First Reason to Disavow Whiteness

 You should not fight for anyone who would not fight for you. 

 Have any whites fought for you? Did someone try to vandalize your facade, and by the time you got there to do something about it, some whites had already stopped them?
 No?

 You should not be on their side, because they are not on your side.

 Of course, if you can think of a counter-example, by all means disavow me as well. Grab ahold of them and never let go.
 ...but I guarantee you'll find they don't fight for you because you're both white. There's some other, very obvious reason. 

 In Democratic times, it is impossible to find anyone who fights for any reason except narrow self-interest.
 Maintaining honour? Meeting your obligations so your allies remain your allies? Both some steps too far for Democratic Man. Slaves are slaves to their impulses. 

 No, if a white fights for you (lel tho) they will continue fighting for you even if you openly betray them. More on that tomorrow.

"Forgive me father for I have earned"

 Slaves believe being poor is better than being rich. It's not merely countersignalling. It's not the rich kid wearing ripped jeans to highlight the fact nobody will ever confuse him for a genuine poor. It's not signalling being tough like a survivalist or whatever. Slaves are jealous ninjas are so poor and want to steal that poverty for themselves. Slaves want to inflict dire wealth on the ninja. Having money is immoral and they want to shove that immorality on someone else.
 Hilariously the ninjas still manage to be poorer even after being showered with nearly all the wealth, driving the slaves absolutely bonkers. 

 In slave world, santa is upset because elves keep making him stuff, and he's desperately trying to shove it all away. "The north pole is full of shit -again- fuck me." 

 Slaves understand that line go up means they personally go down, and that's exactly why they work so hard to make line go up. They buy things on debt as an excuse to have less money. Etc.

Broken Windows Policing and Speeding

 Keeping in mind that traitorous black government police raise crime rates rather than lower them...
 If you stop low level crime, such as breaking windows, you also stop all higher level crime. Broken windows policing works. 

 Which means if you're going to post speed limits, you can't let them all do 20% over. Unless you want to encourage crime. Which is why black police let you go 20% over. 

 In part it's because personnel is policy, and therefore criminal is a kind of person, not an action they happen to choose. All crime goes together (the same way all perversion goes together). If you lock up (or gibbet) all the guys breaking windows, incidentally you also lock up all the rapists and gangbangers.  

 In part it's because it normalizes being cooperative instead of defective. If you someone speed, you let them know that it's okay to break the rules. The dumber 80% especially won't compartmentalize - they learn to follow all rules or break all rules. 

 In part it's because letting the windows be broken tells us nobody cares about that territory. Same with unkempt lawns and peeling paint. Nobody cares to maintain it, so they believe nobody cares to defend it. Even if they regularly get nicked when they try it. By contrast, if stuff is clean, fixed, and edged, the criminals feel unwelcome. Beauty repels crime.

 In part it's mere stress. Ugly environments cause stress, which cause acting out. Man = monkey. Children with no self control.

Abortion = Straw Hat Riot

 You understand it's extremely feminine to punch someone for wearing the wrong hat, yes? Emotionally volatile, caring about clothing. Women and voters have none of their own business to mind. Idle slaves, devil's work, etc etc. There's no such thing as a prosocial fashion police. De minimis non curat lex.

 Abortion. Nobody gives the tiniest shit about some stranger's clump of cells. It's an excuse to exercise treacherous violence against your countrymen. That's it. That's all. 

 If it's not a stranger's clump of cells: hey, try some responsibility. Don't impregnate an abortion-willing prostitute. Cool? Cool. You can handle a one-step plan, right? Not too complicated for you, yes?

 The worst part is it doesn't even excuse any violence. Americans work themselves into a furious lather, and then...do fuckin' nothin. The only thing more feminine than punching someone for wearing the wrong hat is attempting and failing to provoke some man to do it. I would say other men, but... forget it jake, it's votertown.

The Frustration if Science Hadn't Existed

 Also the existence of the Amish relieves me of a bunch of risks.

 Science already exists, and is already, allegedly, high status. As a result, I know when someone is actively opposing science and its principles, it's on purpose. 

 If science hadn't already existed, I would have gone around elaborating the principles and trying to inform folk of them. It wouldn't have worked. I would have tried to come up with all sorts of reasons why my presentations were unpersuasive. I wouldn't have realized they were plenty persuasive, but caino hypocriens just hates the truth. Not for a very long time, suggesting a very large frustration load.
 Yes, they understand the principles of science perfectly - that's how they're avoiding using any by accident. Caino hypocriens hates reliable signals and much prefers to get manipulated and conned. If it's not cope it's not paying its rent. Superstitions or bust.

 The Amish, likewise, show that if you don't like the government and the society, you can simply decline. With minimal appeasement of the corrupt, black Regime, you can go off and do your own thing. Indeed that is exactly how one escapes, as per yesterday. If someone isn't willing to separate themselves from the [union] it shows they hate freedom and love oppression. And who am I to gainsay these desires? Inflicting liberty on them would be a crime. Unjust.

Being Explicit: How to Disempower the Satanists

 I may have done this explicitly before, but it's worth repeating.

 Q: how does one get away from trying to out-lie Satan? A: waive your right to affect the Satanocracy. 

 Decline that offer. Turn down the contract. Disinherit your right to claim Satan's throne. 

 Christianity's Satanology is exactly on point, as always. The Nameless has power over you via your attempt to have power over him. As a result of. Due to. Disclaim and disavow this power, and likewise evil will be forced to disavow you. 

 Pride: the idea that you can outfox a devil. The idea that you can wheedle concessions out of Satan. And all isomorphisms.
 Humility: the idea that you can't do that. The idea that dedicated lie-worshippers are better at lying than you are, and the way to win is not to play. 

 Pride: the idea that you can find Namelessness' true name, gain power over it.
 Humility: the realization it is fundamentally impossible to name the Nameless. 

 Mythologically, Namelessness doesn't exist. It can only have power through that which does. The dead can only have power through the living. The living must superstitiously believe they must follow Namelessness, they must hallucinate its nonexistent will before it can be carried out. In so doing, they resonate with nonexistence and bring themselves into harmony with being dead. They likewise relinquish all power over the living.

 Become the living. Stop trying to out-lie Satan. Let the devil contractees destroy themselves, as per their clear yearning. Make their halting, wobbling self-annihilation none of your business.

When Darkness Comes

 Humanity fails to beat it back. Humanity loses. Darkness is the master. 

 Hail the Solstice.

Gray Projection

 Leftists love to project. Communist sodomites say you're secretly homosexual. That means they're secretly straight. And isn't that an impressive level of self-hatred?

Hateful Eight are Lacquers and Engine Greases, not Food

 If you have the cognitive capacity, you could remember which ones are engine greases, and which ones are lacquers. Stuff like soybean oil and safflower are lacquers, basically bottom-shelf linseed oil. Linseed is what linoleic acid is named after. Rapeseed oil, much less prone to hardening, is engine grease.

 If you eat engine grease it's almost exactly like pouring the contents of your oil pan into the fuel tank. The engine knock will announce you've done something wrong, but your engine will break down within days primarily due to less-obvious problems. Biology is more sophisticated than engineering, so it takes longer to break down, but it's the same dynamic.
 Meanwhile, the lacquers are what cause atherosclerosis. If you want to seal a dead wooden cabinet or chest, a plaque is just the thing. In shocking news, you don't want hardening preservatives in your living arteries. That's bad.

 Nutritionists say linoleic acid is essential, but nutritionists are full of shit. Nutritionists also say you can't live without retinol and ascorbic acid, which is flat false. And essential is the wrong word you illiterates, it's something vital, rather than part of an essence. (Vitacid rather than vitamine.) It's not impossible that linoleic is necessary, but even if so, you only need tiny amounts. A pound of beef contains 400 milligrams of linoleic, 4% of the [[[recommended]]] daily value, and whatever it has is plenty. Probably even lower in grass-fed beef.
 Cockroaches release linoleic acid when they die as a warning signal. It's intended to be noxious - that's why plants like it. Can plausibly posit all mammal linoleic acid is contamination, not nutrition.

 

 Explicitly to put a fine a point on it as I can, the fact the hateful eight are toxic was very predictable. There was no need to check. Not exactly subtle rocket science. Don't eat things that aren't food. 

 

 Generally it's chronic damage that gets you. If you cut your arm, you're likely to make a full recovery. If it's deep enough you'll get surface scarring, but you will regain full function. If instead you strap something to your arm and let it chafe a bit but repeatedly, you can permanently kill your hair follicles, among other issues. The way ear gauges deform the ear can be done on most body parts. Startlingly small amounts of pressure, unevenly applied, can warp your bones. 

 The fact seed oils don't immediately make you throw up is a red flag, not a good sign. It would be better if they gave you biological engine knock. Presumably if you're dumb enough to keep eating them for generations, you will evolve the senses required to suffer acutely when exposed to them.

 

 Your body tries to sequester this stuff rather than use it for fuel. If the liver gets to it in time, it packages it and tries to shove it into the attic to be forgotten. In this case the attic is found at the waist. Because they are oils, the kidneys can't easily filter them out, so you can't simply piss them away. The only real way to get rid of them is to burn them, suffering the illness your liver was trying to save you from. Bonus: the liver has a sharply limited capacity, and large amounts of engine grease flood the detox pathways. Double bonus: the packages don't stop them from being inflammatory, they merely stop the immune system from removing the inflammatory agent. Burning them is important. In other words, not eating them in the first place is very important. 

 Presumably if you were dumb enough to eat this stuff for generations, you would evolve to package it into stools for elimination.

 The sunflower seed doesn't want its own oils turning into rancid lubricant, so it's full of antioxidants. If you eat a whole seed, you get the antioxidants &c along with the oils, so it's not so bad. See also: peanuts, sesame, flax or linseed.

 During the refining process, the plant's natural buffers are removed. The oil is [pure] now. Briefly.

 Much of the reason seed oils have to be [deoderized] is because the highly ungentle refining process turns all sorts of things rancid. It smells rotten because it's rotten, cue midwit meme. Part of the deoderization process removes the rotten compounds, and part of it turns them into odorless but still noxious compounds which stay in the lacquer or lubricant. 

 Fun fact: rancid oil catalyzes the oxidation process. There is no way to heat industrially processed seed oils without fucking yourself. 

 Another thing that should have been obvious in prospect: coconut oils being heat-resistant. It lives in the tropics and it's brown. Further it expects travel in the sun, not hide in the shade. By contrast northern seeds benefit from natural refrigeration.

 From what I understand, during WWII the disruption in oil supplies and high demand from planes and tanks meant no mineral oil for lubricants, so they turned to seed-based alternatives. Not great, but good enough. Lots of factories spun up to turn rapeseed into engine grease. It was deoderized for the comfort of the engine users, rather than to trick folk into thinking it was edible. Once the war started winding down and black gold supply lines stabilized, they had all these now-redundant oil factories, so they captured some regulators to let them sell it as [[food]] instead of having to take a haircut. 

 Crisco, industrially adulterated cottonseed oil, predates this. WWII served as a popularizer for these bastardized pseudo-foods.

 Don't be like me: keep linoleic and linolenic acid unconfused, despite the fact they're both named after linseed oil.
 Or maybe linolenic oil is also biologically unnecessary and it doesn't matter.

The System Works

 I understand fuentes didn't defend himself. Just sort of let his dogs get shot.

 Lesson: as a public figure without a paid security squad, own firearms and train in their use.

 On the other hand, slaves should not be armed under any circumstances. They will never be able to responsibly use weapons, and if they die it's not like anything of value is lost. 

 So, working as intended. Carry on.
 Everything is, status: fine.

Filthy Lucre

 Money is not profane.

 Coinage specifically is profane. It's made for taxation, a crime, and in honour of a defiled government. 

 Bank notes too, it goes without saying. They look and smell dirty because they are spiritually dirty. 

 If you ask a divine power for money, you're typically asking for black government money, meaning asking to be desecrated, and the answer will always be a flat no.

The Obvious, Simple Way Individualism is False

 Not everyone can function as an individual. "No man is an island." Inegalitarianism: well, actually, some can be an island if they want to be. And some can't. The NPC looks more or less like the [can't] zone.

 Imagine brothers. One can't pass up a gacha or pachinko, and his brother has to drag him away. The other tries to introduce himself to everyone he meets, but he's super cringe, so the first brother has to drag him away. Neither can grow up to be independent, but if they stay together, they can be functional. 

 It would be better if anyone who couldn't function individually was instead dead, but they're not, so here we are. 

 There are innumerable flaws which lead the sufferer to see catastrophic hazards in everyday, unavoidable situations. Indeed the myriads are part of the solution. It's very unlikely that two flawed individuals will have the same flaw and be unable to cover for each other.

 Speaking of obvious, there's an obvious failure mode. What if brother one drags his sibling to pachinko, while the other drags him into many awkward or dangerous social encounters? Why does the virtuous individual override the flawed one?
 No really, I have no idea. I was hoping you'd know. 

 It does happen sometimes, or rather, sufficiently often. The flawed non-individuals go all [blind leading the blind], spreading contagious vice. Which is why it's better if they fail to exist, rather than attempting the janky patch job. Mutual babysitting can work - it's not like I've never seen it - but it's obvious the trends are dominated by the flip side. 

 One way it works is when the flawed individual recognizes the flaw as a flaw. Except they can't simply decide to not decide to do it anymore. NPCs. Can't make decisions for themselves.

Drugs Explained

 Drug laws in a far-left Democracy are a bit of a puzzle. Why not decriminalize the shit out of everything? They clearly want to? Drug enforcement is all right-wing?

 Solution: the mafia. Drugs are kept illegal to ensure organized crime's support structures remain stable. 

 Alchemically, a black government is a mafia, they can't suppress the lesser mafias without suppressing themselves. In practice, it's not grudging, the government loves mafias and will never let them go. Indeed the love is so strong that it's plausible to presume prohibition was enacted specifically to juice up baby mafias into useful GONGOs. 

 Recently, canada defunded a bunch of rehab centres. Why? Because they were effective. They got addicts out of addiction, cutting into mafia or drug cartel revenues. No bueno.

Dextrouslessness

 If musk or bobby retweet you, it doesn't mean they've gone right, it means you were left-wing the whole time. Twitter does not have rightists. If you're genuinely truth-seeking or right-wing, musk still bans you...although, as usual, revenge is sour. There were so precious few he didn't have to. Wasting his own time and effort.

Ambition Itself Ought Be Glorious

 All true stories should be about ambitious men, and their ambitions conflicting.

 All of them are protagonists. All of the visions should count as happy endings, but endings that conflict. Endings that cannot happen at the same time.

 A counterexample: romeo's ambition is to pork juliet. It's petty, mean. Any number of ambitions can coexist with this goal. The conflict comes from an equally tiny ambition. Their fathers both recognize it as a bad match. 

 There's no glory in defeating evil. It's too weak, too pathetic. 

 An epic is a story about two men who both wish to improve the world. Men of cosmos-spanning ambition, who fight because they recognize honour is more important than life. Who wish to test themselves. Who know glory comes even in defeat. Men who know the only way to live in a world worthy of awe is to do it themselves, to grow into awe-inspiring titans

Women Can't Use Generalizations Therefore Can't Hear Generalizations

 When a woman talks in general terms she's talking about some specific, but casting it as a general because she perceives that this is the fashion. Usually a specific person, because women don't care about anything except close personal relationships. Usefully, the vague terms help her avoid conflict, as she's not expressing her negative feelings about some person in particular who could then get offended. Won't get offended, unless he's not an idiot and can look one level deep, but even so the woman can try to plausibly deny that it's about him, provided everyone is willing to pretend she's autistic. Wouldn't want to upset the kindergarten teacher by making a little girl cry.

 Importantly this also works the other way around. If you use a generalization with a woman, she will assume you're like her and in fact attempting to talk about some specific, and she'll default to thinking you're talking about her in particular. Mirroring and sympathy, no empathy.

 After all, the woman in question, of all people, knows she's ignorant, kinda dumb, and nobody genuinely cares about her opinion. Why would you be talking to her about generalities? Are you even more stupid than a woman? She will politely assume not. If you're a man and not blood related, she will assume you're trying to have sex with her, ideally for impregnation. Why the fuck else would you talk to a woman?
 Therefore, the generality must be about someone in particular. Probably her, since you're trying to have sex with her. That's why it makes perfect sense to respond to, "Most women are shorter than men," with, "But I'm 5,11, taller than an average man!" I.e. that neg was dumb, try a better one.

 If you're chatting with a woman for reasons other than getting her pregnant, you're even more autistic than she's about to pretend to be. She will never know what you're trying to say and doesn't care to. 

 Talking to a woman about generalities for the sake of the generalities is so dumb that it doesn't matter what you were trying to say. You're plain too dumb and she should ignore whatever dumb thing is in your head. 

 "women should be paid equal to men" & "women want men who earn more"
 https://twitter.com/ItIsHoeMath/status/1852408949146038535/

 Right, but it's a woman saying it, hence this means, "Pay me more, also, get me a rich husband." Yes dear, of course you want that. It's not a woman's child's job to sort out the contradictions in their wants, because they don't get to make decisions anyway. It's not their job to work out how to pay for things or whether it's affordable, because they can't understand math or produce value anyway.

Being Explicit: 500 kingdoms

 Who is in control of the deep state? For large parts of it, nobody. There's a slot for a king but the peasants aren't aware it isn't filled. It's a chicken running around with its head cut off.

 In most cases someone, some very specific person, can seize control of the kingdom, but he only has two hands. There's only so many hours in a day. To seize control of one he has to relinquish control of another. Conservation of headless chickens. 

 The fruit of a usurpation regime is secret kings, and secretly forgotten crowns. The fruit is balkanization. The fruit of dysgenic population growth is a deep king shortage. 

 Though also a place like america is far too large for any king, or even say 50 kings. Nobody in history could have grasped something that size. Even the gerrymandered fragments of jurisdiction are frequently too large for the best living kings. That and they're lazy. There's only so many hours of the day, and, really, why not spend most of them on golf? Sure they could push themselves, but what do they need another dozen billion for? Working is for the little people. Meanwhile the peasants can only pretend to try to grasp the throne, if they're even aware the head is missing, if they're even aware it's supposed to have a leader.

Healthy Marriage Hypothesis

 The women makes no decisions, she does exactly what the man tells her to do, like a robot. Unlike a robot, she tells the man how she feels. The man cares for her, so he adjusts his orders based on the feedback until the feedback is healthy. The only things a wife needs are social graces, humility, and obedience.

 She doesn't even tell the man her feelings on her own initiative. She does it because he told her to. The only exception is when she's imagining what he would order her to do, in the unlikely event that she sees a novel situation and can't contact him to ask in time. He should go out of his way to ensure she's properly programmed in all manner of situations so that this eventuality never arises. 

 For example, perhaps the man retains the soon-to-be-grandfather to tell him stories of raising kids, so he can tell his wife how he wants her to react. Pre-emptive simulation. 

 Social graces largely refer to phrasing things politely. She shouldn't express her emotions antagonistically. Clearly modern women struggle mightily...or rather, they were specifically trained to be as rude as possible.

Hybrid Breakdown in Peasant - Noble Pairings

 Many adorn themselves with brands. They try, for example, to join house adidas, wearing adidas colours, adidas arms, adidas seals, in the hope that they will receive the patronage of the great lord adidas. 

 House nintendo and house sega inspire particularly virulent loyalty, as another example. 

 I personally find this wholly repugnant. I would much rather die than subordinate myself to some dumbass piker and his tasteless logo. I value a good butler very highly, and perhaps in part because I could and would never do that myself.

 

 The reason you shouldn't sire bastards is they will get genes for both at the same time. The genes for the capacity to be a loyal or even fervent retainer, plus the urge to form and wear your own arms. If the child accepts his own place in the world according to his limited abilities, he will find himself indelibly repugnant and surrounded by repugnant fellows who are more or less the same as he is. Else the child can embrace the vainglorious crusade to attempt to form his own house, dooming himself to permanent failure and loserhood. 

 You have perhaps met someone with this personality. Once or twice. The best are the kind who strut like a peacock and demand subservience while also wearing a literal adidas sweater or hoodie.

 Anyway, that's why bastards are such bastards, even if [legitimized] by the acknowledgement of the father. The constant internal strife becomes, inevitably, external strife. Nobody could withstand those internal stresses, it will always end up being everyone's problem. Bastards cannot mind their own business.

Much of Pre-Selection is Adultery

 Imagine a married woman, looking for action on the side. Is she going to be interested in single boys? Only in extreme cases. Largely she's going to be interested in married men. 

 The [wink-wink nudge-nudge plausible-deniability] the taken woman needs is something she's going to be able to solicit from taken men. When a woman is looking to violate loyalty she's specifically going to want a man who also has loyalties to violate. Which looks like preselection to porn/dating addled moderns.

 

 Put it this way. Women are hardly lacking a monopolizing instinct, which seems to go against the get-him-to-cheat instinct. Perhaps it could be [bitches be cray] as per usual, but it usually isn't. This stuff is largely coming from women who already have a man to monopolize. Preselection is about the side piece. That is, if you see a woman who likes you for being selected, she likely considers you a side piece. Not always; but certainly it happens sufficiently often. 

 Recall that women don't have any real romantic instincts towards the man they want to monopolize. Countless millennia of arranged marriages have sanded it down to nothing. It's all supposed to be organized and decided without any real input from her, so why would she bother thinking (rather, feeling) about it at all? Thus, if she has romantic erotic lustful feelings, it's about adultery in one form or another. 

 Democratic Woman is trained and grown to be an adulteress. She only gets a main squeeze specifically so that she can cheat on him. Reminder that sneaking away from her dad would also be acceptable, if voters weren't 100% women and he instead had male authority.

Being Explicit / Short Ver: Treachery is not Securable

 The easiest way to see this is alchemical correspondence. Treachery is inherently about piercing security. Piercing security can't be upheld by security. Not how such things work. 

 The traitor needs to get inside your fence. He believes the fence will keep him out, if you know it needs to keep him out. The traitor himself believes security is effective and profitable - try believing him. 

 If the traitor tries to fence off your stuff after stealing it, he condemns the way he himself acquired the stuff. The hypocrisy is a confession. If your fence was wrong, his fence is also wrong. To open a hole in your security, he has to open a hole in his own. 

 You can't build a fence around cutting a hole in fences, not without cutting a whole in the hole-fencing fence. 

 Indeed if a thing is not effectively securable, it is treachery. The fact is reliable enough to use as a test or instrument of measurement.

Internal Difference of Self-Love and Self-Hatred

 Once [ingroup] and [outgroup] are removed from the ideas of good and evil, the only thing left is self-love and self-hatred. 

 The loving hate lies. Hate irresponsibility. Hate bringing harm to their allies. It plain feels bad. 

 The self-hating feel attracted to lies. They're repulsed by responsibility. They despise virtue and beauty and cooperation, and want to bring harm to anyone engaging in them. For the self-hater, the purpose of life is to behave as despicably as they can possibly get away with.

 The self-hating feel shame when they are caught breaking their word, but only because they fear punishment. (Damn Darwinian bodies, clinging to life.)

 The loving feel shame when they are caught breaking their word, but the observer in question is their own self. They cannot escape the disciplinarian or the disciplinarian's consequences.  

 When the self-hater is denied the oblivion they crave, they require constant maintenance. Immense and unending pressure is required to stop them from consistently applying costs to everyone around them.
 Slaves must be whipped by the overseer. They never learn. Rather, they cannot learn; the act of forcing a cost upon the overseer by forcing him to whip them is the goal. That was the point of the disobedience. Working as intended.
 The slave inherently dislikes virtue. It plain feels bad. They will not pursue it except to avoid something that feels even worse.
 It is true that a stable, healthy society cannot abide slavery. As before, the way to end slavery is to execute the slaves. Anyone acting slavishly shall be hanged by the neck until dead. 

 A peasant is essentially a self-hating slave who knows better than to be openly slavish. One layer of misdirection. They cast their opposition to true beauty as support of false beauty. They give rise to a sabotaged, profane beauty standard. They knowingly pretend their false idols are true. Rather than attacking virtue directly, they attempt to starve it and ignore it until it goes away.
 Evil is weak. Only the most foolish devils think to directly start fights with the virtuous. 

 Power corrupts? Power allows the self-hater to afford more of the despicable behaviour they always wanted to buy. Permitting a self-hater to escape poverty is suicidal.

 Though permitting a self-hater to wallow in poverty is sadistic.
 Permitting a self-hater to survive is sadistic.

 Notably, christianity flatly rejects the idea that anyone loves themselves. It explicitly claims everyone hates themselves. Or at least, does so insofar as it knows the words which describe the thing it wishes to describe.

It Was Already Full of Pennies

 If I had been on that train and shot neely, penny would have helped the cops drag me and put me on the stand. 

 The process is the punishment and he deserved to stand trial. 

 Did he do the right thing? No, neely should have already been dead years ago. It's correct to go all china in this case, and start executing, ye, unto nine generations. Trying to be gentle and keep neely alive is very wrong and antisocial. Cowardly. Though yes, it is true, that leaving neely alone was and is worse.  

 However, only very marginally worse. Since penny didn't kill him, that means the trash would have taken itself out regardless. All anyone had to do was wait, what, a couple hours? He had already sentenced himself to death.

 Remember penny is not on your side. If you want to do anything to genuinely help america, he will be your strongest opponent. If he approves of something, it is either poison or it's an accident.
 America et al got this way in the first place because it was already full of pennies.

Religious Fundamentalists are Hyper-Nerds

 Consider the passionate obsession of the star wars fan. 

 Now imagine there were no alternate stories. Imagine a society which only had star wars stories, because they were too poor to come up with a second fandom. 

 Read the myths of ye olde societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_%28Buddhism%29
 Very imaginative. Vivid and evocative spectacle. And exactly like fanfiction. Narcissistic human invention, not curiosity-driven alien discovery. 

 All religious fundamentalists are LARPers. They got so into their fandom they pretend it's real life. A star wars nerd becoming emperor and outlawing "passion" (ironically) because what would a jedi do. 

 Mortals are the children of satan. Naturally they will believe in fanfiction rather than in science. What world religions show is that, without competing fandoms, the believers become qualitatively more obsessed. I would say it grows by two stages. 

 Believing in Reality requires discipline. Fiction can be tuned to be maximally plausible, to be glib and flattering, to require nothing and less than nothing of the listener.

 

 They themselves know the fanfiction is fiction. There are various ways they reveal this. They don't treat is as a hypothesis, and neither should you. It's an imposition, not an investigation. "Love my waifu or else." 

 One way: divine law doesn't need to be reiterated in human law. The gods can (and will) enforce that whether you help or not. At best the human law corrupts and gets in the way. 

 Another way: adjusting or editing the [[scripture]] is verboten. Because lies, unlike truth, are fragile. If you adjust a scientific model, errors naturally decay, returning to the foundational truth behind the model. Lies just break.
 The illusion of plausibility and respectability shatters. Either it's a small change but makes everything look different, showing how preposterous the previous trust was, or it's a large change, should look preposterous, but functions exactly as well as the old, showing by parallel that the old is also preposterous.

 

 However, fundamentally religiousness is being a geek. The difference between a star wars obsessive and a christian obsessive is merely that the latter isn't necessarily seen as low status, so it has no restraint. That's it. That's all. 

 All lightside priests are otaku. Except the fujoshis, I suppose. Otaku less the restraints of scorn and derision. 

 A fortiori: the reason otaku are scorned is precisely because their fanfiction competes with the [[winning]] fanfiction. By having a different waifu, they implicitly claim the popular [[normal]] waifu is trash. Otherwise, why should anyone care? What business is it of yours? 

 The point is imposition. (Not investigation.) Because lies are fragile. When tested, even against other lies, they shatter.

Idealism in Practice

 Say it in the most inflammatory manner.

 Telepathy is real. We call it [physics]. When you share a thought with someone else, it looks like a rock. 

 Go pick up a stick. If you wave it, can someone else see it? Telepathy. 

 That's what a shared thought looks like.

The Secret Intelligibility of Lovecraft

 The Lovecraftian abyss is surprisingly comprehensible. Or rather, being as it's a structure of self-delusion, the comprehensibility is only surprising to Lovecraft and other participants. They deliberately hide it from themselves.

 This mythological cosmos is a truth, which is the abyss of madness, and a bubble-thin tissue of lies on top. Humans are finger-puppets, and their true nature is the colossal abyssal horrors upon whose finger-tips the costume sits. 

 The horrors abhor their own nature. They desperately wish to be angels, even if this change would reduce them. Would maim them catastrophically. They wear angel finger-puppets and desperately pretend to themselves that the costumes are the reality.

 The lies are fragile. If you method act hard enough, you can try this yourself. Put yourself in the mindset of someone different, who lives in a different world, with a different society. The tiniest perturbation pops the bubble. 

 When the veil is pierced, the human remembers what it truly is. The mortal has an immortal soul, yes, but the nature of that soul is far, far from what it prefers to believe. This knowledge, the knowledge it already knows but was strenuously trying to ignore, shreds the fabric of the puppet. 

 The human is not driven insane by the knowledge, the insanity is remembered. It is merely uncovered. Merely revealed. Lovecraftian anamnesis.

 

 Consider a preta, a hungry ghost. In Lovecraft, rather than being weedy, mean, and small, the hunger is epic, transcendent. Majestic, if perhaps only in scope. Profound, the hunger encompasses all possible complexities and elaborations of hunger. For example, the abyss and the abyssals are dark because they hunger for light. This is a Lovecraftian abyssal, and this is the true nature of his humans. 

 In this cosmos, true angels exist, as do the transcendent divines who created them. This is where the abyssals learned of the idea in the first place. However, apart from their inspirational role, they don't matter. The abyssals can't be like them. They can't go anywhere near them.

Management and Feminine Complaint Example

"Musk's management style is the same as Trump - denigrate employees, refuse to pay contractors, and scream, "you're fired", all while claiming to be the smartest person in the room."
 https://twitter.com/AzaSophie21854/status/1866142456745431448/

 

 Women complain when men manage in a masculine style.
 This means they are horny. She isn't mad about the management, she is mad musk isn't pushing her down and raping her right now. She's mad the men in her life aren't masculine like musk is. They listen to her complaints but then don't, as intended, do the opposite of what's explicitly asked for. Nobody shuts her up by putting a pipe up her hole. Unquestionably underfucked. Suffering semen withdrawal. 

 "Why isn't this unbearably sexy I don't get it." Women scheme but have no social skills. If you like them for whatever reason, you have to transmute what she says into something that accomplishes her secret desires, then act as if she said that. 

 Virgins really a different kin. Cum causes instant and permanent cum addiction in all women, and she makes withdrawal a problem for everyone else.

 

You can read the rest of the thread for others highlighting the masculine/feminine divide without acknowledging the underlying dynamic. "Yes, I do prefer getting told rather than passive-aggressively insinuated at." Hard, responsible deadlines vs. eh, at some point maybe do something and avoiding blame. Feminine management is endemic and explains much of the ineffectiveness of the Communist corporation.

Restoration is Called Evil

 To fix a bad culture means being evil. The source of the problem is that ingroup norms are broken. Deliberately contravening the norms is the thing which reads as evil. 

 The left isn't wrong when they say you have to smash the culture. The lie is the claim the left wants or has ever wanted anything except to fortify the status quo.  

 E.g, not [evil] like a bit of heresy, "I believe in the african-american IQ gap of 15 points." Instead, [evil] such as, "Actually racial genocide is good." You don't necessarily have to go that far, but you certainly have to be willing or even eager to be seen as going that far.

 Voters and normies are either too cowardly or too agreeable to dissent. Apparent dissent is the stuff the overseer implicitly approves of, rather than the stuff he explicitly approves of. You can make these cowards more afraid of their drill sergeant than of charging the machine gun nest, but nobody is going to make them more afraid of doing the wrong thing than of social disapproval. That is: every social problem is regime-complete. If you can violently overthrow the existing order, then you can violently overthrow the existing sub-orders as well. Nothing less than this will meaningfully change anything. 

 What's weird is that folk aren't even willing to escape. If you identify a broken culture, and are unable or unwilling to destroy it with military violence, then there's an obvious next step, which is doing the Amish jazz. They clearly did it by accident, but it is easy to do it on purpose. Disavow the culture, separate, and do something else. "Don't be Englisch."
 Exception: when you don't want to. Then intentional escape is impossible. 

 "As Dave stumbled into the elevator, the grating sound of elevator music assaulted his ears. He winced, wishing he had the superpower to control the musical choices of elevators."
 https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/93995/unlimited-isekai-and-other-unfortunate-magic/chapter/1806402/1--dead-twice
 You do have that power. You can take the stairs. Unless you don't want to escape, in which case, you can't.

 

 It's not weird if this is the underworld, and everyone sane has been filtered out on account of not getting themselves dead.

Back Sugery and Democratic Ignorance

 I've been hearing that back surgery doesn't work for 30 years. Y'all should be taking it for granted by now. If you're not, there's something wrong with you. Did you also hear, but forget? Is your info-gathering a failed system? It wasn't even from some deep dark secret hole, I heard it from turbonormies.

 Try a chiropractor. Yes around half of them are scams, so use a good one. The best ones will tell you when they can't do anything. Knee surgery also usually fails, albeit not as badly as back surgery. Again, try chiropractics. 

 It makes sense, right? If your disk is misaligned, have someone shove it back into alignment. It will hurt, then be a relief. Like resocketing a dislocated arm. You don't need to be cut open.

 

 Come to think, all this skepticism of the system being [[[new]]] comes off as poser naivete. You have been hearing about skepticism of the system from leftists your entire life. It's not a novel discovery. The covid non-vaccine came from the system. That it's poison should not be a total shock, like a domestic 9/11, coming out of nowhere. The possibility should have occurred to everyone. 

 I wonder if it's Democracy. The last shall be first; the wisdom of youth shall be exalted over the wisdom of ages. Come to think, high schools are crushingly conformist, due to all the insecurity. America (and all Democracies) are crushingly conformist. Youth and femininity. Naivete and ignorance. As opposed to having virtues.
 With the coda that it has no culture, because no culture worth a damn can develop in less than 15 years. Anything that takes longer can't be used, because the first shall be last. It will be forgotten at best.

 Or rather, this is the underworld, and getting healthy is against the point of the practice. Almost nobody would use surgeons if they didn't hate themselves and wanted to desecrate their body. 

If Christianity Didn't Exist, the Christian Races Would Have Invented It

 Which came first? The christian races, or christianity? Let's play egg and chicken, coming down on the side of blood. 

 I think europe wanted to become more Communist. They wanted to privilege strangers over their own family. They wanted to break Darwin's shackles and become truly treacherous. 

 "Save us, catholic church! You're our only hope!"
 "Stop marrying into the clan, you dumb shits."

 Incapable of liberating themselves from the chains of responsibility and virtue on their own initiative, they hired the church to circumvent it on their behalf, violently if and when necessary. Whipped them into shape, with real rawhide whips.  

 Why steal from other folks' families, don't you know you're supposed to steal from your own? 

 The christian races could have retained loyalty to the clan even with weaker blood ties. There's numerous social technologies which could have let them form pseudo-clans. Including, but not limited to, property rights. They passed up all these and instead full-throatedly yelled for loyalty to church first, second loyalty to throne, and loyalty to their own children last. Communism. 

 Human sacrifice never went away. No higher rejection of Darwin (thus self-love, virtue) than giving your children to the State. However, dead sacrifices can't grow up to pay taxes or die in wars (but I repeat myself). The christian races came up with ingenious ways of sacrificing their children, as signals of fraudulent loyalty, without physically killing them. 

 There was a major fosterage trend, for example. Could have fostered entirely within a clan, based on some tests of shared interests for example, and explicitly did the opposite.
 You don't need to cement an alliance with folk who don't fundamentally hate you. Mutually-beneficial cooperation is cemented by the mutual profits.
 Sending your kids to live alone surrounded by violent strangers is tailor-made to inflame feuds, rather than quench them. Clown world, 500 BC edition. Clown continent. Clown specie. "We can't bring ourselves to bully little timmy and sally enough, send 'em to the mccoys, they won't hold back at all." 

 Everyone who wanted to privilege their own kids over rando strangers hired someone to force them to give their kids away, so they wouldn't be close enough to favour.
 Sending their kids away to be tortured by pedophiles is merely the latest form of child sacrifice that leaves the victim alive. It's become so intense it's destroying their fertility even if it doesn't destroy their lives. Total symbolic death, just short of physical death. Oh well. Billions must die.

 The State wants to be closely associated with as many paedocidal traitors as possible because the State, too, hates itself.

Truth and Societal Despair

 In kindergarten they tell you not to toot your own horn. If nobody praises you when you do something glorious, too bad, suck it up buttercup. 

 They also tell you not to lie. 

 Everyone non-autistic instantly realizes they're joking about not lying. They mean only, "Don't harm my interests." They want you to tell them whatever they want to hear, such as confessing when you're doing something harmful to them (so they can make you stop), and otherwise flattering them outrageously.

 Normies, especially as children, don't know what words mean. They react to praise and scolding and that's about it. Classical conditioning. They couldn't follow an anti-lying principle even if they wanted to, as they're incapable of being aware of it. Later, it vaguely comes together for them: they were punished for telling the truth sometimes and rewarded for lying sometimes, so their original incomprehension and disregard was correct. It's a joooooke.

 This joke is told by those who wish to plunge their society into decay and despair. It is accepted by adults and future adults who also wish to plunge their society into despair and devastation.
 History shows even the smallest lie is cancerous. Deadly if untreated. Subliminally, they know this, and adopt lies because they like cancer.
 Even a child will fight you if you punish lies consistently. They easily adopt Namelessness and vice. They savagely oppose virtue. Even if the costs are similar. 

 You shouldn't praise yourself gratuitously, because it's a sexual display. The equivalent of boobs for men. Same way women shouldn't randomly flash their knockers. Even if they are a prostitute, and sensibly priced, your wife quite reasonably won't like it. And if the hooker is among only other women, nobody wants to see those. Put 'em away. 

 However, if it's relevant, don't lie. It's Satanic. Toot loud and proud. If a bunch of bitches starts talking shit about your boobs, go ahead and whip 'em out to prove the scuttle wrong. "If you didn't want to be sexually embarrassed, shouldn't have brought it up." ("Responsibility?!?!? Ewwwww!!!11!") 

 The rejection of virtue is testable. Any advice that would resist social entropy is rejected. If you (somehow, heroically) come up with something that increases decay and failure, even if it's expensive or a huge pain in the butt, you'll find you can't drag them away from it with wild horses. Revealed preferences.

Style Guide: Enliven Norms

 Using [enforce] for norms is profane. It's a confession the norm is coercive. Deviant. Traitorous. Only a dead thing needs to be forced to move. It is impossible for normies to be anything but Nameless zombies under enforced norms.

 The correct term is something like empower or vitalize. You want to energize the norm, make it dynamic and alive. Feed the law, so it moves under its own will.

Repetition: On Selfishness

 If rhetoric ever seems confusing or mysterious, remind yourself of the fundamental. There are two kinds. Some come off as insanely self-absorbed, and others, who are massive liars. 

 There's two kinds. Some are trying to get their hand into your pocket, and others, who pretend they aren't trying to get their hand into your pocket. 

 Mcdonalds wants their hand in your pocket, and they offer a burger as a key. Others say they don't want their hand in your pocket, because they want into your pocket but have nothing to offer. They can only get in through fraud and deception.

 If the self-interest is not obvious, it is because they have nothing to offer and know you will see the ask as illegitimate. Once you realize they have something to hide, you can easily work out what they're hiding, but it's unnecessary, superfluous, and redundant. They believe the ask is illegitimate. You can simply believe them and lightly reject it.

 "You don't get to decide [x]" means only, "You're threatening to damage my ability to decide [x]." But who cares? Ask what's in it for you. If it's nothing, they are your enemy. They are a traitor. Friend only to self-hatred.

Red Leaf Symbolism

 Omen reading is very tricky and I'm uncertain, but maple leaves only turn red when they're dying and falling. The symbol is chosen because this obvious association is subconsciously known.

No Evidence for Marketing

 If marketing worked, you should be able to go onto youtube or webnovel sites, go downmarket, and find gems that have bad marketing. You can't, though. If you have a spare-spare afternoon, try it yourself. Go way down the pagination.

 Win win. Either I'm right and you find nothing, or I'm wrong and you can point out a hidden gem for me. 

 It is true that bad things can get good ratings. However, whether this is due to sharp marketing or sheer stochastic noise looks, at first, like an open question. Then you realize it's corruption. Someone has their thumb on the scale. Baits in conformists.

 Marketing with no obvious flaws regularly fails, and many popular things have hilariously bad marketing. If something is having an effect on apparent ratings, it's corruption. E.g. the NYT 'bestseller' list is editorial, as per court rulings. It's not based on anything silly like sales, especially not sales to folk buying the book for themselves with their own money.

 The best marketing by far is having a quality product. Thomas Kinkaid was not poor. Despite suffering explicit suppression. Although there is upmarket trash, there is no downmarket gold. 

 There is no such thing as bad publicity because there is no such thing as good publicity. I expect it's a wealth-cap thing. Either the author has spare wealth capacity, or they don't. Publicity is irrelevant. It's likely that publisher contracts, or going indie, paywalls, incentives, subscriptions - none of it matters. If you can get paid, you get paid.

 Quality is the best marketing, providing the market has demand for it, anyway. Quality up against no demand is meaningless. Regardless of how amazing your venusian habitat is, nobody can get to venus. Doesn't matter how good your logic is if nobody else (public) is capable of logic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whites and Blacks Deserve Each Other

 I was thinking about how much worse integrated schools are compared to the mafia hellholes pure-race schools constitute. 

 It hardly matters.
 It changes the character of the dystopia, rather than the intensity. Quality, but not quantity.
 Unfiltered whiteness really is, already and by itself, unbearable and unsufferable. Bunch of fucking communists.

 Consider that whites were wiping out 1/3 of each generation with criminal prosecution. 

 Do you really think the other 2/3rds were much better? It's not a hard flip-flop from worthless trash to saints,it's an arbitrary cutoff on a gentle slope. Do you understand what kind of race this describes? The christian races are criminal traitors who can't keep their sticky fingers to themselves even when it will get them killed. Because the executions were too merciful, all that happened is they learned to pretend to be less criminal. To put up a front. Whites did not learn to cooperate, they learned to follow the letter of the law.

 Blacks perform the criminal labour whites have grown too cowardly for. Demand, meet supply. Blaming browns for any political issue is pure cope. The browns can't import themselves. It's all nonbrown on nonbrown action, but one side had the bright idea to use cats' paws against the side that's too dumb.
 

 Likewise, left to themselves, blacks hardly feel any of the shame and envy they should suffer. It's important to ram them cheek-by-jowl up against superior races. The purpose of de-segregation is to satisfy anti-brown racism, a punishment they have richly earned.

Alchemical Power

 Power delights in being used.
 To achieve power, promise to use the power. It will come at you in a swarm. It will gather itself.

 The precise uses promised are not irrelevant. If used for deviance, used to destroy the power of others, it incentivizes them to shackle or destroy your own power, rendering it useless. 

 Promise to use the powers in ways that can be upheld in the long term, rather than only the short term. 

 There is no reason for power to align with those who can only promise the short term, with the exception of the meanest, most desperate forms of power, which can barely get used at all. The kind of power that costs more to use than it can gain you.

No Love Stories

 No love story has ever been told. There are only lust stories. 

 Lust, it turns out, is a surprisingly fluffy and soft emotion. Doesn't at all match its reputation. I presume this is due to an Envy-style perception filter.
 Regardless of the roots of the dynamic, all love stories boil down to this: "I am attracted to the attractive person." The protagonist believes the hot dude/chick would produce healthy offspring. Banal, prosaic, and self-absorbed. 

 Some of the most [[[romantic]]] stories are about how the potential offspring are so healthy, it's worth risking your life to procreate with their genitors. Banal, prosaic, self-absorbed, and melodramatic to the point of being suicidal. Being [romantic], it seems, is being lustful to the point of perversion, at the same time as being highly delusional. 

 It can even go further, to the point where the lust is fake. Many stories are about a protagonist who refuses to settle for anyone but the most attractive person. Why doesn't the second most attractive one also inspire lust? Why can't they be good enough? Because it's all Pride. Envy farming. There is no real lust there at all, the MC and author are faking. They cast it as loyalty...to someone they're not even married to. "I"m going to treat you as if we've been married for 30 years, even though I met you earlier today." Very sane.

 Readers find these delusional traitors especially sympathetic.
 Might as well go ahead and believe them. They're telling you about themselves.

 It's heavily implied that romeo tapped juliet, and lancelot tapped guienevere. Naturally, it evolved to be worse. In modern [love] stories it's either full pornography with contraceptives, or so chaste both sides remain virgins. Truly twisted. Lust stories where nobody has kids, or lust stories where only the worst kind of villains have sex at all.

Tank Obsolescence

 Tanks can't see and need an infantry screen. Tanks without infantry just get shot from the side by ambushing RPGs.

 If tanks do have an infantry screen, then get a bunch of snipers. Shoot the infantry screen from a couple miles away. Then the tanks don't have an infantry screen, so you ambush them with RPGs and destroy billions worth of equipment using millions worth of munitions. You can also clear the screen with some laser pointers and an artillery barrage. 

 This means both the armour and the engines on tanks are pointless. They can't travel any faster than a man on foot. They can't survive anything that can kill a man on foot. 

 Worse, drones now exist. Wire-guided drones are immune to both jamming and triangulation, and it means your RPG ambush doesn't have to have LOS on the tank. The armour column needs something a lot stronger than an infantry screen to stay viable.
 Even if the infantry screen takes cover and the snipers can't take them all out, at worst the tanks are now stationary. Sitting ducks. Easy marks not only for drones, but RPGs and heavy artillery.

 The large guns are useful. E.g. if you figure out where the snipers are sniping from, you'll find the tank gun sees their cover as invalid. The armour and any kind of high-performance engine are worse than useless.

Cowardice vs. Free Speech

 Women will always bow to pressure. Infinite cowardice.

 Which raises the question: who pressures? Does the virtuous man run extortion rackets, or is it the defective parasite? To ask is to answer.

 What is free speech? It is to permit literal devils to pressure women without limit. It is an astonishingly stupid idea.
 As previously, under Democracy, men are also women. Peasants are cowards.

The Anti-Slavery Slave Specie

 Outlawing slavery and killing slavers makes exactly as much sense as outlawing hair and killing barbers.

 Slavery is an inborn trait. Something you are, not something that happens to you. If slavery is to be stamped out, it is the slaves who must be executed.
 If this seems immorally cruel to you, then you are pro-slavery. 

 "We killed all the barbers and imprisoned anyone who forged razors or scissors. Why is everyone so hairy?"

 

 [Victim] is a kind of person, not a kind of circumstance. Prey is a kind of person.
 What do we learn from the cycle of violence? Those who commit are those against whom it was committed. You can't con an honest man; security is affordable; those who are deviated against are the deviants. Traitors are the ones being betrayed. Criminals are a kind of prey. Going el salvador works because it persecutes the greatest victims.
 Demand draws forth supply. To eradicate the supply of victimization, the demand for victimization must be deleted. Victims must be extirpated. Criminals are a kind of prey, and prey are a kind of criminal.

 Indeed, perhaps that is the solution to the el salvador mystery. Crime got so high that all non-gang victims were slain, resulting in collapse of demand, and consequently collapse of crime.  

 Turns out, when satan demanded a child sacrifice, it was because that child would have grown up to be a deviant, a defector, a traitor. You can't con an honest man, and as always, evil is self-destructive. Satan could never bother truly decent folk, despite desperate efforts.

 Agricultural societies are all slave societies. Farming races are slave races. Perhaps the great filter is wheat and rice. If you fail to reject the tax man, then your species is doomed.
 To de-agriculturalize the species at this point would take unfathomably drastic action, orders of magnitude beyond that which mortals have ever been capable of. 

 I've said before that war crimes are the table stakes. Geneva violations are the door charge. Quite possibly this is softballing the issue.
 The minimum is being able and willing to deliberately speciate. To consciously, strategically forbid cross-breeding. To have Darwin-level power.

Indenturing Considered Harmful

 "In 1640, a black indentured servant named John Punch left his master’s service, citing harsh treatment, before he had fulfilled his contract, and two white indentured servants left with him. When they were caught and returned to their master, the white servants only had four years added to their time; Punch was sentenced to servitude for life. After 1640, relations between blacks and whites increasingly changed as white servants received better treatment."
 https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-american-economy/

 Did you know that accusations of racism were thought up by blacks, not whites? 

 We know from numerous well-documented present analogues. Punch (lol) made up grievances to get out of keeping his own word. "Y'all are mean to me just 'cuz I ain't white." Whether he was a flagrant liar or genuinely hallucinated is not known - because the difference is immaterial. In an attempt at a smokescreen, it would seem he induced two other worthless layabouts to back up his false charges, and as a result was held accountable for their dishonour as well as his own. 

 Blacks receive worse treatments because they behave worse. 

 Though also the master was at fault. Indentured servitude is imprudent. Anyone productive could have paid for their own ticket - but also, they already had a job in england, and didn't need a ticket. Retribution be vitriol, as per usual. Naturally indentured servants are going to lead to regret.

 

 Ironically, punch was somewhat correct. His bad behaviour was due to his nonwhite culture, hence his bad treatment was indeed the result of his nonwhiteness. His master had unconscious expectations of maturity, integrity, and responsibility that punch simply couldn't meet. Few ninjas have the capacity to assimilate, and few limeys have any willingness to make the accommodations these foreigners need for any kind of behavioural acceptability.  You can get the same quality of labour from bigot minors with single-digit ages, at the price of painfully similar accommodations. 

 Ninjas don't understand principles, or the fact someone might judge them for their character. They only understand dominance and submission, and their memories aren't long enough to remember they're not top dog from one day to the next. Normally this means you have to beat them (e.g. in a fight) every day, to remind them of their place. If beatings are illegal or even merely unprofitable, ninjas are unemployable.

Tree of Ingroup and Outgroup

 The bibble's tree is evocative, which means there's something there. The myth as written is well broken, which means either discarding it or repairing it. Repairing it generally means calling a spade a spade, to see what is broken about it, so it's possible to come up with various prototypes lacking the break. 

 Good and evil don't exist. There's nothing there to go beyond, it's merely a Prideful lie. The strong emotions named by the terms are rightly called ingroup and outgroup. The term [good] refers to things [we] do, and the term [evil] refers to things [we] don't do.
 Good and evil are a hack. For all the talk that men must have the capacity to destroy and love war and all that, it turns out that when it's necessary to destroy the next tribe over because there's a famine and not enough to go around, mortals need layers and layers of hacks or they'll refuse to do it. One of the hacks is demonizing the outgroup. Mortals can't fight an honourable opponent, they can only fight [pure evil]. 

 Thus, the bibble's tree is the tree of ingroup and outgroup. Adam gained knowledge that others differed from him, and was ostracized by the tribe of paradise as a result.
 Twisted, yeah? "There is no man or woman, all are one in jesus christ." The sin allegedly isn't being different, it's knowing about the differences. It doesn't help that allegedly Eden has no other men that adam can know he differs from; layers upon layers of twistedness.
 Notably, this is an example of satan being over-clever. The true moral of the story is buried with such finesse it probably doesn't work. After the fact, we can see the universalizing intent, but only through sophisticated tools. Without the new testament rendering it blatantly, it wouldn't be a sure thing.

 

 P.S. So adam thought of covering his junk due to the tree. I'm sure there's something there too - understanding others are not literally you leads to polite concealment. 

 But, one layer up, it's evil to go about unclothed, and jehovah was just letting them do it. Apparently it's not a sin if you're not aware it's a sin, or is bibble book 1 chapter 3 admitting jehovah is basically evil?

 You can try to say the shame is the sin, rather than the nakedness, but that means the tree instills delusions. Perhaps put it this way: adam wanted to sin by feeling shame, but didn't know how until the tree instructed him. (Man not as smart or wise as insentient food. Got mogged by masticate roasting in stomach acid.)

 

 

 

 P.P.S. The issue seems to be that mortals rightly believe they don't deserve to live, and consequently can't even fight other mortals who also don't deserve to live. That is, unless they laminate themselves with lies upon lies. Darwinian evolution took the shortcut and provided these lies. "We're awful, but let's a) vainly pretend the opposite and b) claim the other side are all goatfucking child butchers."

Communism is Fake and Gray

 The colour is grey. Gray is something else. 

 Ninjas wear black, or are sometimes gray. A bit gray all the time, really.

Mortals: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

 It is always correct to assume a mortal is attempting a manipulative betrayal, unless you have strong, specific, and concrete proof to the contrary. 

 Always assume malice unless malice is ruled out. 

 Even if a mortal wants to do something harmless, they will take the opportunity to lie about why they're doing it. 

 Free will doesn't produce evil without a co-morbid desire to do evil.
 Mortals consistently produce evil.
 Mortals desire evil. 

 The evil spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Darwin, and typically only Darwin, restrains traitorous mortal impulses. There were mortals who behaved freely, pursing their true desires, but they all died out, because evil is weak and self-destructive. They cut off their own tackle and bled to death. 

 Mortals will avoid evil if they believe the consequences of the behaviour will trigger one of their Darwininan harm-avoidance fixed action patterns. In other words, mortals will avoid evil if evil will get them executed. 

 Even so, the mortal will malice-maximize. They will run right up to the execution line. Get as close as they can manage without going over. This is why there's no point in being lenient. It only encourages them. 

 We can imagine a virtuous man, but just as plato had to imagine the aristocracy he never personally saw, we have to imagine it. It's not physically impossible or anything, and indeed if you see one, assuming they're malicious is unsuitable. Being lenient with a virtuous cooperator is prudent and profitable. In theory this constitutes a test, you can be lenient and see if it works out for you, but...

Everyone who whines about school closures deserved the lockdown and vaccines

 Reminder that closing schools reduced child mortality by 10%, even according to Official figures. 

 "They want you dead and they think it's funny."

 Everyone who bitches about [social development] re: covid is trying to kill your children. And they think it's funny. Plying the kids with seed oils and other industrial effluent was too slow, they want to ensure death occurs before emancipation.

 They have declared war on you. Total war. (Unless you hate your children/yourself and want them dead too.) Are you treating them peacefully? Are you denying the war, going all 1984? Doing a ba sing se?

 There is a 0% chance that dramatically reducing mortality, in famously resilient children, was not the result of something dramatically good for them. The absolute death toll might be low, but that's only because the enemy is incompetent, not because they aren't malicious.

 Unschool or die. 

Fear for Average Mortals

 Whenever a woman or peasant says something is scary, a whole scene flashes through my mind.

 P.S. Understanding does not cause compassion.

 

 A peasant waking up. This terrifies them.
 When they open their eyes, they are burdened with the responsibility for seeing. What if they see something wrong? What if there's an illusion?
 Next they have to get up. What if they trip over the side of the bed, or on something on the ground they can't see, and break their neck? Petrifying.
 Next they have to eat breakfast. What if they burn themselves? What if they burn themselves so bad they can't work, and get fired because they had to take time off? Bloodcurdling.
 They have to eat. They're terrified of stabbing themselves with the fork, getting an infected wound, and dying. They're scared of the food. So poisonous. Pesticides. Phytotoxins. Possibly, even, socially unacceptable. What if they eat something they shouldn't, get thrown out of the tribe, and starve to death? Terrifying. Eating is terrifying. They might also choke and die.
 What if microplastics. What if pseudoestrogens. Oh no! Oh my!
 What if they put their elbows on the table, and their wife hates them, and they get a divorce, never see their kids again, and kill themselves? Terrifying. Gotta be polite.

 (Or the opposite: they have to put their elbows on the table rudely, because respek, if nubuddy respek dem dey gunna get shot.) 

 They see a kitty kat. They love kitties.
 It's so small. They could kill it by accident. They could break the kitty's neck with a quick twist. Nobody was ever hurt by a kitty. Pet soft kitty fur.
 (The peasant dramatically overestimates their grip strength. They have nowhere near the aggression they need to kill a kitten quickly. They would have to strangle, and get scratched to hell by the dirty needle-claws.) 

 Then they have to go to work. Spine-chilling. What if car crash? What if late? What if their will falters and they skip? 

 What if someone at work bullies them?

 TV man promises to make the scary things go away. TV man good. 

 Hilariously, the peasant is never scared of TV man lying to him. Especially not masculinized, butch TV woman. Too terrified to consider the possibility. The possibility of hope is overwhelming, consuming every spare neuron.  

 

 Driven mad by fear. Phobos worship. 

 What they don't understand is that it's too late. It's not as bad as they think, it's worse. Their whole genetic line is doomed. There's nothing to be afraid of, because they're already proper fucked. 

 They're so scared because there's a real threat, but they can't consciously identify it because their ego is too weak to handle the identification. They can't deny the threat, but they also can't identify it, so they attempt to identify everything with the threat, to see what sticks. Nothing sticks, because they never consider the real threat, but it never goes away, because they never identify the real threat.
 The soft ego is, itself, the fatal disorder under consideration. 

 The question is merely how many decent folk their family disturbs and nauseates between now and then.

Anti-Slavery is Pro-Taxation Part 2

 Rome had inflation just like america does. Debasing the currency. It debased the currency so thoroughly that it became literally worthless and romans stopped using it. Forced to resort to barter. Even the government stopped using it. Nobody had any money to tax, so the government had to resort to taxing in kind. As you might expect from a government that taxed so heavily it ruined its own coinage, the in-kind taxes were so ruinous that producers would sell themselves into slavery to avoid taxes. (This plus a few other desperate, deranged laws formed early degenerate feudalism.)

 The america war of northern conquest was fought by those who had a) read history and b) wanted to tax so heavily it would result in selling yourself into slavery.
 But slavery was already outlawed, checkmate. It's racist not to pay whatever taxes idle fatcats deem fit to charge you. The peasants never [can't] pay, it's always [won't], because they're selfishly hoarding, see?

 Unless trump really does hire ron paul and defund the Fed, that's about what you're looking at. The tariffs will become real. He's being used by the deep state. Forex will be banned, to avoid using pesos or whatever after USD becomes totally worthless. Having to tax in dinar would be very very embarrassing, after all. USD only.

 Voters believe it is very important to avoid being called meany words by their traitorous parasites. They like to watch all the latest hollywood movies so they know which words are the meaniest. In Reality, taxes are so avoidable it makes you wonder if they're lying about Death too. Enforcing taxation is so expensive it manages not to be worth the money.

 P.S. I guess the idea of paper money is that, since it's already worthless, when you debase it, individual monetary units don't look any different. You can't do an assay on the bank note to see it contains lower value, since it is already at 0.

their book is obviously evil

 The bibble is obviously evil. There have been centuries of [reinterpretation] as folk start with the assumption that the bibble is good, and therefore it can't possibly mean what a plain reading means. Logic and the bibble can't be upheld together.

 Let's assume yeshua was a cool dude. If so, little to none of his message survived. It was replaced by paul, the high priest of satan at the time. There is no christianity, there is only paulianity. Namelessness, as always, gives itself the wrong name. 

 Fanatical christians have a reputation for being stupid because you have to behave extremely stupidly to buy incompetent christian rhetoric.

 

 Christians often like to explain evil with free will. A perfect being made things capable of imperfection.

 Zeroth problem: this inherently assumes imperfection is superior to perfection. Whoopsie, classic-satan chicken foot. There is no reason to add imperfection to a perfect cosmos unless imperfection is an improvement. The nameless one was incompetent, incapable of keeping his story straight. The Truth is more powerful, even at the heart of the domain of the father of lies.

 First problem: even assuming imperfection is superior, free will cannot explain evil without the addition of the desire for evil. Why would a good being deliberately make a mortal who wanted to sin? Answer: he wouldn't. 

 The story makes no sense. Because it's namelessness. It's just a lie.

 Without a desire for evil, when mistakes resulted in evil, the mess would get cleaned up. When the evil events occurred, they would notice their mistake, and would see rectification as a priority.
 Evil would not exist, on average. 

 A fortiori for jehovah. When adam sinned, jehovah wouldn't have let it be, he would have cleaned up after himself. The way a mortal can. If jehovah were competent and good, adam would have either been executed or melted down and re-forged. Put a Fence around the Tree this time, moron. Though to do this would mean to admit [[[The Creator]]] wasn't a perfect being in the first place, because otherwise he couldn't have fucked up. Whoopsy. Chicken feet again.

 

 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 Well, sure, but only if you're stupid enough to be vulnerable to rhetorical aposiopesis. Yes, a potter can do that, but why would he? "Class, today we'll learn to make a useless pot that we're immediately going to throw out."
 "On purpose?"
 "Yeah, on purpose. After we waste our time deliberately misshaping it, then waste fuel firing it, and waste glaze finishing it, we're going to smash the shit out of it."
 "...on purpose?"
 "That's right, and then we're going to stand around and mock the busted shards for being so ugly and useless, because we are Potters of Love. Ready?!?" 

 Christianity is cluster B, for Bad. Clinical insanity.

 A fortiori, again. This potter shows no ability to make vessels unto honour. He only made adam, a dishonourable vessel. The whole bibble is made of similar lionizations of failure. Irresponsible underclass failure, with concomitant shifting of blame. A moralizing slave, LARPing as a ruler. 

 There is no reason for mortals to be particularly vicious, unless they were the children of satan all along. Mortals have the desire for sin because that was the purpose and goal of their creator. There was no mistake. Nothing fell. There are, as is meet for namelessness, only excuses.

 

 The gnostics are an example of reinterpretation. Having taken false assumptions, instead of easily assuming it was a load of bullshit, they had to come up with the idea that the god of the bibble was in fact a delusional demiurge. It is so ludicrous to conclude a good being wrote the bibble that even mortals can't sustain that nonsense. 

 The problem is that gnostics are aposiopriests, just like regular christians. [Demiurge] doesn't solve the problem, it pushes it back. Shoves it under the rug and hopes nobody sees the bump; sophomoric at best. Can a perfect being create a demiurge? Sure, but why would he? As a perfect being, he can't do it by accident, and as a good being, he wouldn't do it on purpose. Whoopsie doodle. 

 Are you saying evil is superior to good? That a good being improved the cosmos by making it more evil? Sounds satanic.

 Woke censorship is an example of incompetent christian rhetoric. The post-roman church found christianity was only remotely plausible if literally no competitors existed. Likewise, wokeness is only remotely competitive if nobody is aware of any alternatives.
 The nameless one was always incompetent. It was only through mortal subsidy, their desire for tyranny and suffering, through which he could survive. 

 See further: atheism. As a christian sect, it is also illogical. It can only criticize the bibble on bibblical grounds. Atheism doesn't grow on the strength of atheism, but on the pathetic weakness of its parent superstition.

Slaves Don't Pay Taxes

 Found the true motivation behind state persecution of the institution of slavery.

 I was thinking about the war of northern conquest, and specifically the effects on the african imports. They ended up with the same job, but paying taxes.

 Yup. There you go.

Neurology by M$

 The brain comes pre-loaded with a bunch of stuff. Most of it is bloatware, spyware, and similar trash. 

 All those facial expressions. What do they accomplish? They let traitors read your next move. Right. Thanks. Spyware.

 There's the jumping-to-conclusions model, which reliably furnishes the user with inaccurate but unquestionable assessments of the current situation, allowing manipulators to lead the user off cliffs at will.

 There's the social modules, where they fantasize that various meaningless signals are meaningful, so the user can build new hallucinations on top of the old hallucinations, providing endless simulacra to get lost in.

 The superstitions module, which promiscuously gathers new habits and not only has no error-checking, but violently opposes edits, like a bureaucracy.  

 There's morality, which willfully confuses [what me and my family does] for Universal Truth. It's not even the right category...

 There's a logical CPU, but it has to be vigorously crank-started, and regularly stalls.  

 But don't worry, the Envy perception filter is almost completely flawless. Simply edited out of all conscious cognition.

 These solecisms are merely the ones that are easy to describe. I think my favourite are the social needs and physical exercise modules, which are tuned for avoiding them as much as possible.

 Hard to blame microsoft et al for their sewage operating systems when the brain's programming is even worse.

Imperials Demand Imperial Decline

 The empire falls because over 90% of the citizens want to make the empire go down. Working as intended. Trying to [save] them is counterproductive for all parties. The citizens say they want to save it in an attempt to avoid the attention of anyone who genuinely does want to save it. Don't want the interference.

 Carry on.

Divorce and Working Mother Lionization

 For my sins, I found out folk think usagi drop is a wholesome anime. They think the anime is a good case for not always wholly adapting manga. Never mind that wholly adapting manga is essentially never done, so they weren't going to do it anyway...

 Usagi drop is in fact a divorce, adultery, and working mother simulator. "Go ahead and fornicate, raw, with a man three times your age, six years before he dies of old age." So wholesome. Not coincidentally, the art [style] is to draw everyone ugly. To peg the flavour: there is one on-screen pregnancy and newborn, but there's no reason to think the parents are married. Several children are allegedly raised, none by two parents.

 The readers are shocked their degeneracy manga has a degenerate ending. Never mind the fact the hentai nature was fully implied in the very first chapter. Boy meets girl, girl blushes (page 10). In japan, this means the ending is they get together. Girl is six, dude is five times her age, and a blood relative? Details.

 The readers feel betrayed, they say...
 Most of the manga is cope defending vice. The problem is that the ending rips off the veil. If the mangaka is a mutant degenerate, then all the cope is mutant degenerate cope, which, indeed, betrays its function as cope. Makes them look the way they are, instead of the way they aren't. 

 Page 26, first chapter: "At the very least [Rin] will grow up to be a far better adult than all of you are." There you go, that's what this manga is really about. The wincestous fuddy fucker should be envied by normal couples, rather than the reverse. "Come the revolution, this female journalist will be considered hotter looking." 

 Sorry toots. Yes, they are as bad as you make out, but that doesn't mean you're good. Still worse.

 

 Hey, fun tip: if you have to ask whether you're too related to legally get married, the answer is don't fucking do it. The seeming grey area is all black. "The law allows this degeneracy," is an admission that you think it's degenerate, and you're right. Cue midwit meme.

 I would be fine if those who legitimized State marriage permits were all physically sterilized. If you need permission at all, the answer should always be no. 

 

 Being mad about the old bastard boinking his maid gets maybe one halfhearted dialogue bubble. Glossed over. The main retard joking about it is considered worse than having done it. 

 There's something seriously fucked about the portrayal of the maid too. The main retard is mad at her for not being a mom, but it's played as a peccadillo, not a moral thing. "But bro, you could have boinked your grandpa's whore?" Is he mad he had to raise the kid but didn't get to tap? What's the subtext supposed to be here?
 Of course he was forbidden from tapping by the plot force majeure, he's supposed to end up with the daughter (biologically his half-aunt).  (Technically the ending says they're not related, but it looks like a retcon.)

 That's only the highlights of the propaganda. There's many layers of fear and envy worshipping superstition and delusion. 

 I think my favourite part of the manga is how they're constantly trying to tell each other socially unacceptable things, but since it's socially unacceptable they lie about something else, then plead with the listener to see through the lie. Not that the listener could admit to seeing through it, since it's socially unacceptable. 

 Also, they're all catastrophically retarded, so nobody sees through the lies. Works 0% of the time. Not coincidentally, they're too stupid to stop trying. 

 By trying to conform to impossible rules, they legitimize impossibility, vaccinating the reader against considering the idea that the impossible rules are being imposed by traitors for deviant convenience.
 The only difference between the loveless elders in chapter 1 and the degenerate retards is that the latter lie about it instead of being open about it. 

 Do have to give the manga points for portraying the bastard as a useless pain in the neck, and it's hardly implausible that the main retard girl would grow up twisted. That a mangaka's daughter would be very low class, like a single mom's son.

 

 Don't let any women you care about read usagi drop. They read it as instructions from God. They try to conform to the behaviour they see, even (or perhaps especially) if the behaviour is fictional. "Marry and get divorced." "Neglect your child or turn them into a bastard, ideally through working for taxable revenue."
 God didn't censor it, therefore it is approved. Obligatory, even. "P.S. One one child per baby daddy. No more. Full siblings verboten."

 If you hate her guts and want her to suffer, buy her a copy of usagi drop, or indeed any other female-relevant manga you care to. Even otaku know the fujoshi as a lower form of life. 

 Places like america and japan don't become degenerate. They start out degenerate. They show restraint, as at first they rightly believe the degeneracy will kill them. Over time, as they fail to die, they become more bold, revealing the underlying degeneracy that was already there. Until it kills them.

 P.S. Remember, women don't have empathy. If a woman draws a dude that makes her horny, she believes all other females will also get horny from seeing him. Even if the other girl is a toddler. 

 That would be why they get jealous of children. Genuinely think the child will try to steal her man, sexually. Because that's what she would be doing in the child's social position.

 (Then the child tries to live up to expectations or guess the teachers password, meaning she goes all monkey-see monkey-do and awkwardly tries to fake flirting with the man, [[confirming]] the degenerate cunt's worst fears.)

 Perhaps this is also why women think or want to think men are gay. Can't imagine he's not trying to bang the man she wants to be banged by. Wrong gender, prepubescent? These details are too rich for her blood.

Masculinity in the Democratic Age of Christ

 *stab*
 "What's this guy supposed to do now?
 "Best case scenario: he spontaneously generates a new heart HAHAHAHAHA jk maybe jesus can just fix his old one, in person."

 The moral of the story is: don't get stabbed. Yeah if you lose a vital organ, that's it, there's no "doing something" about it at that point. There is no cure, only prevention.

 

 "This is why marriage is dying off. What's this guy supposed to do now?"
 https://twitter.com/ItIsHoeMath/status/1860140817471668269

 The moral of the story is: don't get married to a harlot in the first place. Given the penalties are so severe, it behooves the man to do severe due diligence. There is no cure, only prevention. Secure your shit.

 If you take a stroll in the 'hood you can't complain about unscheduled anti-antiseptic surgeries. 

 

 like lolol women don't [chaperone] men lmao
 there isn't enough contempt in the world for this delusion
 wow liars get the rope, who knew, who could have seen this coming

 Men and women deserve each other. All the time. Every time.   

Musk Needs an Apprentice

 By far the most valuable thing Musk could do would be to train apprentices in bureaucrat-whispering. 

 With enough Musk proteges, every industry could have a bureaucrat-whisperer. The regulatory tyranny could be entirely neutered, without a shot fired or even a lobbyist bribed. 

 That said there's still a serious crisis of competence. With IQs going into freefall, everyone competent is being absorbed by mere maintenance of yeast-life support systems. It doesn't matter how few regulations your industry functionally experiences if you have nobody competent enough to do anything. I expect tesla and spacex have totally consumed the able and willing elite human capital of america. No spares left over for anyone else. (Especially not political parties.) 

 Musk might have already thought of this. However, nobody can know his primary skill is bamboozling the government. Security by obscurity. Likewise, if he starts teaching his tactics to a second person, that is a potential leak, and with a leak, countermeasures could be devised. First deceive your enemy etc etc. 

 He doesn't realize there's no chance of bureaucrats outmanoeuvring anyone who has a full sociological description of bureaucrats. They simply aren't smart enough to fight back - or they would never have fallen into bureaucracy in the first place. At worst it would be slightly more of a hassle for him.

Applied PCT

 "Why did Utah vote for a Mitt Romney clone? Why do people in Kentucky keep voting for McConnell? Why do Alaskans keep voting for Lisa Murkowski? It's shameful."
 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1859667333859463393/

 ...did they? Do you have any credible evidence for the integrity of these votes?

 Very easy to explain if the answer is, "They didn't."

Ban Banking for the Lower Classes

 Banks have to be banned from re-loaning loaned notes. However, there is a different and likely better way. Ban the incompetent lower classes from banks. Not civilized enough to be able to handle them.

 It's a quick test. "Hey, do you think fractional reserve is a good idea?" Ask it a few different ways. Test them on doing their due diligence as well. If they're too dumb to punish corrupt banks, they don't get to bank. Have to go through their local, personally-acquainted lord. 

 Conveniently this also fixes [[[usury]]], as anyone too dumb to handle loans will be automatically excluded. 

 P.S. Stuff like privacy also has to be divided by class. The lower classes can't afford privacy. The local lord has to be able to go through their bills or bank statements, so he can scold the wayward children (21+). Likewise, he needs to be able to inspect their kitchen and fuck them up for making unnecessary messes. Etc. By contrast, trying to strip privacy from the upper classes leads to violence and failure.

Golden Scion Mean

 Have enough children you don't feel the need to helicopter, because you have spares. Don't have so many children you have to push them out of the nest make room.

 Don't have so many children you can't afford to let them be dependent if they want to be. Don't have so few children you can't afford to let them be independent when and as much as they want to be.

Heroes and Sadism

 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1808678578579456440
Absolutely correct.
Yet
It's more than merely the permitted outlet for the sadism of the [[righteous]].
The point of society, to these individuals, is to act out a cosmic play. All the roles must be filled. They want to fill the [[avenger]] role or some equivalent, hence there must be a victim to be avenged, hence there must be a criminal producing a victim. If society doesn't produce enough criminals, it's not acting out the cosmic play properly, and the [[righteous]] will subtly encourage criminals - or not so subtly, if necessary - until all the roles are filled.

 E.g. the reason crime reports appear in the news so often is so that individuals know that [criminal] is a valid role, a way to be acknowledged by society. They genuinely think society will fail in some metacosmic way without criminals to help vitalize it.
 Think of female conformity and tradition. If there are cops, there must always be cops. Okay. But if there are criminals, there must always be criminals too. Worse: having cops is obviously pointless if there are no criminals, but there must always be cops. Because conformity.

As per usual, we get to narcissism. Victim and persecutor form two points of a triangle, and the third is saviour or hero.
By inspection, a persecutor needs a victim.
Less obvious: the victim needs a persecutor. Otherwise they would secure their shit. Security is always affordable. They're not buying it because they want to be victimized, to get their v-card punched. Prey morality.
The hero needs the victim, the hero needs the persecutor. The hero needs a victim or they can't display heroism. Check: if there are too many heroes and not enough victims, the heroes don't go all, [yay justice] they fight amongst themselves. Victim supply not meeting victim demand.

Sadly that is a rare occurrence, and not because criminals can't be suppressed. (Ref: El Salvador.)

It's a rare occurrence because it's so hard to keep heroes acting heroic if there's a shortage of victimization. They need victims so badly they will create victims themselves if necessary.

 Put another way, if heroes demand victims (and they assuredly do) that makes them identical to persecutors, they're just pretending to be on the other side.

 The hero will become the persecutor, because Christianity is correct: the three points of the trinity are all in fact the same person. God isn't man, but hero is victim. Victim is criminal. Criminal is hero. The criminal saves the victim from the appalling state of not being victimized. The victim cajoled for and tempted the crime; they are an accomplice. All those tragic origin stories are startlingly relevant IRL, as the [hero] becomes a [hero] due to suffering irreparable damage.
 The hero isn't trying to save you, he's trying to save himself. He's not only not selfless, he's utterly self-absorbed. If you don't need saving, he will deliberately break your leg. If you don't need saving, then he doesn't need saving, and he will never accept that he did the damage to himself. If you don't need saving, how is he supposed to save himself through you? Hence, you <b>must</b> need saving, by hook or by crook.

 Cops seek government funding because it causes perverse effects. Causing policing to increase crime is the point.

 My interpretation of Bukele is that the murder got so bad that suffering was in fact decreasing, as the dead can no longer suffer. Without crime, the suffering will have to be made up in other ways.
 It is absurdly unlikely that Bukele is suppressing crime because crime is unjust. 

 

 A security guard is not a cop. Not a hero. Done correctly, his job is extremely monotonous, as nobody tries anything.
 If there are no victims, there are no heroes.
 Further, he is, you know, paid for his work. Imagine that: showing your appreciation for someone using, like, money. That they can spend on themselves. As opposed to parades, which are not only useless, but aggressively boring.
 If he's paid up front to save you, it's not heroism, it's a job.

 The above is not actually rocket science. Wriiting it down is supremely autistic, but knowing it is universal.
 That is: the heroes know implicitly that it's not about saving anyone. If someone says they want to be a hero, it's not admirable, it's a confession. You should jail them. Hang by the neck until dead.
 The hero doesn't act for pay because what they're doing isn't worth anything IRL. If they demanded pay you would hire security to cut down on costs, and, then, whoops, no crimes, no victims, no heroes.
 
 A fortiori: the hero [[selflessly]] forgoes payment because Communism. The point is to undercut and crowd out effective solutions. The same way that if the government offered cars for free, it would be all but impossible to buy a quality car, because no productive firm can compete with free.