummies. They're supposed to keep Demobrats in shape. At least, they're supposed to be whipping boys so that Demobrats can get exercise with some vigorous whipping. Unfortunately, Republicants love getting whipped so much the Demobrats recoil, don't want to have anything to do with them, and lose elections. 

 That and they're exactly as senescent as they appear. The decay is advanced. They can't get it up for even the most depraved of advanced professional prostitutes. The sluttiest display does nothing for them. The girls were so happy with Hugh Hefner because he had ED and their real job was to lie about it.

On Failure I

 Any idiot looks good when they're winning. Handling success is easy. In real life, you gain XP when you lose a fight. 

 Succeeding teaches you to become set in your ways. It instructs you that you have nothing more to see. Success is kin to stagnation. With success, you risk decay and ultimately death. Going from strength to strength, from success to success, is a bad sign.

 Why, it sounds almost like cowardice. The coward successfully avoids the contest, and in so doing, cores out his own existence.

 Failure is the true instructor. If you're a terrible softling, you might say it's about the journey, not the destination. The destination is chosen by which journey it implies. The point of the goal is to be a lodestar, not to reach it. 

 It is through failure that you learn and grow. Though growth, life. 

 Is Mars, in fact, the god of life? The very god of living itself? 

 Is this always true? Here I see Nietzsche as correct. Assuming you have chosen, sought out, and humbly accepted the contest, any failure that doesn't kill you is not only good, not only great, not only glorious, but a divine transcendence.

 To perfect is to profane. To err, divine.

 It is through true absolute failure you truly prove yourself. Any idiot looks good when they're winning. If you're seriously deft you can look good while losing.
 Can you handle looking bad?
 Anyone can handle committing when the possible rewards, risk-adjusted, outweigh the cost.
 Can you handle committing in the face of certain failure?
 If you fail in the most important things in the most important ways and survive, if you respond to utter derision and deprivation and despair by standing right the fuck back up, then you can truly say you have stood, for the first time. 

 The best journey begins by losing everything, proving the challenge you accepted is the greatest you can possibly bear. 
 To truly live? Die. Die and go on living anyway. Death isn't something to fear, Death is your best friend. No Life, except through Death.

 Existence is pointless? Everything is exquisitely doomed? AWESOME. Bring it! Give me the most pointless, useless, ridiculous existence you possibly can! The more failure is preordained, the higher the heights I display by challenging it anyway. 

 Surprisingly, failure is wealth. Loss is an incomprehensibly generous gift. True strength looks like a true wreck and everyone hates it. Despicable and despised. 

 Existence cannot possibly be pointless. Upon a pointless existence, I can impose my will. I can overwrite its natural state with my own, and through that, prove anything. Prove everything. An allegedly pointless existence is merely the best possible challenge, the grandest possible present, an invitation to the highest possible party. 

 Admittedly, one does need to actually win, in some sense, in the end. Looking a wreck must be temporary. Although the destination is chosen due to the characteristics of the journey it implies, if I don't reach the destination, I can falsify the journey. I can pretend I'm on a journey I'm not. I can detour, confusing one journey for another, by confusing the destinations. Lies are bad, mmmkay. Verify and replicate the journey using the destination. Through destination, I impose discipline. Victory is a means, not an end; it is the price through which I purchase greater journeys, higher victories which can only be reached through more glorious failure.

Unexpectedly Fast Results on Starcraft

 MaxPax takes a bunch of my advice. Somewhat disturbingly, as there's no way anyone he knows reads my blog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIdZL4jtG0

 Anyway, result: 3-1s Clem. Could definitely have won the first game by taking the rest. Mistakes: built colossus. (Got viking'd, the way they always do.) Built disruptors. (They all died and killed nothing. Often before even getting to shoot.) 0-armoured the carriers. Had plenty of time to at least get 1, probably 2, but no. Did get prism and obs speed, but only after forgetting those two units exist. 

 Game 2 built colossus but later, as a surprise. Smelled weakness and used them as a killing blow instead of a staple. Turns out that's a fine use for them. Used templar with (dun dun dun!) a warp prism to guard against EMP. 

 Game 3 all about chrono boosting those upgrades. Turns out prism+templar is really, really good. Boost out storm so it arrives before terran is ready. If Clem hadn't quit Max would have been at 2/0 before Clem started 2/0. 

 Game 4. I forgot to mention using shades for scouting. Use them like a skirmisher line. Max didn't forget, though. Didn't forget to keep his upgrades ahead of terran either.
 Should pre-emptively rebuild his scouting observer. Once you plant an obs in Clem's base it should be treated as dead. Also, like, use sentry hallucinations for that.
 Used storm, at first instead of colossus, then to zone out for the colossus. You can use the unit, but it has to be very delicately timed. A quad-colossus push has to wipe out at least one base, if not win the game outright. If you're not sure, then don't build them. 

 

 I don't get why micromanaging the prism/templar is feasible but babysitting the disruptors is, apparently, impossible. Regardless, that seems to be the way of it, so don't build disruptors unless it's for some very specific purpose.
 The game 1 tempests would probably have been fine as an assassin strike team. Dart in, blow up one viking, retreat to the field base, which is disruptors. If Clem moves in with marines, fire a purification nova. Keep the fight tempest vs. viking. Have an obs for spotting, with shades or maybe hallucination as backup. Spent disruptors should get evac'ed one way or another, either through a prism or just right-clicking the main. Nova has a long cooldown but it's not longer than building a new disruptor.
 Exception: if you have ten disruptors, you can have a nova on the field at all times. Fork strategy: they either have to walk into the nova river, or let the tempests/carriers fire with impunity.

 This result brought to you by epistemic training. Lift heavy intellectual things. I can also coach hockey. You can only get good at a domain, but the hack is there's a domain-of-domains. The meta-domain. 

 P.S. Scouting. Instead of planting an obs inside a pro's base, who always scans and kills it, plant a probe outside the base to watch for the move-out, then siege an obs in the middle of the map to see which assault path they take. Protoss should be even more difficult to ambush than zerg. Use the obs like building your own watchtower. If you want to see inside their base, use the garrison sentry for hallucination. Treat your base sentry like a building which trains hallucinations. Maybe even intentionally seal it in so you can't accidentally f2 it. 

 If you have a DT shrine, put a DT on hold position at their next expansion. Either go for the cancel, or let them land it and hit the workers when they transfer - don't block the building. Putting a burrowed zergling in the way is cheeky rather than good. E.g. dart in with the flux'd void rays to hit the cancel. This is when you siege an obs inside enemy lines: when it's ensuring the voids can flee in time. As zerg, wait for the transfer then hit it with your mutalisk wolf pack, zergling runby, or baneling bombing run. If the burrowed zergling is offset, then they don't suspect and you can repeat the process.