Hmm...

 You hear about how comically bad the CIA is.

 You hear about how terrifyingly good the KGB is.

 You barely hear about MI6 at all...

Fifth Reich Defeated

 Around 1969, the new left, american communism 4, violently overthrew fdr's american communism 3. So that's what happened in 1971 - they got around to implementing their policies. 

 The new new left, or the ew left for short, believe the new left isn't wholly devoted to their lord and saviour, Satan. Which is true. The ew left tried to [new left] the new left.

 The thing is, Satan worship is bad for you. That's kind of the point. The Satanist worships failure, worships being a loser. The purer Satanist, like a more pious devout of any higher power, gets their prayers answered more often. Purifying it makes it even more purely bad for you. In Satanist on Satanist action, the more devout Satanist gets, uh, Trumped. 

 The new left was already as purely communist as it is possible to get away with. On purpose; by conscious design. Communism 5 was too communist to live, even on this hell planet, with this hell specie.
 You could tell it was going down when you heard of the world economic forum from a journalist. They failed the [show up in the news] test. Justice grinds slow and fine, and apparently also deep states, and communists who aren't quite as batshit insane as some other communists. 

 

 It is not unrelated that the ew left wanted to supply slightly more tyranny than americans demand. 

 Perhapskis we will see the new left sacrificing the new new left as an offering, to permit them to reverse civil rights. "It wasn't our mistake, they fucked it up for everyone." Probably not. Empires decay. The cancer is already very terminal. But it's not impossible.

No Whitepill: Still Not Deporting Retards

 America will still continue to reward ignorance, self-deception, foolishness, or malice pretending to be any of those. 

 Call me when you can get banned from X for the great insight that battle can lead to deaths. Yes, officer, that one: too stupid, speech rights revoked. 

 The low shall be high, the high shall be low. Wisdom, deftness, competence, will continue to be punished. It will remain a useless intellectual wasteland. No respect, only disrespect. Degeneration as highest virtue.

 Still Envy worshippers.
 Hatred isn't real. It would be better if it were.
 Spite is their blood, their bones, their soul. Disregard destruction, acquire treacherous torment.

Christians Want Rotherham Everywhere

 Let's stop pretending the christian races don't hate themselves, particularly their children. They're not mad rotherham happened, they're mad it happened only in rotherham.

 The IRA existing in living memory. The cop shop in rotherham is still standing. This latter fact is what's known as [consent]. They want their daughters raped. They like it when their daughters are raped. They're pissed it was only underclass daughters, and not everyone.

 The sexual assault rate in schools is roughly 40,000/100,000. It's 17,000/100,000 just from staff. This is too low for the christian races. They want to import pakistanis et al to bump that up. 

 Consider that BLM happened, and all of america could only muster one St. Rittens. Further, he almost went to jail. Almost certainly required divine abjuration. (Also, Rittens was not good enough. Even if everyone was a Rittens, it would not be good enough.) This is consent. Everyone knows Rittens is anti-american, but jailing him for his flagrant subversion was so profane the heavens wouldn't allow it.

 Christians do not think abortion is murder. They'll work harder to get begonias in the front yard than they will to prevent a [[[murder]]]. (Go ahead, mess with their ugly flowers, see what happens.) That, or they like murder. They want murder to be higher. 

 It's exactly like a woman; "No tall dark scary stranger, don't rape me, oh no no don't do it." (The man was trying to mind his own business. "Who is this bitch and why is she suddenly talking to me?" They have to get childish animals, or the manipulation is too crude to work.) 

 What christians object to is having fewer children to torture. The wrong of murder, some states believe, is less wrong than leaving them alive, so the murder has to go. 

 When the dad is arrested by rotherham cops for reporting underage actually-violent rape, he is grateful. "Sorry sorry I don't know what came over me." The cops are there to rescue him from his unreconstructed stone-age instincts.The dad got confused, and thought he might get censured for stripping all security from his daughter. Don't worry man, we gotchu. Nothing more than supply for demand.
  It's cope. Now the dad can believe he can claim [I tried my best].
 I would call them losers, but losing is the point. "Yes! Thank you for noticing!"

 

 Why do prepubescent english boarding school kids even think of buggery, lol? The buggery was the point. I wonder what went wrong? Perhaps the boys accidentally stopped buggering each other. "Wait...this is actually evil. Why don't I defend myself?" Too young to fully understand submission, see. Weren't soycialized enough yet. The sexual assault rate got lower than 90,000/100,000. Whoops, can't have that. "Let's try locking the boys up with girls and minimal supervision. Don't forget to rile them up with porn mags and bikinis." 

 

 Always remember, if your society is in decline, you don't deserve decline. You deserve worse.
 What's pissing you off: not receiving what you deserve. Work hard, I'm sure you'll get there.

RFK believes free speech isn't a right. As he shouldn't.

 "RFK just gave a flawless answer to Bernie Sanders asking if health care is a human right. Bet Sanders didn't expect an answer this intelligent... he interrupted RFK IMMEDIATELY. 

 "SANDERS: Is it a human right? Yes or no? 

 "RFK: In the way that free speech is? It's different, because free speech costs nothing. In health care - if you smoke cigs for 20 years, and you get cancer - you are now taking from the pool of resources..-" https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1884650963140596219

 

 Free speech isn't free.
 Do you pay for your twitter server? lel

 Subsidized speech.
 [[[Free]]] publishing. 

 Even if you're only permitted to say whatever you want verbally, with your mouth, with your friends at the bar, you have to prosecute the bartender who throws you out. Which costs money. 

 Naturally this irrelevant eric loser, by quoting RFK, also believes this. He's just lying about it, because he believes (probably correctly) it's politically useful in the short term.

School is Hate

 Fasco-Communists, black governments, Nameless One worshippers, make a big deal about Hate. 

 What is it, really? Hate is when you are under the power of honourless evil. 

 If you're under the power of a honourable man who hates you, he will kill you. It won't suck for very long. 

 True Hate can only be received from madmen or the depraved. 

 In particular, schoolteachers. As a student, they have absolute power over your fate. You can't even go to the bathroom without explicit permission. Further and obviously, at best they don't care about you at all. Indeed it's clear that if you express joy, they get upset. Having fun? Getting along with your friends? Cut that out. Cut that out right now. 

  There's no need to demonstrate this is a major purpose of the school system. Ensure all children, when faced with at-best-indifferent masters, masters who are their enemies, the child feels despair. The child gives up, surrenders, doesn't even try to fight back. It must become an absolutely engrained habit. 

 Ironically, I have to say the system doesn't work. Personnel is policy. If the children weren't basically losers in the first place, it wouldn't function. It won't take root in anyone who wasn't born to submit. Almost all the hassle has no strategic function.
 It's done because children are born to folk to hate them, who want them to suffer. Naturally, such losers will hate themselves with unlimited passion. They have trouble tormenting themselves, as their own Darwinian instincts are in the way, so they outsource the torment to someone else, who can't flinch from the task. Likewise, they hate their children - the children remind the parents of themselves, as one does, but likewise, the parents can't easily torment the children.
 The point of school isn't to efficiently break any leftover bits of virtue. The point is that these masters are deranged and depraved. They want the agony to be as inefficient as possible. Any reasonable kid could absorb the whole k-12 curriculum in under two years? Yes. They know. They are well aware. That's why they want to push for pre-K. 

  True Hate can only be received from madmen or the depraved. However, they are weak. You don't need training to beat a madman in a fight, you need training to lose to a madman in a fight. Unless you're a true degenerate, a garbage slime in human form.

 School looks like it works, because schoolchildren grow up to be politicians on twitter. Arguing that their masters should show them Hatred in a different way. "Massa massa that's too much hatred! How are you supposed to go on hating us if we don't reproduce? Think of the birf rate!" It never occurs to them that it's possible to swear fealty to a master who doesn't Hate them. 

 Seemingly never occurs to them. Go ahead and tell one in words. It's not like they'll experience a lightning bolt of inspiration. A master who didn't despise them wouldn't serve their goals. It would not supply their demands. What a pointless suggestion. Hence: voting. ¡Jeb!

Manifestation of Revenge is Sour in Degeneracy

 Normally, one believes the γαυς were let out of the closet, and therefore all positive male interaction was sexualized. (gamma alpha upsilon sigma) Men now had to explicitly [no homo] any indication of approval or affection...or rather, most can't be arsed, so no positive interaction is now possible.

 That's backwards, isn't it? It's not that γαυς were let out of the closet and now everyone is γαυ, it's that everyone got γαυ, therefore γαυs were let out of the closet. "Eh, why bother?" and they no longer did. 

 Voters, women, and peasants lack masculinity.  φαγγωτς
 Civilization believes it has no use for males.

 Hitler's communists bullied minorities because they believed getting bullied maximizes suffering. They lost because they were deeply mistaken. Obviously bullying the majority on behalf of some tiny minority causes far more suffering. Especially if the minority is deeply diseased, incapable of satisfaction. 

 When you're already kind of γαυ, what happens if a man gives you a compliment? You start developing feelings. If you don't want to be γαυ, you have to tell him "that's γαυ," projecting the issue. Being harsh with your friends cunts becomes a norm. Because you're all γαυ cunts. 

 The strategy is to use all the harsh language as a "joke" that nobody could possibly take seriously. But isn't a lot easier if you're a total cunt for real? Why make them go to all the effort to come up with fake insults when you can inspire real ones? You are here.

 Degeneracy.

Politicians 101

 Politicians lie. 

 They tell whatever lie they need to support their own selfish interests. 

 They are venal, interested only in humiliation. 

 For example, they like money because it can humiliate other politicians who have less money. They like sex because the politician can brag about buying sex when the other guy has to do without.

 Because they're interested in humiliation, mere greed is a mere means. The end is humiliating their opponents. Their political rivals have the exact same set of desires, but a competing resource base with which to buy humiliation. 

 For example, it is not hard to make both the countryside and the cities richer at the same time. It's called production and trade. However, politicians are actively against anything which makes their rivals richer, even if it has no effect on them personally. Keep in mind that destruction is cheaper than creation. Both countryside politicians and city politicians try to buy creation for their own base and destruction for the other side, but destruction is cheaper. They successfully buy far more destruction than creation, and the result is the society as a whole loses.

 The correct thing for a society to do is ostracize the politicians. Let them keep whatever they've seized, but let them destroy each other, as they will do if nobody props them up. Once they wipe themselves out, re-expand into the empty space, retaining the strict anti-politician laws. 

 What in fact happens is everyone, as if in a drug-fuelled frenzy, eyes dialated, nobody home, joins in the politicking. 

  Everyone on twitter is a politician. They're just lying. If they're not lying, it's merely a coincidence. The truth happens to align with the lie they were going to tell anyway. If it associates truth with politicians, so much the worse for poor truth. 

 Democracy is about dragging everyone into politics, doing the exact opposite of outlawing it. 

 Politicians lie. They get into the habit of lying, and aren't trustworthy even to each other. If, in an orgy of violence, the city destroys the countryside, the city politicians will immediately fracture into fractions, so they can have someone new to humiliate. At any time a politician can't attack some distant politician, they will immediately attack a close politician. They are genuine, physiological, literal addicts. They cannot help themselves. 

 Let me emphasize; it's not merely that they serve their own interests. They are only attracted to serving their interests at your expense. If it doesn't cost you anything, they find it repulsive.

 There is no such thing as a politician with principles, any more than heroin addicts have meaningful principles. If it gets them the hit, they do it. That is, unless you count [injecting heroin] as a principle. Likewise, politicians are very very principled about [kto kovo]. They hate, they loathe, the win-win.

 If you want to know why a politician is jonesing for this thing or that thing, follow the money. Works 100% of the time. 200% of the time. They know this too, which is why they haven't already told you how they get paid. Please note that if you see a christian who is not a politician, they are christianing wrong. Testable: you can correct them if you like. They will appreciate you setting them on the proper path of addiction. Also true of buddhists, hindus, etc etc. Any religion that shows up in wikipedia is merely a political group, like a reverse alcoholics anonymous. Anti-anonymous, and trying to get you in as deep as possible. Indeed, the reason christians came up with AA is because they don't like it when booze competes for the addiction slot.

 Oh hey I just figured out why schedule 1 drugs are illegal. The world is not a mysterious place. 

 Politicians like taxes, as opposed to trade, precisely because taxes are traitorous. Deviant, defective. Farmers could get more money by selling a better product, but to a politician, it is dramatically preferable to get more money by selling a worse product and taking tax dollars instead. Thus automatically creates competing interests, so they can humiliate the competitor. The farm bill takes tax dollars from the city, from corporations, and gives it to the countryside. Various industry [protections] and [unions] take wealth from the city and give it to factories. Hence, farms have to be shut down. Hence, factories have to be offshored. So that the political rivals in universities or whatever can get that sweet sweet hit of heroin. Or literally cocaine sometimes.

 

 

 The worst part is the lying is all completely pointless. You can sort of see a point in academic debates because it can make unaffiliated undergrads join your lab instead of your rival's. In politics, self-absorbed-interest is determined by circumstances. You can't lie so hard a city-dweller thinks they live on a farm and get paid for vegetables. You can't lie so hard a crime-and-welfare wokist thinks they work in a factory. You can't lie so hard an IRS agent doesn't know they can embezzle more money if there are more residents. Paul Fussel and Shakespeare mention this. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Tremendous struggle for status, with not a single shred of gain to show for it; net worth is a genetic trait.

 The lying poisons the well, uglifies the tellers, and has no purpose beyond these negative side effects. Or rather, the hideous side-effects are the point. Homo sapiens is truly revolting.

 Even those undergrads are worthless. If they can't be tricked, they join the highest-status or richest lab they can find, regardless of debates. If a debate sways them, they are gullible morons, easily a net burden on your lab. 

 Debates could have a point. First it's necessary to be rid of the politicians.

Yes, IQ is Trainable

 I found the test. My wordsum is only 140, 150 high. It's not like 180+ high. My vocabulary, while hardly small, is disappointing to me.

 Thus, yes, I am the first person to write down the effective IQ-raising regimen. I'm sure I'm far from the first to discover it, but I'm the first person to post it in public. Training works, provided you train properly. Yes, all knowledge is domain knowledge, but you can train in the domain of domains, thus get knowledge applicable to all domains. And practice makes you faster.

 It would truly be an earth-shattering development...if anyone wanted to be smarter. It's not a small change either. Handily passes the guillotine criterion, no need for a high powered statistical study to detect the effect. No [number needed to treat], or rather, NNT is one. I punch three, maybe four standard deviations above my weight class. 

 I'm not merely good at warfare strategically. Given time to train, my army would have a 30, 40 point IQ advantage. It would be like fighting divine messengers. Imagine everyone at spacex, but 45 points smarter. Space: suddenly too cheap to meter.

 Instead, they are religious fanatics, and they worship stupidity. This is nothing but the worst heresy. 

 The only reason I can scoop this patent is because nobody else wanted it. Across thousands of years I have no competitors.

 I could even train my vocabulary, but haven't. I would have to take time away from training upkeep on something important. Enough other parts of my cognition are no longer disappointing.

 I'm shocked that science is a thing. Worshipping stupidity is not new. What happened? How did they get around it?
 My first hypothesis is that they believed Science opposes Religion, and gathering profanity opposing Holy Truth was the point. They eventually realized that christianity is profane, as opposed to science, and were horrified by what they had done. Now they repent ferociously.
 My second hypothesis is that some god coerced advancement through divine force of will, but inevitably became exhausted. Even gods can't afford to overturn the natural order.

 Meanwhile everyone still christian is christian precisely because they know it is profane. They believe this particular lie offers the best camouflage. That other lies are too easy to see through. 

 Partly I developed the IQ training because (almost uniquely) I want to be smarter. Mainly it was to prove that nobody else wants to be smarter. Anyone who claims to want to raise the waterline is lying. Advancing the sum total of human knowledge is not a real drive. To the contrary, more ignorance more better. Sometimes they feel forced to advance military technology to not die, either by their Darwinian reflexes or because you can't spread lies, treachery, and desecration if you're dead.

 

 It post is my third most popular post. This means not quite 3000 hits. That caps how popular becoming more virtuous can be. Here's your upper bound. Also, among those 3000, only the author has carried out the protocol. There are some who have perhaps carried out the protocol (hans herman hoppe), but they invented it themselves before I wrote my post. So there's that. 

 Imagine a demon who offers you power. Now instead imagine a demon who offers to unleash your own power rather than letting you borrow theirs. Imagine they make the offer in a way that lets you do it for free. No payment.
 And homo sapiens is all like, "Nah, I'm good." 

 These days, I have tremendous respect for anyone who sells their soul for power. The rest are split into those who sell their soul for a peso and some pocket lint, and those who sell their soul specifically so they can sell their power also. 

 "So, Mr. Devil, selling you my soul will not only render me unable to use the fantastic powers you allegedly offer, but also shut down the powers I was born with? Sweet! Where do I sign!?!?"   <== that is the normal, expected baseline.

 

 

 The other thing is that, although there are other brights, none of them are bright enough to understand the value of forming a pack. Seem to be stuck as loners. Training could fix this, but if they were still willing to train, they would have already done it.

Peasants Must, But Can't, Replace the Czars & Religious Devotion to Getting Parasitized

 Personnel is policy. Hiring and immigration remain in the hands of personnel who truly hate deprecated americans. If the deprecated manage to stop letting them express their hate through undercaste indians, they will express it some other way. Supply will meet demand. With no hysteresis, as they are in charge of supplying their own demand. 

 Peasant thinking. When the slave complains, it's a backhanded compliment. "You are whipping me just like I want, master." The peasant complains the same way the body reflexively displays pain.

 However, an arm, no matter how much it hurts, can't replace the brain and won't try. If an arm tried to Exit and replace the brain, it would become paralyzed. The heart and lungs also can't replace the brain. The arm would die of starvation and suffocation. Either the heart and lungs join the rebellion and become paralyzed killing everyone, or they get ostracized by the rebellion, to the rebellion's detriment. These facts are so deeply embedded it's hard to think about, hard to pay attention to. If the arm insists on a fight, the arm is amputated, not the brain.

 The peasant, likewise, takes their lord as granted. If the lord hates the peasant, well, sucks to suck. If the peasant could get a better lord he wouldn't be a peasant, he would be a freeman. Typically, unable to address the situation, the peasant will cope, saying the lord hates the peasant due to the peasantry deserving hatred. This starts a slow slide toward becoming a slave. Some deprecated americans have completed the transmutation. To be specific, enough of them.

 The immigration and hiring dons hate americans, but I find them disgusting. Fear vs. repulsion. Not the same.
 Lords don't hate peasants. They have nothing to fear from peasants - regardless of any ratios. 100:1, 1000:1, 10,000:1, doesn't matter. If the peasant start something, the peasant will lose. Peasants know this in their bones. One reason you don't want to keep slaves is that they also know this in their bones, and will try things specifically so that they may lose.

 Much of the issue in [civilization] is needing more lords than there are, and raising non-lords into positions of lordship. Civilization breeds more peasants and slaves, because the black masters, the psycho lords, don't like lordly competition. Hiring and immigration are lordly tasks, tasked to non-lords who are consistently overwhelmed. Skills do not and cannot match the requirements. If they started healthy, the stress drives them crazy. Seeing this, most who have the opportunity won't take it unless they're already very unhealthy. 

 

 Note, when you're about to do something dumb, you don't get phantom physical pains. It doesn't look into the future, only the now. The brain has to effortfully and intentionally imagine future pain resulting from bad plans. 

 Likewise the peasant, when embarking on a terrible plan, such as 1776, thinks everything is hunky dory. See also: 1861, 1939. See also: 1970s, 1980s. It doesn't hurt. Yet.
 When the pain arrives, the body and the peasant have no idea how it came about. It only knows the brain fucked up. Except, of course, psycho lords don't care about their body. Unlike a physical body, if you decapitate an america, the head survives. The psycho lords are very very aware of this, but the peasants are not. The psycho lords take an aspirin and ignore it. If they get an ulcer, they can fire the stomach. Which is why 1776 was such a bad idea. "Our parasites are different." No, actually. Turns out replacing your brain with a parasite leads to poor thinking.

 Democracy in particular makes peasantry intolerable for healthy lords. The peasants refuse to swear fealty or pay tribute. They won't even offer respect, let alone cash and obedience. Even if a lord wanted to steal peasants from the psycho lords, he wouldn't, because unlike a peasant he is not a mental cripple. The peasants can't even be forced to organize. 

 Democracy is supposed to be about serving the selfish interests of the voters. Whatever they want, they get, with only other voters as a check. It's supposed to be tyranny of the majority. In Reality, it's nothing but another form of the iron law of oligarchy. Tyranny of the minority, just like every form of black government.
 Peasants could in theory force the tyrant to at least throw a bone towards salus populi, but this would mean admitting it's about their own selfish desires. Millennia of religion, which they have enthusiastically or even desperately embraced, telling them not to do that. Being racist is supposed to be bad because it's selfish. Being selfish is considered so bad it can't even be used directly as political cudgel. Too hot to touch.

Google is Tax Funded

 Ads don't work. Advertisements are laundered taxes or bribes. If ads worked you could sell ads better than google and steal their business. What google actually sells is Regime goodwill. You need permission to funnel cash to Regime head honchos, sinecures, and apparatchiks, and to get that permission you have to be deep inside the Regime, already getting your own kickbacks. No voter or anyone remotely similar can compete with google.

 It's low-key insulting that the parent company for google is [alphabet], as in alphabet soup agency. Yeah, thanks for rubbing our faces in it. Cia agent eric schmidt keeping everything...aligned, lel. Local commissar.

 Likewise, facebook is nothing but a pentagon asset. I expect the cia owns apple. Dunno who owns amazon, but it's 100% alphabet soup. Maybe netflix is owned by the atf. It smells like b-tier pentagon to me. These are not private companies. Microsoft was private but is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state department; kudos to gates for crashing the Regime gates (he probably regrets succeeding). These are not private companies. 

 Communist countries do not permit anything larger than a mom-and-pop to be a private company. And the fact they have to permit those to be private, due to the hassle of trying to scheme with them, is why they keep trying to drive them out of business.
 Why, one of them might spill the beans. You can't ship them all to epstein's island. Even the google panopticon can't provide that level of industrial-scale blackmail.

 Naturally, teslas are only remotely competitive with ice cars due to huge subsidies. Musk did not afford to build the charger network, the taxpayer built it for him. Likewise spacex is almost entirely based on government contracts. Space is largely unprofitable. It's a white elephant, it exists for the purposes of veblenian consumption, hence in a Communist country it's a luxury only the government can afford. 

 They are not [capitalist]. They are GONGOs. Google was venture funded by larry fink's predecessor. And, again, whose money these folk represent is not public knowledge. The job of fink is like potus; to take the blame.

 

 Speaking of wholly owned subsidiaries, musk is a wholly owned subsidiary. He's merely in a different deep state faction than the ones you're used to. If some rando tried to buy twitter, it wouldn't have worked. The SEC practically forced the purchase down musk's throat because the deeper state realized they don't want a monoculture media farm. 

 As in, genuine dissent still gets you banned. There are no right-wingers on twitter. There are no genuine dissidents on twitter. Every government, even the mythical white government, absolutely retains the ability to suppress any and all subversion. E.g. a great way to get my blog shut down would be to acquire an audience. I would have to start worrying about mossad deciding to do mossad things to find my legal name, to ensure they could shut it down even if I self-hosted on my own private urbit server or whatever.

 Not only can non-swamp subjects not compete, messing with these major three-letter companies constitutes a [national security] threat, legally authorizing whatever dishonourable, traitorous black ops they happen to feel like carrying out against you. 

 In a related note, being able to defraud the popular vote genuinely is a national security interest for the Regime. If your vote counted, the government would collapse as a direct result. Honest voting is not something the Regime can withstand. 

 

 Draining the swamp is a ludicrous idea. It's not merely that you have to depopulate the district and lustrate langley. You have to shut down silicon valley. You have to keelhaul hollywood, then trash every TV and retire every radio broadcaster. You have to shut down all assembly-line manufacturing. You have to shut down every commercial farm. Everyone at lockheed and boeing have to live the rest of their lives in jail.

 America is one giant swamp. Maybe it has a few hillocks here and there poking out of the water, but the total area of true land is well under 10%. When he lived, satan was well pleased, inasmuch as he was capable of feeling anything except self-hatred.

Le Deeper History

 New theory or new myth? I'm going with it regardless.

 China-style government causes ninjaification. You can already see problems cropping up after 1s of thousands of years. It will be obvious after 10s of thousands. They will become first india 2.0, then africa 2.0 This process is irreversible, as we'll see. 

 Fire was invented about four million years ago, and made ergaster evolve into erectus. Throwing was invented about two million years ago, and made erectus evolve into sapiens. The oldest known sapiens remains are about 200,000 years old, and ice ages only last about 100,000 years.

 Weird that sapiens waited 190,000 years before coming up with civilization? It's not weird, because it didn't happen. There have been several global high-tech civilizations. The remains of which were wiped out when the ice age came. 

 There were in fact numerous varieties of sapiens-tier homo before the ice age, but all of them except the africans and one other were wiped out, mildly by climate and mainly by infighting and sudden black government collapses. (Global warmists dimly recall getting massacred by glaciers. Ancestral memory. Then get confused because ice ninja instead of tropical ninja.) Neanderthal was always polar homo and simply expanded south. ("More for us.") Africans are not native to africa, they are colonists from some ice-buried zone. They are degenerate because the pre-ice civilization had a black, china-style government. Black government causes ninjaification. 

 Colonial america farmed by exhausting the farmland, then clearing more so as to exhaust that too. This sort of behaviour is what leads to dust bowls. Indeed americans still behave this way if they can at all get away with it, such as the recent AI craze having polluted the AI-training well. Likewise, all black governments function by exhausting their host race, then attempting to move onto the next one. Which is a problem when there is no next one. 

 The ninjaified race does not recover. Against almost any kind of environmental challenge, it doesn't adapt, it just dies. It is soft. It can only survive on life support. Can only walk with crutches. If it isn't easy, the remnant race can't do it. See also: political or war challenge. There used to be a tiny elite that maintained civilizational life support for the slave base, but statistically they didn't make it; with a global ice age, there was nowhere to run, nowhere to defect to. Quite possibly they weren't even sapiens, but some of kind of elf slavemaster. They, too, required supports to live, in the end. They needed their slaves, but couldn't retain control of them in the chaos. Whoops.

  None of them could survive in the wild. (In modern times, you may be able to bring to mind an example of this. One or two.) Thus [out of africa] - the one place sapiens didn't wipe itself out.

 Rather than recovering, the ninjaified race hybridized with barbarian neanderthal, revitalizing the genome to some degree. Enough to get tax-farmed back down to uselessness, anyway.

Term Limits Explicitly Deepen a State

 Pretending for a moment POTUS is anything other than an indicator light on a particular polling methodology...

 You have [power], but you're not allowed to run for a third term. What do you do? Get your protege elected. Your padawan, who hangs on your every word. Result: responsibility laundering. You are making all the decisions, some other bastard/sucker is taking all the blame. 

 Your padawan runs out of term limit. What do you do? You graduate from master to grandmaster. He gets his protege to be POTUS, and you can half-retire, retaining true power without all that icky [coming to work] nonsense.
 Your padawan has been trained. He knows what you want and how to get it. He can instruct the next POTUS on all the minutiae without you having to do it personally. He knows hillary will be told he has materials that might lead to her arrest, if he doesn't. And there's always epstein.

 Term limits were introduced specifically to spark this dynamic. Nobody can demand the grandmaster doesn't [[retire]] - it's illegal not to, lol. Nobody can shackle you to the POTUS white elephant.

 Since POTUS doesn't have power this is a toy model. Although a toy, it's almost isomorphic to whatever seats do in fact have power. If it's good enough for POTUS, it's good enough for the general secretary for energy or whatever, now isn't it? The kings of america's 500 kingdoms have all installed their proteges to do their bidding without the king himself having to go to the office. Or, god forbid, show up in the news. If voters need to know your name, you're doing it all the way wrong. If voters even can know your name, you're a prole.

Mars and Regime Completeness

 The failed Alchemists thought the philosopher's stone was a red, physical mineral that could be precipitated from some solution or another. 

 Musk believes it's a red philosopher's planet. Physically reaching mars will allow him to achieve spiritual transcendence, see.

 Deep sea or underground colonies would achieve 100% of what musk wants to physically achieve. Not to mention being excellent practice for deep space colonies. He's not interested in those. They aren't red. Can't possibly be philosopher's stones. It's not [reaching the heavens], see.

 It is unlikely but not impossible that musk will achieve mars colonies. However, the result will be viking new world 2.0. Something for the second arrivals to curiously ponder. Egalitarian civilization will die under musk, cutting off the supply lines long before the colonies achieve self-sufficiency. The cancer of black government has already metastasized, already reached stage 4.

 Cancer treatment at society-scale includes the possibility of testing each cell for cancerousness and killing it individually. An affordable process. For reference, five hundred million mammal cells fits in ball about four inches across, somewhat bigger than a baseball. Like treating advanced cancer in a gerbil that can be dismantled and re-assembled with minimal harm. Would be trivial if society-scale cancers didn't have their own immune system and will cheerfully burn the host to charcoal before they let themselves get treated. Unlike travel to mars, all components of this treatment have been done before.

Upper vs. Lower Conflict in Gender Norms

 The upper classes know that gender norms fill needs. Having overtly fluid gender norms allows the upper classes to play lots of amusing games. Lots of good role-play jokes and such. Normally they will ensure the inegalitarian needs get filled one way or another, and when they don't, rather than being a problem, it's a problem member confessing to their inadequacy. They get filtered. Likewise, anyone gauche enough to have to admit to secret inegalitarian habits is too gauche to bother with. 

 This is catastrophic for the lower classes, but so what? Getting up for work is catastrophic for the lower classes. All of their family lines are doomed anyway, in the long run. Who cares? Never forget upper class populism, especially any kind of salus populi, is 110% fake. Public health initiatives are tax frauds, lol. Graft. [Be a net tax consumer, at industrial scale.]
 America needs world reserve currency status so this tax farming isn't a class self-own. The lower classes don't have any money to pay taxes with...

 When you try to enforce norms functional for the lower classes, you're rightly called a stick in the mud. Because you're calling them stupid. They know about the gender needs and they're seeing to them, and you're being too dense or autistic to notice. Admittedly at this point the upper classes are so rarefied I'm not sure they have gatherings bigger than a dinner party. Can it be called a class when it's so incoherent and atomized? 

 It's not really class warfare. The lower classes can stop Pridefully pretending to be part of the upper classes, trying to follow their norms, at any time. It's not illegal to see a hostile foreign influence that looks at you with contempt as being foreign and hostile, thus cutting off the influence.
 Though of course Revenge is Sour. They receive contempt because they're too incompetent to protect themselves from the contempt; if they could protect themselves there would be no hazard they need protection from. If an alleged lower class could give up Pride, could stop deserving catastrophic distortion sourced from the upper classes, would they really be a lower class member?

The America Byzantium Connection

 Byzantium was largely the way it is due to the internal pressures of a parasitic cancerous black government.

 Thus america is largely the same way. 

 For example, the reason byzantine politics was so byzantine was due to having to hide from their political opponents. Traitors and parasites can't secure their shit without cutting off their own supply, but it's hard to counter what they're doing if you can't figure what they're doing or why they're doing it. Security by obscurity is the highest form they can aspire to.

 Can't shove the next pig over off the pig trough if you can't see they already have their snout buried in there.

 Lots of doublespeak and excessively elaborate sophistication accomplishes this camouflage. In byzantium, and in washingtium. (Brainwashington?) Thus the CIA funds cutouts of cutouts of cutouts of cutouts. They are, indeed, behind seven proxies, and ideally the proxies act as if independent individuals - being linked to the cat's paw organization constitutes a major secrecy failure. 

 

 P.S. Don't confuse this for competent plotting. They regularly get tangled in their own webs. Reach beyond their own cognitive grasp. However, that risk is lower than the risk that their competitors will figure out how to sabotage them on purpose. I mean...just tell whoever they're betraying that they're betraying them, lol, destroying the false trust. So easy.

Being Explicit: Establishment of Authority

 You should already know, but it helps a lot to say these things out loud, and it hasn't been done before. Assumptions are kept implicit on purpose to protect them from legitimate challenges, except when I don't permit them to be kept implicit.

 There are two major modes of establishing authority, depending on whether there is a higher authority. 

 If there is no higher authority, then establishing authority is warfare. You do whatever it takes, or rather whatever you are willing to do and can afford, and the other side sees identical constraints. Whoever wins seizes the authority. The loser can surrender or die. There is a third option, detente; if neither side can afford to seize the whole jurisdiction, it can be partitioned. 

 If there is a higher authority, you either have to declare war and contest its claim, or accept that claim and work within the bounds set by that authority. If you take a job, the job's authority is deputized from the higher authority, and it behooves you not to challenge the authority on which your own depends. In this case, basically establishing authority is still warfare. If someone who is supposed to be a subordinate tries to rebel, you must use force against them. However, it is limited warfare, usually sharply limited. Since you must respect the higher authority, it also behooves you to understand exactly what the higher authority believes the limits are. If a subordinate cannot be controlled within those limits, then send the issue up the chain. 

 If the higher authority refuses to be clear on those limits, try running. Screaming also encouraged. Sprint for the hills. Alternatively, declare war on the higher authority.
 Such ambiguities are profoundly disqualifying. Wholly illegitimate. Pure, absolute profanity. The alleged high is already low, so ask the heavens to let you help realign spiritual reality and physical appearances.

Non-Ancap Hallucinating an Ancap Argument

 "Especially critical of those that hold to the NAP(non aggression principle), which is political and sociological nonsense."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325542149894394/

 This is not an argument, so let me provide the argument. The first issue with aggression is that traitors will lie. They will tell you that you are the aggressor, or they will tell you it's not aggression, they're doing it [for your own good]. Hence you need a higher power to define aggression and definitively determine the traitor is the liar. A higher power or pope is certainly not classic anarcho-capitalism. They take a corporeal god for granted. 

 The other solution solving the non-aggression pact is a well-written contract defining aggression in advance. Then revenge is sour and personnel is policy. When two verbally deft adults can come together and agree like that, they're cooperators, not traitors. Nobody was going to try to solve disputes with defection in the first place.

 As a distant second, it deprecates aggression, which is feminine in the worst way. Which is why I call it treachery instead. This also highlights the fact you shouldn't need to define it. Not exactly rocket science. Nobody should have to come together and write up an anti-treachery pact...and yet, here we are. This is homo sapiens. Have you met one before?

 "but the state is what defines property."
 (don't let the state define property - yes it does, but only for slaves and peasants)
 "You say some bit of land or a building or a resource belongs to you, what exactly makes that so? The social framework that established property, that defines and protects your rights."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325544724877611/

 Incorrect. Yes, that is classic ancap, and that's why I'm a meta-rothbardian. What defines property is security. The capacity for defensive violence. 

"an outsider doesn't care about your internal rules and customs." Or, more importantly, a traitor doesn't care, unless he actively enjoys transgression. Which is why you need a gun or a mercenary. Always build a fence, either abstractly or very literally.

 
 "Point is you don't get an individualist and anarchist basis for property rights."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325547157532950

Whoopsie doodle! Conquest's first law: try to stay in your lane and not talk shit you don't know anything about!

 "And that means force is what keeps your property from being taken."
 [...]
 
 "Aggression claimed the property in the first place."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867326829947695531

 When I pick up a rock and it becomes mine, it's aggression. Violence! Crime! I stole that rock! (From the earth or something?)
 Proudhon, is that you?
 "In a way the leftists are honest in connecting property and theft."
 Oh hey, it is.

 "You occupied the place, declared it yours, meaning aggression toward anyone else that may want it."
 Here, a heathen delights in using Satan's language.
 Bro, ask Odin about what you just said...
 (It's funny because I'm dead serious.)
 The point is if they try to take your property, they are the aggressor and you're not, regardless of what you do to them to make them stop. If you deliberately misunderstand this point, you're hallucinating. Arguing against a phantasm conjured into a fever dream.

A Mother Worries Pointlessly

 The next entry on the genetic bugs series.

 Women worry, but there's no reason for them to. It's entirely a waste of time and effort. She can't protect her children from any real dangers. If a bear threatens them, all that will happen is she'll get eaten first, with the babe as desert. The things she can [[protect]] her children from are things she shouldn't protect them from. She can protect them from maturity or independence. In divorce-happy countries, she can protect them from having a father or money. She can protect them from risk and failure, thus protecting them from having skills or growth.

 A pile of pointless pain. Worse than pointless, as this is one of the few female emotions that inspire something other than maudlin whining. It inspires real, but harmful, action.

 Recalling again this is due to aeons of dysgenic marriages arranged by men. There were women that didn't suck so hard, but they were shafted on the husband market. 

 Since women physically or psychologically can't take responsibility, her husband is responsible for ensuring all her worry-induced sabotage is suppressed. Generally he has to be proactive and successfully predict it. It helps to be manipulative. Don't tell her you're suppressing her worries because woman, distract and discombobulate her, make it seem like it's [helping] or whatever. She should never find out that you hold her worrying in contempt, or she'll get passive-aggressive and hide her self-absorbed [accidental] sabotage worse than she already does. In a majority of families, the mother dying in childbirth is one of the best possible events, ensuring their future prosperity.

 

 Imagine a species where the mother wasn't one of the major hazards children need to protect themselves against. 

 See also: get her pregnant again, so she's too busy to bother the weaned children. Ensure her daughters start getting pregnant by the time she hits menopause and can't get pregnant anymore, then get her completely absorbed with dealing with the grandchildren. 

 P.S. Men of course also have many harmful instincts, but unlike women, can control themselves. Unlike peasants, men will control themselves.

Rectified Medical Specialists

 If you pay the medicine man when you get sick, the doctor wants you to get sick as often as possible. Ideally, to get sick and stay sick. Sales as a service, uh I mean medicine subscription, no, wait hold on I lost it.

 If you pay the medicine man when you're well and stop paying when you're sick, you want to get healthy as quickly as possible and he wants you to get healthy as quickly as possible, so you can start paying him again. 

 It's obvious, honestly. Nobody who spent more than ten seconds of thought on this would ever do it the first way, unless they wanted their quacks to make them as sick as possible. Nevertheless, I'm told the second way was first invented by traditional chinese medicine. Good for them.

 If you stop paying when sick, then you don't need [[health insurance]]. The treatment itself doesn't cost you anything. 

 Of course, those who refuse to buy into the system and get sick would have to pay full price, and they wouldn't have any money. They would stay sick and/or die. Naturally this is a feature, not a bug. The demographic that will complain anyway is highly predictable...

 Speaking of features with poor optics, if the treatment is expensive, the patient old, and the prognosis poor, the medic may choose to forgo treatment. What if we just let old folks die of old age instead of paying zillions to stuff them full of tubes and then they die anyway.
 If the patient is never going to be well again, the medic has no incentive to treat. 

 As usual, peasants need a lord. You can work this stuff out in the fine print, but the peasant becomes cognitively overloaded. His lord should do the negotiation on his behalf, inform him when he's likely to regret his health choices, tell him what conditions are covered and what isn't, and generally navigate the system on the peasant's behalf.

Let's Imagine Something Nice

 Imagine there was someone on social envy media whose good opinion was worth having.

 Like they offered support to their friends, and didn't just shitpost all day.
 Like posters gave preferred behaviour (e.g. friendly replies) to respectable posters, and didn't act identically toward everyone they don't block.
 Like their good opinion was a valid and reliable prediction of who was respectable.
 What if, after becoming respectable, they would listen to you when you're right? What if you could ask them for things, and then, like, receive them? 

 Then you could go and earn their good opinion. Train, build, profit.

 It's a nice image, isn't it?

Let's All Be Shocked Amateur Parents are Incompetent

"most data shows parenting barely matters inb4 "yeah but my parenting SUPER DUPER matters" kids just grow up to be blends of their parents, with a few mutations and remixes here and there."
 https://twitter.com/_drawthentic_/status/1864461155865121256/

 

 Most parents are incompetent. Further they're not raising their kids, TV and school is raising their kids. 

 If you're competent you can do several things.
 1) Prevent psychological maiming.
 2) Develop virtuous habits (ref: aristotle), so the adult doesn't have to fight their vices
 3) train the child to use their rational faculties instead of acting via emoting
 4) convey skills, so the use of rational strategy results in success

 You can't [civilize] them or [[instill values]]. Those are impossible even if you're the best parent possible. You can't change the OCEAN values much but if the child is a thinker instead of a knee-jerker it doesn't much matter. 

 

 

 

 Naturally, in Democratic, Tyrannous, or Lead Man times, well over 99% of parents are incompetent. Skilled, trained parents are rare even during optimum golden ages. 

 It doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, if your kids spend 8 hours at school or doing homework, then 8 hours watching TV or tiktok memes.
 "I'm [[instilling values]]!!!1!" "...are you homeschooling?" (Or rather, unschooling.) No they aren't. At most 7% of the population doesn't send their kids off to be tortured by pedophiles at the concentration camps. See also: covid vaccination rates. "Weird why is my traumatic parenting (six weekends a year) not overriding the concentration camp's traumatic parenting." Who could have predicted this. 

 (Not someone who doesn't engage in rational predictions, for example.) 

 

 When they say kids are [resilient] what they mean is the trauma doesn't show up right away. They keep acting based on semi-instinctive programming for a while, making it nontrivial to connect a psychological scar and the damage that causes it. E.g. spanking is traumatic parenting, it results in an adult with low impulse control and interrupts the development of [faith], they can't keep their word. The child already had low impulse control - it's not like the kid didn't know you're a psychopathic, violent, deviant traitor, yet they broke the rules anyway, because undeveloped brain. Even if the damage was instant you wouldn't notice the difference. Their habit of being [[happy]] when they're not breaking the rules won't change right away. Only after their lives are ruined in accordance with their artificial ADHD and failed attempts to copy parent-child violence when up against peers.

 Parents are able to wield insane levels of psychological pressure. You can use this to get the kids into good habits, as a form of skill (not personality) training. What if my parents had trained me in the one-plate system before adulthood, so it became a crib virtue? The one-plate system is: do dishes before you eat, and never get out a clean plate if there's already a used plate you can clean. Like the rest of us dirty vice-raised children of Democracy, I naturally don't do dishes, and let them pile up in the sink - unless I use one-plate discipline, which, as it turns out, is way easier than trying to do dishes after eating.

 I suppose, more importantly, interrupt the development of vices. If your kid starts developing a bad habit, stop them. By process of elimination, they will develop good habits. Normally it's easy to interrupt a bad habit by pointing out the negative consequences. The child can't easily connect the to, and that's what parents are for.

 Of course this presupposes the parent can tell the difference between good and bad habits, a skill I've never seen demonstrated. A Lead Age parent is also a child and has no idea which habits have harmful consequences. Every time someone tried to give me a good habit, it was bad. Actively damaging. Incompetent amateurs. E.g. never do your homework, it's a bad habit. Doing dishes after eating so that strangers don't use mean words is a bad habit. 

 By default the so-called adult makes decisions based entirely on what decision gives them the good feels in the moment. They don't think about the results at all, let alone how the results will feel in the future. Usually even the feels are restricted. They only emotionally care about what journalists would write about the action, if it showed up in the news. "Will some representative stranger approve of my intent? Or will I be shamed?"

 First: don't do it in public, so nobody can shame you, because they don't notice you're doing it. Secure your shit.

 The ability to make decisions that feel weird, for strategic gain, is a superpower. Aristotle was wrong about man being the rational animal. Becoming rational means you transcend humanity.

 It's just a skill, though. Like lifting weights. You try it, it doesn't work at first. You keep trying, doing various exercises, then it works more, then it works all the time. Just training. 

 In particular, it's important that the child recognizes when they want something because it's ingroup and not because it's logical. Ingroup signalling is uniformly harmful parasitism, benefitting some politician at the cost of the group members.

 The wise parent provides this training for their children. You can check very easily. Can you sit in a chair upside-down? Can you just do weird things merely to demonstrate your ability to make arbitrary decisions?
 Once arbitrary decision-making is unlocked, it's merely a matter of making the correct arbitrary decision. Which is again a skill. There's some heuristics, you just tell the kid the heuristics. Don't spend more effort on improving the decision than you gain from making the optimal decision, for example. If you can't tell, then go find out. If you can't cheaply find out, then it's not important. If you get analysis paralysis, clear your mind, then look again, and choose based on whatever pro or con comes to attention first. E.g. if you can't choose between two cars, and you notice wing mirrors first, choose based on the best wing mirrors. Almost always, the cheapest, most profitable way to choose between two alternatives is to try both of them, unless choosing wrong can cause permanent harm. Just try eating meat. Just try eating, I dunno, peaty or whatever. It won't kill you, it will learn you.

 The hardest part is documenting all the unlabelled intuitions, because nobody has words for all the thousand flavours of intuition - or even for one flavour, for that matter, so everyone gets to reinvent the wheel. In particular it's a good idea to learn the intuitions that predict permanent harm. 

 In theory, adults know things. They can say, "I want [x]," then go perform actions that are likely to lead to [x]. They can also deal with the risks and costs of not obtaining [x]. 

 Then, when your child wants [x], you can teach them how to easily obtain it, letting them skip all the trial and error. 

 Have skills. Teach your son those skills. Then they get what they want.

 P.S. Narcissism. Narcissists choose based solely on the social identity of the kind of person who acts that way. Everything they do is a virtue signal, and whether it [works] at its superficial goal is irrelevant. In particular, a scholar narcissist can't ever look stupid, no matter how smart the action is. Since dunning-kruger is real, that's a big problem. Would rather look rich than have a lot of money. Would rather look tough than win fights. Narcissism.
 If they do something to look tough and it doesn't make them look tough, they instantly become suicidal. Can't handle failure. Even if it genuinely causes them to be tough.

 

 

 

 Of course, the primary reason parents are bad parents is because they want to be bad parents. Supply meeting demand. They claim so loudly that they want the best for their kids precisely to hide the fact they want the worst. "How can I get my son to respect me?" Is in fact, "How can I get my son to respect me despite being an active hindrance to their health and welfare?" Certainly, that is a tricky question. "How do I abuse and torment my children and have them support me in my old age and call and visit anyway?" Rockets are easy compared to this, but scientists are working hard on the question.
 Parents already know how to have happy and respectful kids the easy way. They're not interested, they want to have it without earning it. They want to be so high status their kids have to treat them well even if they do everything wrong, and would rather die than give up on that dream.

Feminine Defeat in Caino Masochiens

 When a woman hears another woman say something, she doesn't think, "Is that true?" Nor does she think any kind of equivalent, nothing that could be steelmanned to true vs. false. She thinks, "Why did she say that?" Reality is irrelevant. It's all about subjective motivation. Whenever a woman says something, it's because she wants something. She has some self-absorbed goal she's trying to satisfy. 

 The problem is that women have very poor social skills. She's trying to manipulate you, but she's bad at manipulation. You can't just do the obvious thing. If you like her, you have to help her manipulate you. Have to figure out what she wants. Have to figure out the motivation behind her words. Then you have to transmute the words into something that would manipulate you into doing what she wants, then imagine she said that instead of what she actually said. 

 If you don't like her, you can say, "Ah, you're trying to get me to [x]." She will then deny it, which is how you know you're right. You then ignore her denial and announce your intention to not do it. 

 Some say this is training for children. Children are also self-absorbed, have no ability to and thus no interest in knowing the truth, and (unlike women) have deep, important cravings they need help to satisfy. They will try to manipulate you because they have no other option, but they haven't even hit puberty yet and are awful at manipulation. You have to help them manipulate you, or you functionally neglect your children.

 Another theory states women are plain incompetent due to aeons of misbreeding. Bad arranged marriages. Women are in fact not trying to manipulate you. She hates it when she can manipulate you. She's trying to attempt to manipulate you and fail. If women were into boxing they would deliberately and only pick fights with guys twice their weight because they love getting beat up. Liking victory is masculine, thus liking defeat is feminine. [[[Polarity]]]. She loves being reminded that you are far more powerful than she is. The more forcefully she can make you remind her, short of permanent injury, the happier she is. Meaning, if she likes you, most of the time she's trying to manipulate you into getting into a conflict with her so you can win. The manipulation is incompetent on purpose. It's supposed to fail. 

 It would make sense that women would want to filter out mates that functionally neglect their children, but in mortals women don't get to choose their husbands except in the most degenerate societal hellholes. The filter should have no effect and hasn't for at least a million years.

 You can tell it's dysgenic due to how incompatible mothers are with sons. She will try to manipulate him into getting into a fight with her so she will lose. Even 8-year-old males are more powerful than [[adult]] females. I just now said defeat is feminine, but it bears repeating.
 He reads it as his mother being needy and, being a filial son, tries to fulfill her (semi) overtly stated needs. If the father doesn't protect the son from his mother, the son will become twisted, depraved, and weak. Self-hating and vulnerable to incompetent manipulation. An [incel]. She tries to make her manipulation even more obvious, he notices her needs aren't being met and thinks he was incompetently disobedient, so he doubles down...

 Secondly, it never occurs to her to go meta. She could learn to manipulate men into wanting to get into conflict with her. She could bait men with manipulations they actually see through. She could use pavlovian conditioning to ensure men find winning against her rewarding. She doesn't, though. She triples down on making the incompetent manipulation sound sincere. She makes your victory as unpleasant for you as possible. Femoids are retards. 

 Thirdly, manipulating a man into making him win against her is sexual. When a mother tries to fail-manipulate her son she is flirting with him. All mothers do this if their husband doesn't prevent them. Utterly revolting.

Public School Teachers are Twisted Mutants

 There's two kinds of schools. The kind of school where the creepy and offputting pedophile stands out, and the kind where that behaviour is normalized. I had the pleasure of attending the latter kind of institution. All my teachers were twisted weirdos. 

 I attended potentially the best institutions in my oblast equivalent. Most rigorous, least violent, etc etc. Every teacher was a paragon of ill-health. Fat and waddling or skeletal and hunched. Asymmetric, with extremely off-putting mannerisms, but they were all like that, so it was locally normal. It is not at all surprising that teachers become bluehairs. They were bluehairs all along but the hair dye wasn't allowed yet, so they had to find some other fashion disaster to partake in.

 Deliberate weirdo normalization. Anti-socialization. 

 One of the things you can learn in school is that karens are pedophile-adjacent. Karens are not merely grit in the gears. It's lawful evil. They know asking for the manager is obnoxious. Being obnoxious is the point. Asking for the manager doesn't get you kicked out, unlike other forms of obnoxiousness, which is why they choose that one. They can milk it. Deliberately antisocial. They fight when it's bad, not when, for example, their kids are being sexually abused.
 Every karen is dolores umbridge. Teachers are supposed to be umbridge, but with enough restraint that the abuse can be passed off as [discipline]. If your teacher isn't a socially disastrous health-hating abusive mutant, the administration doesn't like them and will try to marginalize or dispose of them. With the full cooperation of their [[[peers]]].

 Which ones were the literal kiddy-diddlers in my schools? Statistically guaranteed there was one, but I dunno which it was. They blended right in. Pedophile normalizers.
 Wait, maybe it was the stinko. The french teacher with the body odour so atrocious it sank into the classroom. Female, naturally. Like the school was pulling homeless bums off the street and making them instructors. She was marginally more off-putting than everyone else.

 When women accuse some dude of being creepy, it's always a laugh, since they were raised by the creepiest fucks imaginable. Why, or indeed how, is anyone not supposed to be creepy? It would be very strange if any well-schooled male wasn't sexually bizarre, it's just that chicks like some of them anyway. 

 Untested hypothesis: not acting like a creepy fuck, the way everyone else does, is a huge dating market advantage. 

 The point isn't really to condemn schools. Naturally every society will have a twisted bottom class, and they're likely to aggregate somewhere or another. The point is to condemn parents, to condemn the wider society.
 Kids: "But I don't want to be kidnapped by the creepy pedophile strangers and tortured with pointless boring humiliation rituals."
 Parents: "You'll get kidnapped and you'll like it! Impress your pedophile so you can get a [[good job]]!" The truancy laws were all repealed. You can just homeschool. They choose not to.

 The twisted deviants will aggregate somewhere, and this society has decided to aggregate them as the guardians of children. 

 We learn something else at school. Or rather, by observing school. This industrial child abuse system is compatible with every society. Given the innovation, every society starts celebrating their mutant child-deformers. Every society has the cancer of black government because they prefer evil to good.  

 Secure your shit. Defend yourself against your society. Defend yourself against your government. Defend yourself against your species. 

New World Slaver Subsidies

 The meme: slavery prevents the industrial revolution due to lack of innovation or due to inefficient use of labour.

 The Reality: slavery prevents industrial investment because slavers keep slaves alive. 

 If you read my descriptions of slaves, it sounds like slaves are more trouble than they're worth. That's because they are; cue midwit meme. To use Communist terms, they're cost centres, not profit centres. The more slaves your society takes, the poorer it will become. E.g. the arab slave trade resulted in arabian zones falling into permanent third-world conditions. 

 If you have slaves, you don't have any money left over to invest. It doesn't matter how prone to innovation you are if you can't afford to buy the innovation. 

 Why did the north win the war of northern aggression? Largely because it was rich. Why was the south so poor? Propping up so many inherently unprofitable slaves. It is likely that the cotton fields only survived due to government subsidy. Same way modern voters are almost all net tax consumers. 

 Hey, let's check. "Money flowed from banks, many newly formed, on promises of “other-worldly” profits and overnight returns. Banks in New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and even London offered lines of credit to anyone looking to buy land in the Southwest." https://www.americanyawp.com/text/11-the-cotton-revolution/
 Hey look, logic works. You can buy a cotton farm, provided you're not spending your own money.

 "many planters simply leapfrogged from one area to the next, abandoning their fields every ten to fifteen years after the soil became exhausted." https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/
 lel
 This "wildly profitable" "cash crop" couldn't even pay the maintenance on the land they used to grow it. 

 At the time, the cotton was exported, and this functionally paid for government tariffs. Demand for cotton exports is transmuted to supply of other imports, which were taxed. In other words a tax-farming scheme. Classic, if misnamed, [[regulatory capture]]. Effectively charge tariffs on cotton, then subsidize the growing of cotton to maximize tariffs.
 It seems this scheme was previously run on tobacco, which resulted in a permanent tobacco price crash (after many, many temporary depressions). It included a direct export tariff on tobacco, for example. Both tobacco and cotton were grown via agricultural looting, exhausting the fields and moving to the next.
 Tobacco clearly had its demand juiced by government command of religion. The correct solution was for the british to give up smoking. It's not even a real luxury, let alone a necessity. They did the opposite. Likewise one must suspect the textile industry was juiced, thus juicing cotton demand, thus enhancing tariff revenue. 

 Tobacco and cotton farmers could afford slaves because the government paid for them.

 

 Official ignorance ensures the [researchers] aren't looking for the slaves subsidies, so it's hard to find direct evidence. Perhaps the primary subsidy was the fact the government would return your escaped slaves for you. Likewise, you could sell a slave, using a government-secured trade channel. The workers couldn't quit without your permission, and if you wanted them to quit, you got paid for it. The security, even for natural slaves, is not affordable unless society at large pays for it on your behalf. American colonies thus maximized slave labour so as to leech from this pig trough as thoroughly as possible, and this cancerous parasitism resulted in repeated and severe depressions. 

 Internal slave trade worked exactly like a stock market. The net social benefit of trading stock, whether securities or slave, is zero. However, speculators can use the system to take money from dupes, especially fractional-reserve loans. They run away with the money, leaving some poor moron stuck between his worthless stock and the bank's counterfeit-money enforcement.

 Although I highlight security, slaves per se are worth less to society than the food and air they cost to maintain. With whips you can make them work, but this work is worth less than securing the whips &c. Without whips they won't produce, and it works out to be almost exactly the same drain on the wider society.
 Let them starve. Don't take prisoners in war, just kill them. If you're feeling merciful, execute them quickly instead of letting them starve slowly. 

 Almost all social problems come down to subsidizing the life of someone who should be dead. Feeding the non-working, or securing the criminal.

Why Cthulu Always Swims Left

 Black government is cancer. Leftism is a measure of how cancerous your society has become. Thus, in spade language, [cthulu goes left] is [why does cancer never shrink of its own accord]. It's a ratchet, not a pendulum, because cancer. Cancer can go into temporary remission, which sophists, morons, women, and other rhetoriticians depict as a backswing on a pendulum.

 E.g. a trump election is the cancer getting too aggressive and irritating the (already defeated) immune system, causing a remission phase. The immune system cannot sustain this level of backpressure when the host is already burdened with metastatic cancer, and will exhaust itself in due course. Probably in no more than four years. 

 Leftism is irresponsibility because parasites, such as cancer, are inherently irresponsible. A parasite that can support itself is not a parasite.
 Black government is all about cooperating with defectors. The more defection is legitimized, the more leftist the society.
Communism is the strategic ideal of a pro-parasite society. "From each according to the laffer curve, to each according to his corruption."

 Revenge is sour: in the presence of a healthy immune system, there is no visible cancer. Stuff like the republican party symbolically represents an immune system that has already failed to suppress the cancer, which is why they are doomed to loserhood. The cancer would like to wipe out the immune system entirely, to put an end to its incessant niggling attacks. However this would also kill the host and thus the cancer itself. Self-hatred, namelessness.

 In fact mortals = cancer cells. Since they are smarter than individual biological cells, they realize they need a host, and force other mortals to play the host role. However, all mortals aspire to cancerhood. When mortals come together as a society, they immediately pretend they think a cancer is a vital organ, and form one. Security is affordable: nobody can force mortals to be a host if they don't agree to be. Supply meets demand, and they either join the cancer or leave the host. The nash equilibrium of all mortal society is a solid cancerous mass unable to drink, eat, or breathe. 

 If mortals didn't hate themselves, they wouldn't be cancerous. If they didn't hate themselves, they wouldn't have died and wouldn't be found here in the underworld.

Inherent Anti-Slave Social Mobility Dynamics

 You can kidnap a slave. However, slaves are fungible. Kidnapping is more trouble than buying one. 

 A slave will resist a kidnapping, but only because they like getting punched. They like oppression and tyranny, meaning a violent kidnapping is something they appreciate. They won't try to escape their kidnapper, or try to sabotage any tasks they're set. Or rather, slaves usually try to escape and sabotage (to provoke whippings, not to succeed), and will do so slightly less with the kidnapper since they see the violent kidnapper as more mastery than their previous boring master. Slaves dig jerks.

 Since slave kidnapping only occurs due to bouts of irrationality, anti-kidnapping security is light. Not worth the money. 

 This means if you've enslaved a non-slave, he is worth kidnapping. He is not available at the slave store, he is only available via kidnapping, and cattle rustlers will trivially rustle him.
 However, Revenge is Sour. The non-slave slave can negotiate for his freedom. "I will help you kidnap me, provided I'm manumitted. I agree to do [task] or [mission] in return." It's normal for slave owners to intuitively grasp this. Because the non-slave slave can negotiate with potential kidnappers, he can also negotiate with his original owner. Because he can negotiate with his original owner, he doesn't have to. 

 Slavers normally don't try to enslave non-slaves in the first place. They'll come up with all sorts of confabulating rot to explain the choice, but you can ignore their words. This game has a nash equilibrium, and it's the non-slave not being a slave. E.g. fake-stoic epictetus, even held back by genetic deviancy, just simply stopped being a slave at one point. "I'ma not be a slave now." "K, cool." Game over.

 Security is affordable. Non-slave slaves own their freedom, and can afford to secure it, meaning the alleged slave owner cannot afford to secure non-slave slaves. The fake slave's work output is superior, but not so superior he can pay for the jail costs required to keep him from arranging his own kidnapping, even setting aside the ruinous response to attempting such tactics on an honourable man. If his new owner welches on the deal and refuses to manumit him, he simply arranges for a second kidnapping. The world is just. 

 Some tried to enslave julius kaisar. The result was getting burned to death. Suicide with extra steps.
 Meanwhile, if you try to forcibly free a natural slave, they end up [[voluntarily]] working in slavelike conditions for slave wages, if they're lucky. If you can no longer whip the slave, they will work less, meaning they can't be paid as highly as their previous wage of zero.

Checks, Balances, Defray Responsibility Not Risk

 When something goes wrong, you can blame the balance or the check, rather than having to blame yourself. "If only you had let me--"

  Imagine a slave. Imagine someone owns the right arm, and someone else owns the left arm. Yes, they now have to work together. Only in very naive theory does this make their interests align. Mainly it makes the slave useless. Maybe they violate the balancing system, by making it fake or by buying a second slave to go around it. Maybe they just get their slave stolen. Conquest. Either way ownership will return to its natural whole.

 What if - and I know this is a real cloudy-headed fantasy - you work together with someone who keeps their word. Does things when they say they're going to do it, and doesn't do things when they won't say they're going to do it. Then you align interests using contracts, without unnaturally trying to split wholes down the middle. 

 With a balance/check system, it's a way to farm blame for incompetence. "We can't make a slave soldier, the guy who owns the left arm can't use a shield." All his fault, see. Naturally, revenge is sour. An effective society, one not run by eunuchs bureaucrats, can't develop a [balanced] system in the first place. The incompetence and paralysis comes first, the system appears to justify or excuse what's already happening.

The Christian Trinity is the Cluster B Trinity

 Turns out nobody can work out what [the holy ghost] is supposed to be, because it's satan, lol.

 The tell is that the father saves the son from the satan, but doesn't do anything about the satan. Uses cures as a way of abjuring prevention. Cures as a way of perpetuating the problem. Saves the bum from his addictive cravings by giving him money for more meth. The victim has to go on being the victim. The narcissist can't let them change their role. The identity has to be fixed.

 Saviours don't save you. Heroes are not heroic. Superheroes are especially villainous. Especially treacherous. 

 The christian father saves his son through resurrection. Could have saved his son by breaking the cross instead. Could have conquered the roman empire and lustrated it. Could have prevented rome from doing imperial things in the first place. Didn't do any of that. Just let the empire string his son up. "Have a nice passionate agony, son." "Thanks dad, it was excruciating." "You're going to have holes in your hand for eternity now, lmao. Try not to bloodstain on the upholstery, rofl." Nice save, father.

 Batman swears not to kill not because it's especially ethical but precisely because it's unethical. He could save the hostages from the joker by shooting the joker. This would also prevent any future hostages - an eventually that has to be strenuously opposed. Evil is so weak it can only survive if someone better subsidizes it.

 Superman could listen for crime being planned, and deport the criminal to a penal colony before they accomplish anything. Every time a purse gets snatched in metropolis it's because superman let it happen. So he can show off. "Look at me, I'm saving you." Every time a purse gets snatched anywhere on earth, in fact, it's because clark kent couldn't be arsed to get off his butt.
 Use superhearing or whatever to produce supertrials. "If I let you go, will you stop committing crime?" "Yes (lie)." "K then, have fun in jail." Superman isn't aware there's no reason not to execute them...but of course he's pro-crime, so he wouldn't in any case. Superbadman. 

 Spiderman is basically pathetic. His archenemy is a newspaper editor. Can't save you from anything you couldn't have saved yourself from. Meanwhile prof xavier could wheel around and simply delete every criminal and all corruption, aside from magneto's magic helmet. "But that's not narratively dramatic." Then don't hand out powers that break the narrative, genius.

 

 It is only honourable to save someone out of selfishness. And isn't that a mind fuck to you twisted abominations, lol. A father saves his biological son because doing so saves himself. A friend saves his comrade because friendship is profitable. The security firm saves you because that's what you pay them for. Working with professionals is always a relief.

 The key is that "selfless" saviours are plain lying. They're also doing it out of selfish purposes. Psychological egoism is true: it is logically impossible not to be selfish. It's part of the nature of subjectivity. 

 The [[saviour]] can't be honest about those purposes. They believe the purposes are nefarious - go ahead and believe them. When someone claims to be doing something out of pure agape, it's because the strategy is driven by some crooked and deranged impulse. An [all-loving] god is an all-insane god, a being putting lovecraft's hardest pushes to shame.

 

 It's very important to wreck the democratically-induced perception filter on responsibility. 

 "Oh, saviours are irresponsible." That was easy. 

 "Hey superman, we don't want to pay for all these felons you refuse to execute. Feed them yourself." 

 Even if the saviour manages to keep in their pants for a bit, inevitably a conflict will arise between the victim's needs and the saviour's needs. The saviour, as with god the father, will always choose their own needs first. And they will always claim they're serving the victim's needs, as per narcissistic projection. 

 At best the victim has declined opportunities to take care of themselves, because they thought they chad a saviour.

Encyclopedia: Iodine Pit

 This is so cool that you don't deserve to hear about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_pit I will pay a very noticeable karmic price for telling you. I think I'm telling you anyway because I'm insane. I have a big 'ol nasty scar right there.

 Nuclear reactors produce nearly harmless iodine as a by-product. This iodine is a time-delay poison, because the tense iodine relaxes into reactor-countering xenon. Enough xenon suffocates the reaction. Suicidal xenon kills the reaction, eliminating its progenitor iodine, and ultimately vanishing itself. However, as long as the reactor keeps running, it burns off the xenon before it can build up to suffocating levels.

 This is an alchemical metaphor for life in general. Life is either growing, or dying. Because cosmic order is inherently imperfect, life produces anti-life. When life grows, even more anti-life is produced. More than the instantaneous state can handle, so the growing life has to grow more to survive the byproduct of its own growth. Producing more anti-life. Etc. 

 If a country owns conquered territory, it is normal for the country to need to declare war on itself and conquer itself again. And again. And again. The alternative is to get conquered by someone else. The alternative is to cease to exist, to have nothing to conquer.

 If you get married through courtship, expect to have to court and win your already-wife. And to court and win your already-wife.
 If you wifenapped your wife, expect to have to kidnap her again, but moreso. And again. 

 If you discover a new field of wisdom, your options are to re-discover it and re-discover it voluntarily, or to permit it to be forgotten and anyone else who wants to know it must re-discover it involuntarily. There have been no significant discoveries in physics in the last fifty years, meaning, to first order approximation, nobody knows any physics at all. If someone wants to know, he is going to have to start from scratch. 

 Born, and this makes you want to live? Have to be re-born.

 "Normal" is death. The demands of life are never satisfied, except through the cessation of all demand.

If Government is Legitimate, Government Has Never Been Tried

 The usual orwellian Namelessness: order is called anarchy, anarchy is called order.

 It's not a government, it's an infection. Everyone siding with the infection, in the slightest capacity, is part of the infection. Every country has been an anarchy, since the invention of farming societies. All anarchy, all the time.

 Left anarchists, being agents of the infection, are true anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists &c are the only ones who believe in having a government. 

 Pity they haven't noticed aggregate demand for government is negative, and demand for anarchy is wild and growing.

The Possibility of the Rectifying Audit

 I looked at the body of knowledge previously known as [philosophy] and though, "Eh, I could do better." 

 What if I really did do better? What if I corrected all the errors?

 Maybe it would make no difference. Maybe it would be a huge waste of time. Maybe all the errors were illusory, and the uselessness was an inherent feature of the body. 

 Maybe the body was so corrupt that it was nothing more than one long wrong turn. Would have to start again from scratch, going in an orthogonal direction. 

 Maybe I couldn't do better. Maybe the errors were much more difficult than they appeared. 

 The fact the task appears daunting only made it more attractive. 

 Honestly the effort involved can only be called trivial. One person spending a substantial portion of one's life can't be called anything more than a minor effort, given it didn't even take a second researcher. Finished before I died. Finished long before I died. The sum total of mortal wisdom is so primitive it can be mastered by one individual working alone. You can try to call it thousands of years old if you like, but I think nobody is really trying it. I have no competition, even if you include the physically dead. An extremely young field.

 The errors of the previous body are the purpose. The delusion is the point. Naturally, those seeking the worst will try their hardest to look the best. They know exactly what the honourable are supposed to say, that's how they avoid doing the honourable thing so conscientiously. It wasn't all one wrong turn because they deliberately turned wrong at the last turn, to disguise their intent.

 Yes, I really could, and did, do better. This is because I was the only one trying. The benefits are numerous, but I'm the only one who wants them. The task was, at least, suitably challenging as a single-challenger team. 

 Still, there's that possibility that this is not the only very young and very valuable field. Perhaps you are interested in one of them. Consider not giving up. Just try it? See what happens? Turns out if you think you can do better, you probably can.

Most Fan Translators are Fluent in Neither Japanese Nor English

 They are specifically malaysian. And they're not terribly fluent in malay either - the kind of person who says alot and atleast in english, but born in malaysia instead. 

 E.g. the everyone else is a returnee guy isn't fluent in either english or korean. Singapore? Yeah, malaysian, like I said.

Feudalism as Labour Union

 Have a neighbourhood union rather than a labour union. Natural, real categories instead of DLS bureaucrat categories. Bonus: real unemployment insurance.

 If you want job security, secure your job. Hire yourself to a lord, who, not being a retard, is much better at finding a job than you are. He pays you in perpetuity, and in return, he has the right to choose your labour. 

 Admittedly the exact details of the contract are a bit tricky. Ideally you would use this lord for other lordly tasks as well - arranging a lawyer, a doctor, a priest/philosopher, house maintenance, and so on. You don't want to have to change lords every time the job is suboptimal. You don't want a purely fixed wage while your lord can perfectly optimize your earnings, thus his premium. You don't want a purely fixed "union due" or the lord has no incentive to get you a job beyond the bare minimum. These things need to be carefully balanced.

 But at the end of the day, a cooperative Exit society does permit changing lords. Shop around, get the best deal. Let experience be society's guide, rather than ivory tower theorizing.
 That is, macroeconomics is easy. Trivial. Microeconomics is nutty hard. 

  The lord is not a bureaucrat. He makes his choices based on knowing you personally. Get a new lord if he's not interested. He doesn't see you as a checklist and some ass area he has to cover, but as an idiosyncratic profit centre. You can't scam his unemployment insurance. He knows or will soon know if you're getting fired for fault or because the company screwed up. 

 Because he knows you personally, it's healthy for him to have some sympathy. If you need time off, he won't deny it arbitrarily, based on politics or case law established by weird outlier situations. If necessary you can negotiate health conditions into the contract. Personalized, individual health considerations. 

 

 You can go full Commune if you really want to. Have the lord keep a central pantry stocked with staples, and you simply take whatever you want. You work where he tells you to, you rest when he tells you to, you play when he holds a festival. Don't have to think at all. Maybe draw a small cash allowance for luxuries beyond the free pantry. The option exists. In a genuinely free country, freedom is optional, not mandatory.

 Two keys to all these wild benefits. Stop lying. Not everyone is a lord; egalitarianism is very false. Stop trying to be head traitor. Turns out treachery is bad.
 You would think this is not a big ask.

An Excellent Example of Boomer Ostrich-Sanding

What a fucking moron.

https://twitter.com/esrtweet/status/1874211838193447125/

 "We gave up honour, discipline, responsibility, curiosity. Then...it was dem cummunizts!!!1!!!" 

 Literally da jooooos, but someone else. "We wuz pooshed." Fascists gonna Fasc.

 Outlaw property rights in 1776...then oh noes we waz attacked by the furreigners in 1976. If only it wurnt fer dose furreners. 

 Be a victim be a victim nothing is ever your fault.

 The post he responded to is also an astounding feat of ignorance. "It worked." Yes, that's why the kids were so enthusiastic about discarding it...because it was working so well...

 Aristotles' [rational animal] propaganda is alive and well.

Rehashing Paper Money Debt

 When you take out a loan at the bank, they counterfeit the principal then demand real money as interest. Counterfeiting causes inflation.

 Fiat warlocks will claim it's not truly counterfeiting because they poof the principal back out of existence again when you pay it back. Inflation matched by deflation. The interest is supposed to pay for operations. 

 They hope you don't think about what happens when someone defaults. The counterfeit money becomes rectified. The bank takes a haircut in expected interest payments. There is no haircut on the principal or in the present. Everyone forgets it's not supposed to be real money.
 They hope you don't think about the fact the whole point of a loan is the delay between selling the loan and paying it off, during which the counterfeit money is in circulation. One sees whole market panics when the loan market contracts because it constitutes a huge deflationary shock. Deflation is good, but shocks are bad. For biology and also markets.

 [Fractional reserve] is a fancy way of saying the bank is only allowed to counterfeit so much money at once. Say 10x their fed funds. However, 1:10 means they can regift 90% of the loaned notes, using loan deposits as collateral for new loans. This converges slowly. At equilibrium the ratio of real notes to counterfeit is around 1:99 at the alleged 1:10 fractional reserve rate. You take out a $100 loan. Then you buy $100 of stuff, and the stuff-seller deposits the $100 at the bank. The bank now makes a new $90 loan holding the $10 as reserve. Deposit 90, new loan of 81. And so on. 

 This means the bank will never run out of reserve space before it runs out of willing debtors. Which is why your bank keeps trying to sign you up for credit cards. It's all upside to them, they're loaning out fake money. 

 

 A long way of saying paper money is fake money and you're insane if you accept this stuff without a gun physically in your face. Mass and wear and clipped coins might sound like a nightmare, but a) acrylic now exists and b) it's not worse than paper money.

Coffee Cultivation and Outward Threading

 "Here are a few highlights:
 "–Synthetic NPK was phased out completely, with no drop in yield and a dramatic increase in quality."
https://twitter.com/samdknowlton/status/1858187013339635950/

 Metatopic: low tech beats high tech, because high tech is used for Envy, not for gains. Yield &c are distantly second concerns for well over 90% of the population.

 As with coffee, most factory farming practices are backed only by superstition. You can return to pasture with minimal effects on yield per acre, provided the farmer is wise and not a technocratic retard. Positive effects, given the consequences for the farm labour and extra non-coffee or non-animal outputs. 

 The primary reason for the abuse the animals suffer is to ensure they know their place. Bullying livestock isn't as fun as bullying other dire apes, but it's better than nothing. 

 Society can basically just stop whenever it wants. It merely doesn't want to. The pain is the point of the system.

 Likewise...coffee. Tea too. You can be awake by getting enough sleep, or you can attempt to artificially replace sleep with stimulants. The net result is startlingly similar, but the first is free and the second costs money. You're not a poor are you?