Secret of Anglophone Empire: Child Abuse

  Englishmen are first in the world in regards to abusing their children. First in traitorous atrocity. It's at least hundreds of years old, being nothing more or less than english tradition at this point. The conservative position is torturing your own children until they break like dropped china.
 
 Abused children develop a pathological need for control. The more abused, the more obsessed they are with control; the more they're convinced that anyone with power over them will use it - can only use it - to torture them. They centre their entire lives around making a repeat of that abuse impossible, by being the ones with power.

 Thus, the english empire. The english children wanted it the most.
 "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - english thoughts coming out of an italian mouth.
 Nobody in england would be so gauche as to have to state it out loud, after all. Taken for granted. There isn't anyone who doesn't already know.  

 

 American war of insurrection? Black government power can't be used for anything other than abuse, hence, !!freedom!! Except of course, as with most abused children, there's no third position. There's only dominance and submission. Only the conqueror and the conquered. Perpetrator and victim.
 China is [trading] with america - so trump has to make sure america is the trade perpetrator, not the trade victim. It can't simply be trade. Due to the fact america is like this, china has to either ghost america or fight to be the perpetrator, rather than the victim. America's hallucinations become self-fulfilling prophecies.

 Racism: getting along is impossible. The options are segregration, dominance, and slavery. Abused children don't believe in segregation. You don't practice segregation in keeping mom and child apart. Hence, one race must be the master, and the other, the slave. No other options. The novelty here lies in thinking the slave position is the better option.

Matriarchy Creates Hot Thots

 In theory if all the men are coring all the women, then the men invest in all the children. Equally, at that. How Egalitarian.

 In practice, yes, they do invest in all children equally - equally the very bare minimum. Womanthink: "He doesn't know it's not his, he might as well pay in!" Realthink: "I know it's probably not mine, why would I bother?" Maybe the thots can guilt-trip them into providing food without individual sexual favours. Maybe. Provided the drug-fuelled orgies are suitably frequent. More likely he hunts more than he can eat anyway, so he may as well share before it rots. Likewise any sexual favours related to defence in tribal warfare is superfluous. Other than the bare minimum, everything a thot wants will have to be traded for, and she only has one thing a man can't do for himself, but better. 

 The women all know which children are theirs, and will sneakily try to advantage them. Meaning the darling son gets to watch his mother sexually persuade all his mentors to pretend to care about him. Even if a man were inclined to mentor freely, why wouldn't he withhold resources without sex up front?

 To start with, we can be sure there's an upper leisure class that doesn't have to hunt. The pretty bois getting shared around by the girls. The thots boink lesser boys for the privilege of being first to give a hottie his dinner. The girls are softly hareming themselves, and not only that, competing for the biggest load of the day.

 They also have to keep any particular strong or particularly charismatic* men completely satisfied at all times, or he will lead an uprising and forcibly convert the tribe to patriarchy. *(Manipulative, scheming, sneaky.)

 The rest, obviously the women will only use if they absolutely have to. And they absolutely have to, because it's not like the upper class is going to do any work. Why buy a cow when you get milk for free?

 Naturally, the hottest thots won't have to trade as much sex per unit of industry. Maybe some of the pretty bois even compete for her favour. I.e. get off their ass once in a while. The result of matriarchy is savagely vicious intrafemale competition.  

 

 Egalitarianism is matriarchy, matriarchy is Egalitarianism, and it's not particularly equal. Notably Fascism is fakeriarchy. Matriarchy for the lower classes, secret patriarchy at the top. Meaning even the king can't have a hot wife, lest anyone realize he's the king...

 

 "Want some of the seashell beads? Just hook up the beadmaker like I did lol." "He likes short hair lmao." By the time the lower ranks have floozied their way into having enough beads, they don't have time to equip their pretiboi with a spear. The guy demands so much tail from lesser women he barely has time to grind. If nobody lays with the beadmaker there will be no beads at all to ""share"" so have fun with that.

 Even if they really did have perfectly Egalitarian orgies regardless of how dumb, ugly, or lazy the men in question, in extremis the ugly bitches are getting left behind first. There are no atheists in foxholes and no matriarchs in a famine. If a man can simply switch his hole to a different one, he's not going to work very hard to protect any particular woman, any more than he will to protect some random kid. By making everything ""equal"" the women have made everything equally meaningless. A big undifferentiated mass. As previously, you can afford to dump some of the women; it merely means less infanticide than usual. If the biggest town thug beat some homely slag to death for fun, would anyone care? "Hit the pretty ones too if you like, just don't touch the face!" Who is going to stop him? A seriously unequal situation for lesser men, but, who cares, had sex, right?

 Matriarchy, for women, is a desperate fight for survival. When the inevitable turnaround rounds about...the Revolution you might say...the smart chicks teach their daughters to treasure the patriarchy. "Darling, honey...you don't want to go back. Marriage is wonderful." It's only men, specifically the tippy toppest men, who enjoy matriarchy and agitate for feminism. Cowed patriarch'd women do what they're told. These men agitate once soyciety is rich enough that it seems it won't instantly collapse. Or so doomed it doesn't matter. 

 

 Based on how women today act, I would say, near 100%, ergaster was matriarchal. You can see the implications, yes? A woman sometimes wants to [cook] for her man, if he's hot...yeah where do you think she got the food...hmmm....

 The killer app that made either erectus or sapiens was patriarchy. The women are still adapted to matriarchy, because patriarchy, the land of dowdy women, justice, and cooperation, doesn't particularly select for women's preferences. Though, as we can see, they should have. In sapiens, the ancient matriarchal habits awaken in situations of adultery, and of course prostitution. 

 After millions of years, homos were tired of women's shit and rocked them until they sat down and shut up. Men either immediately invented throwing to keep other men in line, or got fired up for owning things and immediately mastered fire. Selfishness wins again. 

 

 Being explicit: women get weak because they can afford to. They can pay for things with pregnancy, because they're not too cheap to meter like sperm. Thus, in a soycial species with conscious deliberation, they rapidly become only able to pay for things with sex. Of necessity, men become superior in every other way. 

 Note that barren women are of no value to anyone. At best, grandmothers can help their daughters choose who to bang and how much. Thus, in the modern world, with the pill, women have sex but their body gets signals indicating they're barren, and... 

 Let's also mention, up front, how the men who could reasonably know a child was his was least likely to have to pay for anything. If son's mom gets naggy he can bang the next girl over until she gets over it. The difference between matriachy and patriarchy: under one, women volunteer to be worthless servants, and under the other, a woman is forced to be a worthless servant so a man has a reason to care about her anyway. 

 I expect neanderthal was instead instructed in patriarchy by their harsh icy environment. As a result their (ugly) women didn't have ancestral blood memory of violent oppression. They never lived rich enough lives that women could afford to sit around and natter between bed rest sessions; the women had to contribute too, thus learned the value of private property.

 We've worked out why mortal women have hidden estrus. Under matriarchy, the dudes wouldn't do any work at all except when chicks were in heat. Thus, women had to be in heat ~all the time, and if that means an immense amount of infanticide, whelp. Thank the matriarchy. Hail Egalitarianism. The heavens grant us sylphium or the pill. Mammals have been all about getting mom's kids killed in job lots for 66 million years, ever since their purpose in life was to feed snakes and spiders.
 Menstruation has to be hidden by taboo or the guys will work out their cycle. Perhaps even menstrual synchronization is less about synchronization but more about throwing guys off the scent by changing the cycle. Frenemy shifting as deliberately incentivizing the women to change housing/bunking arrangements to fog things up. So the men aren't quite so lazy. 

 But hey, the absurdly intense zero-sum competition at least makes the top thots super hot. And everyone has a shot at her. 

 Some sapiens tribes, especially late-stage black governments, revert to matriarchy. When the patriarchs, who get to keep the shit they take, come and take all the matriarchy's shit, they also take their highly selected women. (And the ugly hoes all bite it as usual. Probably raped to death. Thanks matriarchy!) Giant influx of superstimuli. Vicious, demonic women who let all their responsible or farsighted men fall away. Now all your daughters are latent time bombs, and the less said about grandsons, the better.
 Miscegenation: just don't it. 

 Predictive history has some claims about how matriarchy is heavenly...kek. Lol. "Everyone can be an artist." Every 1% can be an artist, yes. The 99% runt lineages created by farming, however...
 In other news, the video here. https://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2025/10/your-should-be-studying-female.html
 Not wrong, per se, but not nearly IQ-y enough to get a full picture. Narrow vision.

Classes, Communication in Marriage, and Gene Turbulence

 

 Commoners are so inept they need their lord to micromanage their sexual relationships. This is where you get rigid cultural norms detailing every aspect of things like marriage. The local lord gets tired of hearing about how easy or difficult it is for every bloke to get it up. 

 "Speaking broadly here ofc but men are notorious for being clueless and thinking things are fine, going with the flow, etc, in marriages. And women are notorious for being ineffective at communicating *in terms men understand* when they're frustrated or unhappy"
 https://xcancel.com/st_louis_stan/status/1982531322599055446

 Since commoners are nonverbal, obviously they can't speak to their spouse. The lord has to do both the hearing and speaking for them. """marriage counselling""' Unless everything is decided already and there's nothing to talk about. Don't like the standard arrangement? Try being a nun. Or a tramp, I suppose. The lord is already underpaid. Don't expect bespoke artisanal marriage arrangements. Not that a commoner can read what I just wrote or adjust their expectations if they could.

 The upper classes' ability to speak to one another both makes the rules unnecessary and makes them immune. However, nobody has tried being honest about the chasm between the classes. Officially the uppers also have to pretend. They get tired of it, then break the rules for everyone. Conveniently the normies like being oppressed and tormented, and having all their marriages shattered for no reason is right up their alley. Otherwise you would find soyciety is run for the upper classes, whether you want it to be or not. What they want, they get. Everyone who might object, doesn't count.

 Depressing commoner fertility is highly eugenic. What they want and what's good for them and for society is all the same thing. Having strong marriage norms was dysgenic, which is what caused modernity and china in the first place. Ref: Hesiod, iron age. Unbreakable marriages make for good taxpayers in the short term, you see.

 Bonus: there are many more upper-class men than upper-class women. There simply aren't enough marriageable upper-class women to go around. The same thing happens with the roles reversed for working-class women. 

 If there aren't tons of monks, cads, or fatalities, some of the upper men have to marry bimbos. Which means you get bastards even if they happen to be born within wedlock. Plus all the bastards the rakes are mass-producing.

 Refresher: bastards are satanic due to the conflict between upper-class adaptations and lower-class adaptations. E.g. sometimes they're highly competent and nonverbal. E.g. you get charismatic ambitious speakers, who can barely dress themselves, let alone wisely lead anyone else. 

 Meanwhile the bimbos can barely handle being barefoot and pregnant. She gets banished to the kitchen to spare the poor lord her company. He can handle it - simply manipulate her - but why would he bother? She's a mere concubine or haremite, even if she's his only available hole. She notices the other lords' wives aren't like that, and, especially if there are one or two other bimbos in the circle, this causes further problems.

 If you don't send scores of working-class women to the nunneries, they run out of other working-class men to marry. Polygamy aside, criminals and vagrants are their only choice. Apparently there's a niche of women who enthusiastically embrace this option, so clearly there weren't enough women sent to nunneries. Hybristophilia is merely making a virtue of necessity, it turns out.

 Do I have to point out the connection with feminism, or can I take it for granted? Consider the difference in character between wannabe-upper-class feminism and hybristophobic feminism. Follow the money etc etc.

 

 P.S. Reminder: they keep saying killing women reduces the size of the next generation, but this is total crock. Women can have 10+ children, but only need 2 survivors. If you kill half the women, it only means there's twice as much food and space for the women left over and twice as many of their kids survive. If TFR is 1.5, that means one woman can cheerfully take the place of five other women and still be bringing the average up. 

 However, if you kill too many men, nobody is hunting or farming and it doesn't matter how many women you didn't kill, since all of their children starve. See also: the other side's large armies. 

 Men don't protect women out of some Darwinian imperative. It's a status thing. A man wants a pretty woman, therefore another man tries to take the pretty woman merely to spite him (status), therefore hot chicks become loot. If you can guard your loot it shows you're strong, then the other cowardly men don't bother you. If you let the loot fight obviously the result is [it gets looted]. Therefore the loot loses the ability to fight at all, and ugly loot is still loot; it can't rise above being loot, and it's still pseudo-loot. We can imagine a soyciety with monogamous upper classes, middle classes, and polygamous lower classes, but we do have to imagine. Owning treasure is a crime; commoners would never be permitted to keep, mutatis mutandis, more loot than lords.

Mortals vs. Logical Argument

 Arguing with a mortal is foolish at best. Do they even know what words mean? Can they do anything except what their lord or master tells them to do? You can't learn anything from them because they don't know anything, they can't learn anything from you because they're nonverbal, and even if they did learn something they would be unable to act on it.

 Some mortals might rise above, but then they're leftists. They do understand words, but they don't like them. They use fake words, because [fuck you dad]. The leftist evaluates arguments entirely based on what actions it justifies. Who cares if the argument is true, or even makes sense? They may understand some words, but words like [consistency] and [hypocrisy] are beyond them. Why go to all the effort to figure them out? It only restricts what actions they can justify.

 Did you notice how farcical this is? Nobody cares about the justifications, yet they mass-produce justifications anyway. If this isn't a colossal waste of time and effort, it's extremely well hidden. The only thing worse is trying to argue a leftist out of the fake justifications they don't care about or even care to understand.
 
 If you truly dunk on a leftist, utterly laying waste to their argument, their poolitical calculus doesn't change. They pick a new fake justification then do what they were going to do anyway.

 Before you argue with a poolitician, you first have to demand they prove they care about arguments. And you don't have to do that either, because if they cared about logic or the Truth they wouldn't be a poolitician or anywhere near poolitics.

 

 It's worse than a waste of time. When a leftoid spams their justification, they're telling you what they plan to do. If you wish to oppose them, you know where you need to stand and what tools you'll need while you're standing there.

 Argument is not one of the tools. Rhetoric only works when an authority deliberately grants favours to approved kinds of rhetoric. Nothing more than an orthodoxy shit test.

 Rightoids can't defeat leftoids only and solely because they don't want to. Normie sadomasochism. As with the leftoids, the justifications come second. Losing was the point, and if you make it difficult for them to lose, that only means they'll try harder and justify more cleverly until they lose as intended.

 

 Taxation is treason. Normies have declared war on you (and on each other). Declare war on them, or be a cuck. The peace is already suspended, the only question is whether you deliberately enslave yourself or not.

 [[[High-trust]]] is a joke. You're supposed to laugh. The light side is prey. They exist to be scammed and exploited. Being eaten is what they're for. 

Minor: Great Amusment of Moses

 I forgot the name of the habiru. Hopefully that was indeed the name I was looking for... I stumbled upon some prime comedy while I was looking it up.

 "Few people dispute that Moses was a reality in history, whether as an individual or a group of individuals, but there are several perplexing aspects of the man. First, he has an Egyptian name (as do many of his relatives). Second, he seems to spend a large amount of time among a non-Hebrew people, the Midianites, where he marries and seems to learn the Yahweh religion, and some of its cultic practices, from the Midianites." 

 From the horse's mouth: moses was neither genetically nor culturally jewish. Like he was originally named akhenaten or something, and was banished from egypt for some mysterious reason.

 Such strange suppositions. I wonder where they came from? 

 "Exodus claims that a "diverse group of peoples" left Egypt with Moses. Who were these?"

 Truly weird beliefs. I wonder if the account in exodus was deliberately distorted for poolitical reasons, but not competently enough to a) disguise the altered pixels or b) hide the real story from an invested investigator. Like it was done by the god of losers, or suchlike. 

 What an idea. 

 If, for your sins, you are familiar with the modern amarnites, tab over to la wik and ctrl-f amarna. 

The Left vs. Left-less Pendulum

 Proximately your woke videos happened because it was unthinkable to curse out a yale professor when you went.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hk_yhi3-prw

 If university isn't supposed to be safe, then the profs can curse out the students. If the students can't cuss out the professors in return, then they will poolitically agitate to reverse that situation. "Let the low places be raised, and the hills brought down." And lo, it was so. Revolution, one pi, 180 degrees! Now students can refer to professors, to their faces, as coarsely as they like, while the profs have to walk on eggshells.

 Kto kogo. Who, whom.

 There was always a whom. The question is merely who shall have the [doing unto].

 Being explicit: if nobody can curse anyone out, or everyone can curse everyone out, like they're all adults or something outrageous like that, it's stable. You don't get this oscillating pendulum.

 Aside: I would also like to surface the idea of strangers vs. friendlies. If the students are guests of the university then they need to have guest rights and guest obligations. If they are not guests then they can't be strangers. They should live at the university, not for 4 years, but for the foreseeable future. This bizarre play-pretend hybrid is illness.

 

 Likewise, marriage was outlawed because fornication was outlawed. The way to legalize fornication was to destroy the legality of the family. Drugs get outlawed to get around the inability to prosecute drug addicts for crime.  

 

 Ultimately, fornication was outlawed in the first place precisely because such a law is unjust. Students were forbidden from cussing out their profs precisely because unearned respect is unjust. 

 The purpose of these institutions is to farm injustice. They are merely changing the colours of the injustice. Who, whom. 

 Ultimately, Karma has some words to say about this. Which is why universities are failling. Which is why !!america!! is failing.

 

 Ascended aside: p.history draws the connection between bureaucracy and anarcho-tyranny. They attack the law-abiding because criminals are scawwy but attacking either seemingly justify their fake jobs.

 Doesn't draw the connection with irresponsibility and lack of discipline, however. Bureaucracies don't go like this when they have to spend their own money.
 If the market didn't demand injustice, injustice would not be supplied. E.g. students would stop attending bureaucratized universities. I would personally start a [consumer reports]-style magazine to let students know how badly the universities were corrupting themselves, and I would make bank letting them avoid the bad ones.
 Instead, working as intended. The magazine is redundant; the students already know. They merely like the corruption. 

 In a sense, it is true: Revolution is the result of injustice. Except the point isn't to correct the injustice, it's about having a turn, pun intended. "You got to oppress last time! It's my go!"
 In a society, as opposed to a soyciety, you don't get Revolution. That's the purpose of lionizing property rights. No kto, no kogo, no Revolution. If it were legal to try Capitalism for the first time, I would do that instead of the magazine. Or rather, it would be redundant, because personnel is policy. If there were non-negligible demand for justice, it would already be legal, and Capitalism already tried. I would already be living there. 

 Anyone who desires justice doesn't need to convince the mortals to permit it. They only need to convince Karma that they truly desire justice. Rather than doing dumb things like blogging, you should exploit the mortals. They like being exploited anyway. Trade tips on how to hack their intentionally broken systems for your own personal enrichment; either without being caught or without the mortals noticing anything wrong at all.

Minor: Scion's Shadowen

 I mistakenly attributed it to wishsong. The names are still atrocious, but anyway it's the dreams in scion of shannara.

 

Humans wandered the ashen devastation in packs, more animals than men. They rent and tore at each other; they howled and shrieked. Dark shapes flitted among them, shadows that lacked substance yet had eyes of fire. The shadows moved through the humans, joining with them, becoming them, leaving them again. They moved in a dance that was macabre, yet purposeful. The shadows were devouring the humans, he saw. The shadows were feeding on them.

The vision shifted. He saw himself then, a skeletal, ragged beggar facing a cauldron of strange white fire that bubbled and swirled and whispered his name. Vapors lifted from the cauldron and snaked their way down to where he stood, wrapping about him, caressing him as if he were their child. Shadows flitted all about, passing by at first, then entering him as if he were a hollow casing in which they might play as they chose. He could feel their touch; he wanted to scream.



And abruptly Par found himself recalling the dreams that Allanon had sent, the visions of a nightmarish world in which everything was blackened and withered and life was reduced to something barely recognizable. Reddened eyes blinked like bits of fire, and shadow forms flitted through a haze of ash and smoke.

 

 (Par ultimately found his bosom companions; eagle, birdie, hole-in-one, poached, and stir-fry. The cooking is bad though; his brother is named colic, or coll for short. Don't worry, the two passages above are by far the best part of the whole series.) 

Examples of Definition Success

 Bro did some set 0s.

https://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2025/10/no-magical-third-categories.html

 It's not how I would define [concentration camp], but the definitions are perfectly valid. He illustrates how the handles fit together neatly with no gaps. He successfully implies that trying to put new handles crosswise would only stop you from grasping the existing handles. 

 Using this system, I would say hitler didn't run any concentration camps, only prisons. As far as I know, likewise the gulags and FDR's japanese camps were prisons. The gulags would kill you sometimes, but mainly when stalin had it out for you personally. Individual special cases.

Gender War as Cope

 So-called men are subconsciously aware they're not good enough for marriage.
The whores who demand to be called women are aware they're not marriageable.

 However, if the whores can blame the gay boys, and the gay boys can blame the whores, they can distract themselves from their painful self-awareness. "There's no good men." Thus no reason for me to stop being bad, she doesn't say.
 Commoners always cast blame for the purpose of justifying the inaction they were doomed to anyway.
The universal commoner cope is the claim they're not commoners, incapable of action.

 At an intermediate level we can blame the government. The whores and boys are doing what they're told. "But I wanted to be a whore like I was  told, and be marriageable!" Sure, and I want to find a dozen fully armed, staffed, and loyal nuclear ICBM silos in my back yard, but that's not how that works.

 However, this reflects back on the voters. You can in fact simply disengage from the government. "You want me to be a what now? Ah, you're my enemy, I see." Instead, this is consensual non-con. Demand for oppression, demand for tyranny. When the boys and their whores complain about the [dating market] the insult is backhanded. They're letting the government know the oppression is working and they should keep doing it. They can't openly approve because it's supposed to be non-con. Would break the roleplay.       

 The important part is to make sure it really is hurting them, and not some kind of masochistic pleasure. It's important that they pay off their  karma so they can go properly extinct, lightly for their sake and mainly for your own. If it's not hurting them, it's time for non-consensual non-con. Tyrannize them openly.

 

 My belief: during the low tech times, many souls arrived on Earth with karma so bad they couldn't live past infancy. Couldn't pay off any of  their debt. Technology had to be forcibly raised so that it could prop up their weak existence, that they might live long enough to suffer.

 A big backlog developed. Unjustly low depravity had to be balanced by today's concentrated depravity.

 However, it turns out they didn't need to live long. Perhaps they suffered so tremendously during their brief tenure that it didn't take much. Now more souls are being forgiven for existing than are Falling to Earth. As such, birth rates have to come down, and given that, something has to justify the lack of births. 

 One of those things is lack of sex. Not coincidentally, these mutant souls which can't survive childhood also can't find a mate. Mortals adjust their standards based on their own position, but there is a floor. The standards can only be adjusted so low.

 That is: birth rates below 0.75 would be a good thing, that is, unless you want to maximize suffering, despair, and failure. Not forgetting that caring at all about how a bunch of strangers feel is a serious mental illness.

 Alternatively there was a war in heaven, which means lots of dead immortals, which means lots of bonus mortal souls. It would require more epicycles but it's not impossible.

Soyciety Neither Deserves Nor Wants Saving

  Western culture doesn't stop at trying to make you a narcissist, nor merely aiding and abetting narcissistic violations, it is itself a narcissist. Grandiose, I think.

 Western culture tries to gaslight you about western culture. That's what virtue-signalling is. It tries to secure narcissistic supply, in the form of letting its agents make you bow to its delusions.

 Western culture isn't mistaken or even truly deluded. It isn't a little oopsie, and it isn't hallucinating. It is lying, and getting you to assent to the lie is point. They say Soviet Communists made you assent to a lie to humiliate you, but the west makes you assent to a lie to make you assent to a lie. That's the end goal. The purpose of Western cuture is to mendaciously prevaricate.

 Ultimately all narcissists hate themselves. That's your ethno-masochism. It has to come out somehow. Western culture cuts itself.

 It goes further, it says you can help it cut itself, taking revenge for all the abuse, provided you also cut yourself.

 Satan giving you permission to punch him in the face provided you wear a brass knuckle with inward-facing spikes. That's how a deal with the devil works. "If I can stab your back, you can stab mine." Can't you hear it? When you "scratch" someone's back, it doesn't sound like you're being kind. Cue midwit meme.

 You don't argue with a narcissist. You can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep. Narcissists never agree to treatment, so you never treat a narcissist either. The way to deal with a narcissist is indefinite involuntary hospitalization.
 
 If doing so is currently illegal, then the only solution is [no contact].

 Don't watch the TV, don't watch movies, don't play story-heavy games, don't vote, don't read the newspaper. Sure as fuck don't send your kids to its narcissist schools.
 You have to say the big No. Find a way not to pay taxes.

 Attempting to [save] a narcissist is what they want. Since they're the ones sabotaging themselves, they can play out the game indefinitely. Every time you [save] them from some vice, they create a new one. Gets more attention. The time and effort you spend on western culture distracts it from the overwhelming shame and worthlessness it quite rightly feels. You don't [resist] a narcissist, their power is fake. By resisting you're merely assenting to their delusional frame.

 "But other cultures are even worse." Yes, and isn't that something. That other cultures are worse does not make insanity any healthier.

 Any form of engagement with the narcissist culture is to deny that it is narcissist. It will wrap you into its dynamic. Only in rare cases will it not turn you into a narcissist yourself. The solution is [no contact].

Divinity Ballparking

 You cannot honestly suggest the bibble was written by a god if you have the most vague, remote ideas of what a god is really like.
 It comes from a place of absurd hubris, atheism, or fuckin' lying.

 If a god wrote a book would we be able to understand it? I mean, no, obviously not? Even if they dumbed it way way way down it wouldn't look remotely human. Scholars would not argue if this passage contradicts that one, they would argue what the fuck it's doing in the book at all. "Does...does this follow? Can you even tell if it's true or not?" (It does, you can, it is.)

 A god would make homer look like a child throwing a tantrum while he happened to have paint on his fingers. It makes a picture, you know, sort of. Fingers and paint were involved.

 In the elder scrolls, the eponymous scrolls are left lying around the mortal world, because it's not like mortals can read them. If you stare at one for too long your head blows up. A higher god trying to write for us wouldn't be saying, "Be not afraid," he would be trying to convince the shattered dust that used to be a planet to get its act back together for another tour.

 By higher I mean upper low. A genuine higher god doesn't worry about us looking at him, he worries about him looking at us, since if he moves from glance to stare, everything explodes. Supernovas for everyone. Imagine attention so weighty it causes physical nuclear fusion. Hooray, you discovered element 1000. First synthesis for humanity. It used to be your colon. Your spine became a nucleus of element 496, for reference.
 Luckily they have no reason to care about us in the slightest, any more than you care about specific electrons in a bacteria's cell wall.

 I suppose this has been a rep of set four. Done so many I launch them by accident. Seeped into my bones.
Why do gods seem to have such a vague idea of mortal concerns? Because properly looking at us...would be very painful. For us.

Welkin Tales: Satan's Plan

 Satan had an eternal life project. If you have infinite negative karma, you would suffer forever - that is, you will never die. Unlimited reincarnation. Adamantizing the chains of samsara.

 Thus, Satan taught everyone to profane themselves. To seek the bad and avoid the good. Despite his many failings, Satan was no mortal. He taught and mortals listened. The plan is technically workable. Great strides were made.
 
 I believe Satan had intricate fanfiction for every individual. You can feel his plan for you, which is handy for breaking it. Perhaps in the past it wasn't always bad to [be a part of something larger] but, now, Satan has booby trapped all the exits. All soycial or even historical structures serve dead Satan's design in some way or another.
 E.g. this blog is already too popular. E.g. I should stop tweeting, but, well, Satan was not a mortal. At least my true follower count is essentially 0, which is the correct number.

 Earth has latent potential for tremendous, incomprehensible beauty, but Mortals gonna Mort, and even if you could stop them you shouldn't.

 He probably chose eternal life because the Egyptians were doing it. Unlike most soycieties Egypt had a purpose beyond collecting taxes and blowing them on hookers and fentanyl. They, too, had an eternal life project. There was some disagreement about how eternal life ought to be sought, such as through ascension or through eternal youth, but nevertheless everything in Egyptian soyciety was bent toward this purpose. Or, at least, known to be a distraction and tolerated out of an acceptance of imperfection.

 Being such a long-lived soyciety, opinions varied, but sometimes mummification was ye olde cryogenics.

 A digression: in Egypt, the soul was ka. Body was khet, and was considered a sub-part of the soul. Fundamental sounds for fundamental ideas.  

 Preserving the body that, when immortality was achieved, the soul could be reinstated. (Err, the ba, personality, could be reinstated.) At other times, preserving the soul using the body, the khet, as a vessel, preventing Death in the sense of losing touch with what we call material Reality, and entering the underworld. Anchoring the ka, that the soul might be rejuvenated once rejuvenation was understood.

 Few know that Egypt succeeded. The project was, unlike Satan, not a total failure. They learned. Too late, they learned immortality is a mistake.
 
 Satan did not learn.

 Or he already knew, and chose eternal life because it is a mistake.

On Things Which Aren't Meritocracy

 Highly accurate, though you still need more background to avoid getting deceived.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JU_8fJjtGxA
 Calling it meritocracy is disingenuous. [Dissociation] is demonic possession. They specifically select for psyches so destroyed they match the blank slate hypothesis. Nobody's home. Power addicts lust for the easily controlled.

 The reason [dissociated] psyches change so easily is that one possessing spirit gets evicted by another. Devil infighting. They're genuinely, literally, scientifically, a different person. The obama sworn in for 2008 did not bodily survive to 2016. Not the same guy.

 Terry brooks, in wishsong, comes up with shadowen. https://shannara.fandom.com/wiki/Shadowen Except he claims they lost. Didn't. Also, claims they're fantasy.  

 Meritocracy is fameocracy. The [[merit]] is [[shows up in newspapers]]. The term [success] measured entirely by how many can recognize you.

 

 At one point he says only ~1% of harvard admits are [[[meritocratic]]], meaning 99% are filler or entrenched interests keeping themselves entrenched. I.e. business as usual for all of known history. Is meritocracy lindy, or is harvard not meritocratic?
 Can you name any of these legacy silver-spoon admits? The 1% act as cover for the 99%. Fame as a disease, which harvard inoculates most graduates against.

 He says rich folk aren't necessarily smart, but that is in fact untrue. If you can remain rich, you're smart. A fool and his money. Thus; harvard is clever. It portrays itself as a fame whore, exactly the opposite of what it is.

 Super clever. The camouflage is only one primary function. The other is, by portraying itself as the school of the famous, it creates a traumatizing culture, as p.history says. I.e. harvard will kill your soul even if you refuse to sell. We know from other sources that legacy admits don't have to perform...but do the admits know that? Naturally not. They feel dazzled and humiliated by the false light, the feverish strength, of the possessed.

 P.history portrays this as bamboozling The People. They're being [trapped] into going to harvard or being poor. They get knocked out of [altruism] and into [fight/flight].

 That's the cult speaking. The trap is fake. The world is never genuinely that hostile. You can just turn off the TV.

 What happens if you tell folk they can simply not go to harvard? Musk went to a state school. What happens is they get very angry with you. What if present a plan where you scam the broken system and live in leisure that way? They report you.
They tell me feds are in every private chat group, but why would they bother? Every voter is a nark. The glowies are redundant.

 "No no you can't possibly succeed indepenently, you have to have Daddy and Mommy tell you you're a good boy!"
 The Make Mommy Love Us Again, MMLUA movement. Not as photogenic, but more accurate.

 Harvard is a devil-worship cult because The People want it to be a devil-worship cult. Without their enthusiastic consent, harvard could try its devil tricks all it wants, but it would wither and die.

 P.history says to nationalize harvard. All you in fact have to do is cut off its subsidies and revoke its tax waivers. What if [equality under the law] lmao. Without heavy ongoing blood transfusions, harvard would choke on its own shit. That "giant" endowment would vanish in an eye blink.

 In the medieval ages you could earn a peerage but it took generations, because you couldn't reasonably move up more than one rank per generation. This hasn't changed. How do you build true generational wealth today? Get a job at the IRS or get an internship at the firm which manages harvard's endowment. Your first generation will be about learning what job your second generation needs to get. Second will be about learning which "secret" societies the third generation needs to join. & so on.  These things aren't secure against insider knowledge. The problem is tolerating a job at the IRS. Yeah you're going to be able to embezzle astonishing amounts of money, but the cost is having to spend your life around IRS employees.

 P.S. I had forgotten how fucking dumb terry brooks' names are.
Warcry: leah. Oh leah, it's the leah.
Rimmerjob dall.
Hirehone.
Cogline, who isn't even a mechanic.
Teel, who is not green.

 At least it's not lord ruler or aurivy. Lord foul is genuinely foul, but even so... Especially as his [[hero]] is similarly foul.

 Ohmsford. Where's wattsford, voltsford, and ampsford? Dare I hope for impedenceford and capacitanceford?
A great team, lead by the mysterious all-anon.

Missing: Transgressing Against Transgressive Norms

 Independent corroboration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BtlWoqWLm9Q
 Hebrews want you to hate them. They need you to hate them.
This is because they hate each other so much they need you to hate them more to scare them into working together. They betray each other at the drop of hat, so they need you to steal their hat.

 As always the correct response to a cluster-B is no contact. Permanent and complete exile. If they have the opportunity to do something you hate, it's you who fucked up, not them.

 When someone joins a cult you need to use cult tactics against them. Socially isolate them. Cast them out. Anyone who treats with a jew is a jew - and that includes treating them violently. They all go on the outside. The cluster-B seeks not love nor hate but attention, and the opposite of attention is indifference.

 

 The world is never genuinely as hostile as the cult says it is. The flesh eating monkeys aren't real. They're hallucinating. Fighting spectres in their own minds and sodomizing each other and cutting off their own hands because the mists and shadows will win if they don't.



 One way you can see that his model is incomplete is transgressing against transgression. Spoiler: think about hume cutting his finger, how emotions precede rationality.

 There's a gprime comic about secretly keeping a bible in your room. Being subversively...rightoid-voting. A dissident woman being a kind mother and helpful wife, provided no strangers are watching. In public she complains she can't find a job, but never sends out a resume...

 Imagine being secretly Amish. Should work perfectly, or indeed better since you're not sodomizing each other and spreading diseases. Yet we don't see this.
When someone is secretly virtuous they go with [two can keep a secret if one of them is dead]. Useless for coordination.

 Being explicit: this is scientifically falsifiable. You can go look and see for yourself, rather than trying to rely on my credibility. Go ahead and try to find me someone who is virtuous in a publicly verifiable way. Someone wise, courageous, honourable, and responsible.

 Another example: all these evil ruling groups are unified by a shared lie. Well, here's something that makes everyone hate you: pointing out their myths are lies. Openly believing the truth is an even greater sacrifice than willingly assenting to a lie. Should work to create cohesion, yes?
Yet we don't see this.

 The core motivation is self-hatred and treachery.

 The flesh-eating monkeys aren't real. They're not supposed to be real. It's all about falsely earning trust. That's why it's criminal transgression, not merely breaking the local rules. Illegitimacy is the point; of course they can't assent to truth.

 Reminder: every political formula is perverse. Is the king in charge, or is the divine right of kings in charge? Go check by doing something profane. Whatever would piss god off the most. Legitimate, responsible power is useless to a power addict. It's not merely methadone, it's narcan. Instantly kills the buzz.

 Put another way, if the flesh-eating monkeys are real, they're how demons perceive the rightously angry. To the baby-raping bandit, the cops are flesh-eating monkeys.

 The bibble has rules against sodomy because you're supposed to break them. Because you're supposed to earn the right to break them. This is what The People want. You can tell because, when you propose rules that would prevent sodomites from being cardinals, they don't laugh and say they wouldn't work, they get very angry with you. You're ruining the game. How are you supposed to level up and betray satan, stealing his throne, if you're not allowed to practice satanism?

 These groups would have been rolled by the first folk to manage to cooperate without self-mutilation, if treachery wasn't such a profound, deep need in all mortal genomes. I.e. this is Hell, what you see is a collection of Damned souls, the children of satan. Dante's circles 1-8 don't exist, there is only one true sin, and it's treachery.

 Game theory inherently supposes the players want to win the game. They find the prize valuable. The game is not defined by economic incentives, even taking into account everything can be economized; everything has a price in dollars. The prices are defined by the values of the players. The game is defined by the values of the players. Aggregate demand (excuse my marxism). The players are the incentives. 

 "Don't hate the player who defined the game, hate the game the player defined." Every single time, it's satanism

.

 In a truly harsh competitive environment, not-mutilating each other is more important, not less. It's in every-leaf-is-edible africa where they scarify and deform themselves, it's not the arctic inuit doing it. Soyvilization, especially not foot-binding china, is not competitive with sea peoples and norse raiders.

Historical Roots of Wokecostals

 Some are tempted to say wokism is a christian heresy. They are in fact editing the bibble. They notice you can't say both X and Y at the same time, and they take the rational path of keeping that which has more or stronger bibblical support and deciding the rest doesn't fit. E.g. there's a few weak passages against lying, they throw all those out with prejudice.

 I would call it christianity but less wrong. It strikes me as a purer version of the intended message. They use it because it strikes them the same way.

 However, this suggests the christianity drives their beliefs. That's a journalism. SJWs are SJWs because that's what they're biologically like. They used modified christianity because modified christianity supports what they were going to do anyway.
 
 Which is to say the original authors of those sections were biological SJWs. "Trust a snake before a jew, trust a jew before a greek." The founding mothers wanted to recreate a classical polity, and they truly succeeded, including adopting the average greek's extraordinary fondness for prevarication. Diogenes and the other good philosophers were in radical opposition to the startlingly dishonest hellene culture. "Man is a poolitical animal," is more of a moral injunction. "Make yourself a poo golem, plz and tks."

 Thus in america poo golem phenotypes are not selected against. Instead virtue is selected against. Hence the proliferation of sewage voters.

 The check is that julius kaisar was an SJW. Literally antifa, except not a coward and not a moron. The strongest degenerate gooning sodomite to ever live. Do you know why he [crossed the rubicon]? Because there were cops waiting on the other side to jail him due to breaking the law all the goddamn time, and his immunity had just expired. Terrorist. Billy ayers et al. A serious [what is the penalty for being late] moment, but he was in the wrong more than the poolicy.
 Kaiser is why immunities aren't done anymore. They can't keep short-term thinkers out of office. If you asked kaisar what he would have felt like if he hadn't had breakfast this morning, he would have told you he did have breakfast this morning.
 
 The bibble didn't cause wokeness. Fundamentally criminal phenotypes, kaisar's fellow tribesmen, wrote the bibble. The parts of the bibble the wokies like were written by their ancient compatriots.

 Most of what they're throwing out was also poolitical. The ancients pwned their rivals by being slightly less debased in those cases. Praise be to, uh, someone, those parts are no longer poolitically useful and can be discarded. !!Progress!!

 For completeness I will mention parts of the bibble that aren't intentionally bad, like [don't steal], which are good because they essentially predate the hebrews. When the oral culture was corrupted, for poolitical reasons parts of the old basically righteous structure were preserved. Not want Satan wanted, but Satan was not all-powerful and couldn't have everything he wanted.
 Not coincidentally yeshua's ghostwriters tried to say all those parts had been superseded. Mohammed too. It didn't quite work, so this time around the wokies say christianity per se has been superseded.

 This works because christian values are ingrained into the culture after 900 years of incessant Satanist engraving. Sheer inertia is more than enough to replace ye ansient "holy" book.
 E.g. the online troll usually doesn't bear false witness against his neighbour. He bears false witness against himself - the bibble doesn't say anything about that! E.g. Concern trolling is nothing but weaponized christian !!charity!!.

 I wonder if the !!constitution!! was supposed to replace the bibble, or if that was merely a lucky opportunity. They still have old written support, see? Woke is Trad, you just don't get it. All Men (including woMen) are created equal. Old dead guys said so and weren't instantly smitten by Zeus' bolts, it must be true.
 
 On the contary that lincoln fucker fought a whole war to prove men are !!equal!!, and he won, see, that means ares approved. That makes it christian, right? It had nothing to do with having a 0% chance of letting all those taxpayers off the plantation. Especially had nothing to do with the fact slaves don't pay taxes, but sharecroppers do. All hail the IRS. Stand and salute the tax man.

 Which is say the following isn't bad, as long as you keep in mind that christians are batshit zealots. Fundamentalist nutters, who [[[struggle]]] with cognitive dissonance instead of, you know, fixing it. https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/joint-review-origens-revenge-by-brian

"Does saying that make me a lib?"
Yes. Yes it does. Cue midwit meme.

VG Addiction Considered Good

 Most video games have a serious fundamental problem. They can't reward you for success, they can only punish you for failure. It can only reward you, so to speak, by reducing your opportunities to fail.

 To use a reverse example, minecraft is tremendously popular because it can be rewarding.

 Games are shockingly unfun. I've said it before: you work most games, you don't play them. There's nothing intrinsically rewarding about the game world. Your overseer gives you a list of tasks, and you complete the tasks. Chores, but prettier than usual. E.g. mario 64 literally gives you a gold star.

 One key feature of play is precisely that it isn't paratelic. It has a goal, but the goal was picked by the player, not some outside agent. Like, you don't spontaneously do your chores, right? If your house would stay dust-free without sweeping, you wouldn't sweep. Something with intrinsic merit is done spontaneously. You don't go tobogganing to get to the bottom of the hill. If a game can only [reward] you with the ending, if a game with no ending is a bad game, then it's a bad game even with the ending. 

 If you're [good] enough at a game, it removes all opportunities to fail. Yet, if you can't fail, you can't succeed. You're not winning the game. You're not playing it at all. If you "win" a fight in an RPG you get XP, your levels go up. If you "win" too much then you can kill bosses by hitting the fight command over and over like a dipping bird. Chore.

 If you [fail] the game [punishes] you by making you play the game more. Imagine failing to eat a delicious cake and being "punished" by not getting fat and having to eat another. Hence, the game can't even truly punish you per se, the game itself is punishment. You're punishing yourself by choosing to play it at all. You [win] against the game by forcing it to punish you the least. Hence speedrunning. 

 "I'll show you, I'll show them all!"
 "Cool, what's the plan?"
 "I'm going to subject myself to 1000 or more hours of this game! Then it will barely be able to make me play it at all!"

 Perhaps true genius has never been tried.

 Perhaps I ought to heartily endorse VG addiction, because you will build resistance to skinner boxes. You will get bored not of this game or that game, but any and every artificial plastic-game, including non-video kinds. When you emotionally, reflexively recognize that vampire survivors is merely trying to manipulate you, that skill generalizes. 

The Spy's Preferred Environment

 The CIA (or more relevantly MI6) adores crime because spies are dysfunctional rejects who stand out like sore thumbs unless they're surrounded by other misfits. Disguise is a myth. If you have a serious bum and crime problem, then a spy can at least competently pretend to be a puke-soaked vagrant without undue notice.

 If your internet forum is inundated by morons and trolls, the spy's toddler-like social skills stop being remarkable. The CIA couldn't into usenet, thus, AOL.

 The real reason the FBI keeps running KKK and nazi rings is because their [undercover] agents fit right in. You can't put them anywhere else. Skinhead is, in fact, a term of endearment that refers to feds. Or else.

 Discord is 50% pedophiles because spies are creepy as fuck. Pedo-adjacent. Would all get banned instantly out of sheer ick if pedos (or furries) weren't normalized.

 You have to read catcher in the rye in school so that when you encounter holden caulfield in the wild your first thought isn't about how hard he glows.
 See also, stuff like david eddings. His gandalf expy 'disguises' himself as a degenerate diogenes all the time...because he has no other option. Your town better already have a town drunk, or else.

 A non-small part of the reason broken window policing works is because you accidentally drive off all the spies. Lose all your saboteurs and provocateurs. Holding members to standards on pain of exile is anathema to 'clandestine' operations.

 Relatedly, immigration is always a crime. Winners stay home, only losers need to try their luck elsewhere. The only guys worth importing don't want to leave. Immigrants = spies because immigrant = criminal.

 As a hilarious example, cross-dressing doesn't work...but women, especially, don't want to be spies. Solution: trannies. If you make it a whole 'trend' your spies can get into female spaces, now can't they? Their inability to disguise themselves is no longer a handicap.
Doubly funny since you don't need spies in female spaces. They're delighted to narc and snitch. But spies are genuinely that dumb.

 The CIA likes hollywood because it needs them to train and equip its spies. Costume-laundering front. I think this may be far more profound than it looks...

 I start to think modern 'liberalism' is specifically spy Democracy...

 Art is left-wing because art is only produced by patronage, and the patron is a bunch of spies. All TV shows are woke because the executive producer is either CIA or doesn't exist. In 2013 this connection became legal and nearly above-board. I mean, maybe netflix is NSA instead or something.



 Newton invented spies for [the mint], which was a euphemism for the central bank. The locus of legalized counterfeiting; he needed extraordinary efforts to suppress his counterfeiting competitors. At this point, perhaps it was inevitable that the spy agencies would take over the government, leading to centuries of spy-based rule. Especially inevitable given the fact they started hunched over the purse, muttering [my precious].

 Coinage (not money per se) was invented, of course, for the purposes of taxing more harshly. Today, parasitism is still the primary function of coinage and any coin-backed bank note. They have kings on the faces because that's who it's for. That's the customer.

Commoners vs. Health in Democracy, Overton Immobility, & Working as Intended

  Democracy/Fascism is largely about cope for the Envious. However, bystanders get swept up, and also become the enemy of all virtue. Having spent a lifetime degrading the strong, the rich, and the wise, if they meet one of these, they become terrified. What if he decides to hit back? The commoner is well aware he will lose any fight with someone healthy.

 The commoner can't imagine how little the healthy man regards his words, if they were even noticed. The idea of not being harmed by mere sounds is incomprehensible.

 The commoner turns to pre-emptive self-defence. Have to get him before he gets you. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now the commoner has become the healthy man's enemy. Now the healthy man must "neutralize" the commoners before he can get anything done.
 Or rather, the healthy man has seen this before. Anyone who appears healthy will be attacked by the zombie horde, in a desperate attempt to drag them down to their level before it's too late. Democracy makes The People the enemy of their own champions and paragons.

 E.g. wignats think [[[whiteness]]] will save them from having to admit their betters are better, or having to leave them alone. The [[race]] will do something, rather than some set of particular individuals.

 Also why race science is so very persecuted. The debate is folk who think literally every human is identical, or those who think only all members of a race are identical. (By default, only hajnal europeans are human.) By showing that races have differences, race science lends power to the [[national]] Communists.
 As usual with commoners, they have low-resolution, binary thinking. All [[Men]] are created equal - and everyone who isn't a [[Man]] is meaningless trash. 1 or 0. If blacks aren't 1, aren't [[Men]] literally the same as everyone else, then they're 0, they are all and without exception the worst kind of slave.
 And that's your overton window. The real overton window can't be moved in the slightest. A titanium frame, riveted in place.
 Very satanist. All positions are obvious lies. They're all loser positions. None of them can achieve dominance, they all have knockdown arguments against. The commoners could escape the trap without escaping the window if they could achieve nuance, but naturally the window was framed there precisely because this is where the impossible nuance is the only escape.

 Nuance or loyally obeying their betters, of course. Should go without saying.

 Don't forget there's a similar subtext debate about whether women are [[[human]]] or not. Or, occasionally, if men are [[[human]]]. The feminist [exact equality line has to held up at all costs, or else why not overtly enslave every woman, all women? Those are the only two viable options, right?

 As always, plato was wrong about democracy differing from tyranny. "he will be governed entirely by the bad and the desire for the bad"
 Does satan worship lead to Democracy, or does Democracy always converge upon Demoncracy, a fundamentalist theocracy of satanism? Perhaps no distinction can be drawn. It's the same picture.
 The degenerate desire for Freedom, for liberty as an end rather than a means, is identical to desire for Tyranny. You might be tempted to say that, having received freedom, they instantly demand relief from the effects of freedom. Allegedly the tyrant is supposed to grant them freedom. Have an Emperor, because only an Emperor has the power to decree that they are free. Really pushing water uphill on that one.
 I think they demand a tyrant directly. Democracy is not totalitarian as a minor oopsie or as an emergent result. The totalitarianism is the point. If they ever had freedom, they would use it to demand immediate tyranny. "Oppress me, and - this part is important - everyone I know!" Democrats say they love Freedom precisely because they loathe it beyond all reason. Demoncrats want freedom from responsibility, freedom from adulthood, freedom from freedom. And that's what they get. Not coincidentally, also liberated from the the lands of beauty. Free to be as ugly as possible.

The Sequences and Related Cults

 Yudkowsky's Sequences, at first blush, look like they're useless for anyone who needs to read them. If you need to read them, you can't possibly be literate. Permanent cognitive poverty. Maybe if you squint it's the midwits' guide to peak midwittery.

 But wait, they're just lying. Anyone can figure these out in under, generously, five minutes. And did. And that's the purpose of The Sequences.

 By pretending the obvious is difficult, it gives them an excuse when they intentionally indulge in Sophistry. "Forgive me Egalitarianism Lord, for I have sinned." They're just weak and fallen vessels who couldn't possibly live up to the lofty standards of *checks notes* not confusing a finger for the moon it's pointing at.  

 The bargain is: I will let you be a treacherous slime, provided you let me be a treacherous slime, and pay your shekel to the first among equals, who showed us the way, the path, and the light. Many found this to be an attractive bargain. Just, you know, not the kind of bargain you can openly advertise for. Some subtlety is called for (not too much).

 

 Coincidentally I just found out big yud used a japanese phrase, of all things, to allegedly encourage his cult to not be ashamed of pulling ahead.
 The japanese. I'm dead. Should have used finnish instead, lel. 

 What genius could possibly conceive of hiding your success so as to protect it. Truly, only the most astronomically shining stars should show such stupendous skill.

 No no this is a genuinely clever exercise in camouflage. It really did make big yud a bunch of money, and I understand there were sex cults too. Yes fat? No problem! We're ~~sapiosexual~~ just like jesus platonically intended uh I mean we're all atheists here. We do everything jesus told us to do, but he didn't like exist or anything, plato was a hack we're trying to bit-for-bit copy the republic coincidentally. So much a weird coincidence.

 This whole !!science!! thing made Sophistry very difficult. How are you supposed to pretend to be scientific without, like, actually giving up your experimentally incompatible scams? Without a grant, I mean? Big yud just wanted to help. And get paid. To help and get paid and fuck some whores for free. (posiwid)

 What everyone wants, really. You understand.
 You did read the sequences, right?

 Clever, but, sadly, immediately vincible against anyone of higher IQ, as these things always go. Merely another way for mortals to mort around and divert themselves while they wait for senescence and accumulate suffering. 

 I mean, do you really think jesus didn't tap magdalene? Really? Tee hee. That's a good one.
 She wasn't a prostitute anymore, see, because she didn't take metal in exchange. Totally different.
 P.S. "Hey, don't fuck other men." "Oh damn big j, I would never have figured that out if you hadn't told me. Great advice!" "Stealing is wrong. Lying too." "Shit, dropping spicy ones over here!"

Shooting 2.0

  As with the butler shooting, my working proposition is that tyler robinson was handed blanks, and his muzzle reports existed firstly to hide the real shots and secondly to make the catchers think they found someone relevant. In this case there were two layers of patsies - hardly a difficult concept to develop. The fake shooter was chosen because he profiled as someone who wouldn't admit to having co-conspirators if told not to do so. Conveniently cops and especially the federal buttspelunking incompetents will enthusiastically accept his [lone shooter] story at face value. Cuts down on paperwork, see.

 Lone shooteroids are just lying. If you can tie your shoes you're not that stupid.

 There is in fact zero chance he didn't have blanks. Otherwise it would have been ninja numbers. Mass shooter injures 11, kills 0.
When he ditched the gun they replaced his fake rounds with the real ones and booked it themselves. The shot hit the neck because they learned not to aim at the head. They were going [centre mass] but silenced sniper rifles can barely hit the broad side of a barn. Likewise they used a bolt-action because syncing to a semiauto is a serious pain in the neck, among other advantages. That's why the firefighter was hit at butler; the real sniper barely had time to aim. This time, instead, robinson noticed when "he" hit the target first try and left, rather than firing more "rounds," very convenient for his backup.

 The butler guy was shot because he was at entirely the wrong angle and would have noticed the wound was on the wrong side, possibly noticed he had blanks, and possibly mentioned it. Turns out they missed anyway, so whatever, but never mind. Meanwhile robinson could be permitted arrest because he doesn't realize he didn't have a harmful weapon.
Blanks and real rounds sound different, and an experienced shooter with a front-row seat, such as the guy holding the gun, will notice immediately. Leftish hoplophobes are therefore chosen.

 If you want an edgy conspiracy theory, it's that this is a false flag.  Special forces, disgruntled with republicant cuckery, decided they needed motivation. Cui bon: it could hardly have been better for rightoids, after all. Same way 9/11 was, at best, a saudi operation. 3/4 of hijackers being saudi nationals, assuming the fbi didn't just lie. Had nothing to do with iran regardless.

 If instead it's [leftoids are really that stupid], they will try to shoot someone else in a few months. Because the public-assassination leftists really are that stupid. Hilariously, it might even work. Might intimidate or exhaust the republicants. "I don't have time to report more leftoids for ""free"" speech violations, I have to go to work."
 

 Later I will posting the idea that Democracies are fundamentally spy government. Now, thinking it's more precisely black ops vs. black ops. Rightoid black ops is special forces. Leftoid black ops is CIA, state, MI6, &c. Putin being KGB not a coincidence etc etc.
If you think about it, could the Envy theocracy ever be run by anyone but black ops.

Domain and Range in Logic using PD

 Mathematical functions have domains and ranges. The domain is the set of numbers which produce valid equations. E.g. f(x) = 1/x is not valid for x=0. Likewise logical proofs have domains, and the validity is restricted to the domain. 

 In the prisoner's dilemma, provided both players are rational, it is always best to cooperate. No form of defect/cooperate is possible, so the only options are defect/defect and cooperate/cooperate. So, you morons,, pick cooperate/cooperate.

 This proof is not valid for anyone who doesn't meet some minimum standard for rationality. For example, game theorists are not sufficiently rational. You can't trust them to know they ought to cooperate. 

 

 When using theoretical principles, the first important thing is to remember they have domains of validity. If you get into a car, check the gas in the tank. If you get into a theory, check the domain.
 The second important thing is using the domains in reverse. Outside the domain, the theory is flawed, and the flaw in the theory is an exploitable vulnerability. While being outside the prisoner's dilemma domain isn't proof you should always defect, it is a hint that there is some profitable defection. Further, there are times you should always defect, and in those moments, knowing the domain directs your attention to exactly the topic of defection.

 It is also possible to use the domain as a measurement instrument. If you're not sure if the theory is valid, try it, and if it's falsified, you have determined that you're outside the domain. Physicists pull a trick like this all the time. Pick up theories not for their useful conclusions, but for useful domains, for the purpose of using the theory as a domain-measuring instrument. If you have a kind of stove you can't see with your eyes, you buy a frying pan not for the purposes of cooking, but for attempting to cook, to see if a thing is a stove or not. 
 Likewise you can attempt cooperate/cooperate to test the rationality of a person. Indeed mortals are supposed to naturally do this; you permit an opportunity for a small treachery, to see if they're trustworthy.
 

 

 P.S. A [high-trust] soyciety is when you permit large treacheries without testing first. A [low-trust] soyciety is when you never attempt to be trustworthy. Turns out both never-defect and never-cooperate are bad strategies.

 

Soycial Evolution

 Mortals want to torture each other and themselves to death. A bunch of soycieties tried this, and they're not around anymore. They didn't last long enough for anyone to notice they were trying it.

 Some soycieties tried half-torturing each other to death. They are also not around anymore.

 The soycieties that survive at all have heavily compromised their core mission, in one way or another. However, as the soyciety gets richer, they compromise the compromises. They see they can afford to relax the strictures. They try to make a purer and purer version of their ultimate goal. "Surely," they say, "We can torture ourselves just a little bit more without dying?" Can't suffer if you're dead. The idea is to get as sick as possible without actually dying. As we can see, the question can be asked many times. Ultimately, however, the answer is no. The success with previous incremental re-Forms drives confidence in the last, final re-Form. They try to get as sick as possible without going over, and they always screw up and go over.

 Not to mention it's common to kill a soyciety with a slow poison, then, while dying of that, continue the re-Forms, "we didn't die yet, it's fine," continually moving up the final doom. 

 

 America looks like a place they build a ship for the express purpose of sinking it, and it looks that way because it is. They're not holing it below the water line and selling the bulkheads for scrap by accident. That's the point of the whole system. Any reform based on the idea americans want to live is fundamentally misguided. That's not the Form of the american.  

 I strongly suspect the nicene council et al knew about this. They wanted to keep soyciety poor, because a rich soyciety can't maintain its maintenance. Can't resist the urge to go out in an orgy of self-mutilation.
 "Blessed are the meek." Rich man, camels, needles, etc. Russian serfdom; the oppression was part of what kept russia from playing russian roulette. No serfs? Instant leninism. Conveniently, the tyranny of e.g. serfdom is the torture the members of soyciety crave. 

 It's why culture ossifies so readily. Any clade that didn't ossify would evolve rapidly toward extinction. Most new ideas are bad...but the good ones are deliberately suppressed, so the proportion is irrelevant. 100% of newly adopted ideas are intentionally chosen for being bad, unless there's extreme violence involved.

 The only point in soycial commentary in a suicidal soyciety is to exploit the new loopholes. Stab that blood-sucking proboscis in early, while the flesh is still juicy. Equivalently, it's important not to stand under bridges that are about to collapse. When your americoid neighbours go beaver and start gnawing in the supports, find another place for your homeless encampment.

Examples of Definition Failure

 Plato talked about forms. He was confused. The literature contains cogent refutations from such luminaries as plato.
 What you want are definitions. Reality is too big to grasp directly. We are small and have small cognitive hands. Hence we bolt handles onto Reality and grasp those instead. The first handle is arbitrary, but after that there's right ways and wrong ways to bolt handles in relation to each other.

 Example:
 If you try to define [life] physically, you will find either nothing is alive or everything is alive. You can still make a semi-functional  handle, but you have to throw down arbitrary cutoffs. [Life is what we define as alive.]
 Life has goals. It has some outcome it will try to secure. This immediately goes recursive; life tries to stay alive. If it loses the ability to strategically direct energy, it will lose the ability to pursue any goal. This is a definition that doesn't converge. You can't define things in terms of themselves.
 [Life is something you can kill.] You can stab it and it stops moving. Machines are alive...

 You have control of actions, but not consequences. You can define things any way you want, it's fine. You can't control what the consequences of the definition are. You have to decide on an action, or definition, based on its immutable consequences.

 Alt: you define life as [having consciousness], which is not a physical property. That's cool, that works, [life] is a scalar. Except, now, when you're sleeping, you're dead. You suicidal maniac, you kill yourself at least once a day. You enjoy it, you lunatic.

 Natural language works by arbitrary definition. You have a type specimen and a fuzziness quotient. A cat is defined by a platonic [form of the cat] except that platonic form is brain-specific. The fuzziness - how different something can be and still be a cat - is also arbitrary. These types of definitions are not logically useful. The form is hard to communicate. The form is an inaccurate recording of the specimen. Even if it wasn't inaccurate, the specimen has changed and therefore no physical object does or will match the definition. It's a quick and dirty pragmatism for the stupid.

Soycial Oil of the Divine Snake & Cultivators Cultivate Self-Harm

 When writing, the virtue signalling fails and one's true issues come forth.

 "He tried, but he kept coming back to that disastrous commerce raid. Where was the compassion there? Where was the compassion for his Earthly Realm brothers and sisters? When he sat with Brother Long through his last night, perhaps that was compassion, but so what? Wasn’t he dead anyway? All the people he gave first aid to, all the lives he saved, didn’t they die anyway? And yet somehow, he and Hong, the ones who hid, survived and collected the rewards. And the one who earned best was the one who spent their lives most easily- the great hero Ku.

"A person who achieved great merits for the sect. Who tamed a mighty monster, and slew a great villain while weakening, very slightly, the power of Black Iron Gorge through sect-sponsored banditry.

"So damn compassionate. So compassionate, so frugal, so humble, it made Tian want to puke. But somehow, somehow, the heretics were worse. It seemed like it shouldn’t be possible, but they were."
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/107917/sky-pride/chapter/2335156/chapter-35--the-first-of-the-three-treasures

 Despite his intentions, the author has correctly modelled a realistic situation. Probably this is cryptamnesia, he's copying an event he saw in real life, except with fantasy instead of distracting, irrelevant details. 

 The one who spent the lives of others, intentionally and with callousness aforethought, got the most rewards. This is exactly why the heretics exist. The orthodox have set up a soyciety which doesn't punish this sort of behaviour, which means they set up a soyciety which does punish this sort of behaviour, by being incapable of defending itself from the heretics. 

 This ku seemingly accrues great rewards. All of which will have to be spent defending himself against someone higher up likewise spending his life with callousness aforethought. He might die anyway. You perform all these moral [sacrifices] and it turns out the profit is 0.
 The amish are as happy as billionaires, but never had to deal with HR. Never have to make a "voluntary" contribution in their lives.
 If you follow this thread to the end, it's about mortals pretending they can provide a replacement of the divine, and likewise pretending they don't notice how comprehensively they're failing.

 In real life, rewarding viciousness rather than discouraging it will directly fund heretics. If spending lives is subsidized, then you maximize the subsidy, maximize your payday, by spending as many lives as possible. The [heretics] in this story are merely doing it without the denial phase, as another example of the fact Jedi are a kind of Sith. Sith, but with a shallow, monochrome whitewash. Which is another way of saying everyone, even dumbass fiction writers, knows christians worship satan; christians merely say they oppose satan. When the bibble claims nobody is righteous, not a one, the subtext is, "Nice job, keep up the good work."

 In this story - not that the author does or can know this - defence against heretics would require that the wuxia level cultivators can trust the xianxia levels not to fuck them over.
 "The orthodox cultivators, Ancient Crane Monastery very much included, genuinely believed in the three supreme virtues."
 Nope! Not even a little! Haha, good joke! The virtue-signalling managed to flicker back on, see. When the author stops telling the story and starts describing the story he thinks he's telling; the story he wants you to believe he believes he's telling.
 The wuxias can't make the relevant reports without being ripped off or even directly punished. The messenger will be shot, thus nobody carries messages. Hence, the heretics can operate with sufficient impunity. The wuxias are mistaken for allowing themselves to be associated at all with the xianxias.
 Should have joined the heretics. At least, lived in their city.
 Don't get horrible curse poisons crippling you for life if you're on their side, if you can win a war against them from afar, you can win even easier from inside, heretics clearly have hiding arts which you need against the xianxias...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Choosing the orthodox path is assenting to barbarism and betrayal. Wrong in every way unless the goal is self-mutilation.
 Which is why the wuxias associate with the xianxias; getting killed was the point. They don't change because it's working as intended.

 Xianxia in general is embarrassingly accurate. Hardly anyone makes it up the ranks... It's specifically because they all assent to self-mutilation. The only ones who achieve transcendence are the misfits who tried to cut off their own path and failed. That's why it's rare, why it seems there's no set path, no blueprint. It's trying to end up in Hell and missing. By [overcoming] the will of [Heaven] they mean overcoming their own free will. Internally overturning a cosmic law to avoid having to simply choose a different choice - that's xianxia.

 The [tribulation] they get when ascending the stage is Heaven trying to helpfully kill them, the way they wanted. "Bro that isn't how you commit suicide, here, let us help." And, the bards tell us, it is indeed helpful nearly every time. As often as could reasonably be expected.

Ultimate Law, Morality but Real, Alphomega Justice

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits, of the individual scope and the wide scope, is often found under the umbrella of morality. There is no such thing as universal mores, so that's an issue. This issue can and should be solved individually, and I will now explain in exhaustive detail. Keep in mind that, as it turns out, making it non-moral and just fixing it solves all supposed problems found under the [morality] umbrella.

 

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits should be decided by making society benefit the person, and as such upholding society is always the best personal move. The tension is fake and γαι, more on that later.

  Bitcoin doesn't fix it, but a simple contract does. Society agrees to provide benefits to the member, according to their individual preferences and costs thereof, and in exchange the member agrees to provide benefits to society so that society is capable of maintaining and increasing its benefits.
 The member agrees not to harm society's ability to provide him with benefits because he can't gain more from such harm than he loses in the benefits.
 The member agrees to let the society use force to stop him if he contravenes his stated word.*
Society agrees to pay its debts and to forgo enforcement on the member if it is found to have failed to provide the benefits, or to have applied unagreed costs.
 They agree on a method of determining when the contract is breached, which is isomorphic to deciding the exact terms of the contract.

 *Which is why 98% women don't go well with contracts, and can't be full members of society. If you try to use stated words like this, enforcement costs will exceed the benefits of the contract. Unprofitable. She should be a member of a family which deals with society on her behalf and likewise deals with the foid on behalf of society.
 It's hard to tell through all the modern degeneracy, but perhaps enforcing the given word of a male peasant is also more expensive than any benefits society can receive from the peasant. Like women, the peasantry has to be held in conservatorship, though in this case by a lord rather than by a family.
 In each case, rather than agreeing not to cause harm, the livestock in question has to be physically prevented from having the opportunity to cause harm to society. If this can't be cost-effectively done, then they are wild and go in the wilderness, not in the city.
 If you can't marry a woman you can't rape her either - not part of society, these roles don't apply. On the topic of exceptions, perhaps 1% of women don't have to be held in conservatorship; rare but not vanishingly so, and it's feasible to test for this in advance.

 

 Notice that this contract is not a phd dissertation. You don't have to be a world-historical genius giant astride the world to think of this. In part this is why I can speak abstractly. I don't need to specify an engineering blueprint for arbitration, because you can competently figure that out for yourself. Difficulty: average adult level. The difficulty of the idea is not what prevents anyone from using it.

 What's hard about this is in fact that's it's so obvious, that it really is like explaining that the sun rises in the morning. The challenge is having it occur to you to try at all. No really, imagine that vividly; you're having an issue with a subordinate at work, or a contractor, and it turns out the root problem is that they don't know the sun rising makes it morning. How long does it take until it occurs to you to explain that the sun rising makes it morning?

 The contract is not used because mortals make soycieties, not societies, and the point of those is to harm their members for the benefit of other members who claim to benefit on behalf of soyciety. Collectivism. Often, causing harm and getting away with it is the whole benefit in question; just in case you thought soyciety had any shred of legitimacy.

 Anyone who doesn't want to solve the tension of person with society by making society benefit the person is obviously trying to benefit a person, themselves, at your expense. Fake and γαι. They are a criminal, and they go in the stocks.

 Empires fall because they are soyvilizations. The purpose of soyvilization is self-mutilation, it works as intended, thus soyciety dies. 

 Having done malice, let's also do stupidity. 

 The usual method of philosophical morality is a weird combination of bottom-up and top-down, where they try to apply morality top-down by deriving it bottom-up from principles.
 We already know what we want from society. Benefits in exchange for service. It's a lot easier to test a prototype for errors rather than attempting an exhaustive search of all possible moralities. Turns out there aren't any errors, you can just do the obvious thing. Sign a contract with society's representative such that you're promised benefits in exchange for services, and apply a reasonable arbitration and enforcement mechanism. That's it.

 

 I feel it's important to repeat that it's ungrateful for society to provide no benefits. Being a member should profit the member. If society doesn't value you, there is no reason for you to value society, or more precisely there is no reason for you to value your contribution to society if society itself doesn't. Go ahead and believe it. Don't spend stuff to no benefit, even beyond not cooperating with defectors. Society should express its value of you in cold hard cash, because it's sufficiently difficult to fake that signal. Taxes are soyciety, the exact opposite of how a society functions. You should be charging society rent for the privilege of your membership.

 I charge soyciety rent too, but you can always con a dishonest man; its illegitimacy means it can't enforce any demand for benefits in return. Its attempt at parasitism makes it vulnerable to parasitism. The only downside is that eating soyciety means eating soy. It's a food, that's what it's for, but on the other hand it's soy.

 

 There is no reason the individual benefits of the individual members can't be individualized, except cost constraints. And logical coherence, which applies to everything. Some benefits cost society more than the individual can or is willing to provide in return. Next you can't value costs not being costly, or value receiving more from society than you can afford. Meta-values are generally invalid, due to the series failing to converge.
 Within reason, everyone can have their own idiosyncratic social contract.
 More importantly, this is Freedom. !!Freedom!! even. Any reasonable arrangement of values is compatible with this social contract.

 Insofar as being individualistic is costly, then perhaps some conformity is accepted for higher reverse-taxes. It depends entirely on what the individual wants, how much they want it, and how much they can pay society for the privileges. The contract can be re-negotiated, again subject to transaction costs, but when it's valuable it can be done. 

 Because it can be re-negotiated, I don't have to work out arbitration and enforcement from first principles. If something isn't working, try something different. Can simply use known solutions until a problem is found with them through praxis. Can use new ideas whenever and to whatever extent is reasonable. In short, your security doesn't have to be my business, the business of theoreticians. !!Freedom!! Likewise anyone who chooses wrong doesn't damage my business. He has to take responsibility himself.

 In some cases power and flexibility have no tradeoff, no conflict. In the case of the social contract, not only can you maximize both, increasing one increases the other. 

 All enforcement is what the individual finds reasonable. Or they don't sign; they don't sworn to contribute to society. 

 Enforcement on those outside society is highly contaminated by [[collectivism]]. If you think about what they want at all, with the exception of offering them something to entice them to sign the social contract, you're getting scammed. They won't pay you for your regard; they don't value it. Giving them any regard is imagining value they don't have.
 Treat outlaws like outlaws. Outlaws might be bipedal and featherless, maybe they can speak a language, but in spade language they're wild animals and should be treated like wild animals. Do whatever it takes to minimize the costs they impose on you. Force them to stay out, basically; pay the cost of a fence and you're good. The only correct place for an outlaw that's inside city boundaries is a zoo. Their complaints are as meaningful as a buzzing fly unless they're making a credible bid to sign the social contract and be subject to its rules. 

 For anyone confusing outlaws with other societies, note that societies should sign contracts with each other. What is valid diplomacy? What is invalid? How do passports work? What is an act of war? It says all this in the contract. Agreed to in advance. 

 Sadly mortals do not have reasonable arrangements of values, and can't form societies. Regardless of their ability to adhere to their given word, they will choose not to adhere to it; breaking their oaths is a common terminal goal for mortals. Soyciety only. They swear, that they might betray. Have to pick up some loyalties if you don't have any, or you can't betray them.

 P.S. Get fucked all the way up your ass, plato. Get fucked until your brain is pulped from the bottom. Justice could eat feet first and you wouldn't know what hit you. "Why am I dead? What happened?" Get fucked except you would probably enjoy it. I suppose that technically means we both win. Soyciety is footnotes to plato, society is anti-plato. Soyciety is when plato is under-raped.

 You may note that soycieties do try to mimic society in certain respects. There are, allegedly, rules about diplomacy. It always ends up startlingly corrupt. There's no explicit social contract because the owners of soyciety refuse to pay penalties for breaking their word. And soyciety members mindlessly let them. On the contrary, diplomacy rules are designed precisely to be subverted preferentially by one group instead of another. Result: catastrophic decay.

 Moral of this story: don't be human. Discriminate against humanity. Humanity is why you can't have nice things. Help me find other anti-humans.
 Alt: prove me wrong. Sign a social contract and form a society. Pwn me good, show me your gigantic reverse-tax bill.

Minor on Collectivism

 Collectivism is when an individual claims to be all of a community, and thus benefitting him individually is beneficial to everyone. E.g. if you empty your wallet into his, everyone becomes richer.

 Spade language is important because it makes stupid lies sound stupid, and collectivism is always a stupid lie. 

 If you both really did get richer by paying him, he would be able to pay you for the privilege, out of the profits, and emptying your wallet into his should end up with more money in your wallet. He wouldn't have to appeal to [[collectivism]], he could appeal to your self-interest. This obvious scam is a scam precisely because it doesn't work that way. Indeed moderns have this whole [investment] thing where you do this the non-scam way. Nobody has to justify stocks or bonds based on collectivist reasoning. 

 If it's collectivist and not obviously a scam, that means it's not obvious.
 If it has to be justified using collectivism, it is unjustifiable, and they're confessing.