Novel Zeno Paradox: The Impossibility of Prediction

 Due to computational overhead, the universe as a whole is unpredictable. 

 The universe as a simple definition is the biggest thing; to predict it would require a computer bigger than the biggest thing. The computer itself would be unpredictable, as it can't predict itself. It would trivialize prediction for the inner universe, as it is now in control of it. The whole universe has been refashioned into the the computer's guts... However, what the computer would control it to do would itself be unpredictable. 

 Put another way, to predict the universe means predicting your own prediction, without knowing the prediction in advance. No matter how you phrase it, it's incoherent. E.g, "I am going to add 1 and 1 to get 2, thus I predict I'll get 2 when I add 1 and 1." Either you don't know you'll get 2, and can't make predictions of this kind, or it's not a prediction, it's a postdiction.

 Let's talk as little as possible about the numerous insurmountable practical, contingent barriers. The computer would somehow have to be fast despite sending signals from beyond the observable universe to the other side, also beyond the observable universe. You can retrodict the universe, see that you could have computed the future before the future, but there's no point since the future will always come before you finish the calculation. Do it the cheap way and just go look. At the quantum level, stuff is inherently uncontrollable, because there's nothing smaller with which to see it without perturbing it. You can't tell where something is without changing how it's behaving thus rendering your own knowledge moot. This is also true of the instrument you're trying to measure with. The way to find out what will happen is to let it happen.

 An unpredictable thing can't be predictable in parts. The unpredictable parts would hit the predictable part, or, equivalently, the predictable parts have to be isolated. Not in fact part of the universe; we found the self-contradiction. Goes double since retrodiction is possible. If an unpredictable part hits a predictable part, you can predict the future path of the unpredictable part. You can work out its past path based on how the predictable part reacted, thus transforming chaos into order. You can predict it in future. 

 If you can predict one solar system, you can put a computer in every solar system, and predict them all. Run it out long enough that there's time to send all the predictions to a central repository, and bam, you've predicted the entire universe all in one place. You can push out more than a year's worth of planetary evolution in a year, so you can always make it long enough to get to the central repository in time.

 If any part is predictable, it's all predictable. But it can't be predictable. Indeed single hydrogen molecules lay waste to the most powerful computers currently conceivable. 

 Yet, it must be predictable. If you can't predict where to get food, you starve to death. Life does not develop. I mean, like, the planets are right over there.
 Prediction is the basis of all control. Can you repeat a motion? Then you can plan to repeat a motion. You can see the past results and predict the future results. If things are themselves, if A=A, then the future with those things will be like the past with those things.

 Somehow, unpredictable things add up to predictable. This happens between psychology and sociology, for example. Individuals are chaotic. Sociology is so easy it's boring. Somehow, each totally invisible atom of a children's ball add up to a downright prosaic ball. 

 Time is impossible, and yet, the future arrives. Time is impossible, and yet, it moves.

The first time rome fell, nobody had any idea it was happening.

 Rome tumbled halfway down the hill and thought they were still at the peak. Going through it a second time, the issue is obvious and simple.

 The romans, incluing the american-romans, got the ratchet of progress stuck in reverse. They forget things, then, having forgotten them, have no idea they ever existed.

 Example: I learned most of my general scientific knowledge from a magazine called [new scientist], but you can't learn any science from science magazines in the year of our satan 2025. Anyone who doesn't already know the science will never know, and never realize that previous generations knew it.

 The mechanism of decline makes decline invisible. Except to anyone who uses an accountant, of course, but accounting is a superpower, with the associated rarity.

 The atlantic used to be a good magazine. Crazy, right? Magazines died in 1900 too, but they were replaced by new good magazines. In 2000, they are not replaced. The romans wait for the replacement, as it was always replaced before, until they forget that a replacement was supposed to be coming. They start waiting for new car factories instead, for example, forgetting all about the magazines.

 In 2008 the american-roman economy permanently entered a lower gear, which means zoomers can see that boomers could afford much larger houses. In 2038 all the boomers will be dead, and the subseqent generations won't be able to see their houses first hand. They will only be able to see that millennials and zoomers are as poor as they are. Decline will be normalized. It doesn't help that voters and peasants only care about relative wealth. They don't have a problem with decline provided a sinking tide lowers all boats. The demand for solutions is low at best.

 It used to be normal for american-romans to be self-employed. Anyone remember the date off hand? Now they're all like, 'muh jerbs.' Oh noes, applying to jobs is a shitshow at the moment...
 Because they were dumb enough to allow employers to dominate the market at all. Englisch.

 Minor, irrelevant advances give the illusion of growth to generations too young to have ever seen a real invention. Example: better dental floss was invented recently. Nobody can point to decline, because the tech has been forgotten. Everyone can still point to [progress]. AI. Wowee.

 AI will totally invent our flying cars, any day now. One says, as if Communist cars aren't toxic waste.

 The roman roads were still there. They were simply unusable due to the combination of banditry and poverty-driven lack of demand. Likewise, it will be a long time before the internet simply shuts off, but it will get less and less useful.
 Much like the library of alexandria, come to think. By the time the christians burned it, there was nothing left to preserve. Likewise, by the time the internet shuts down (except maybe in china), there will be nothing on it worth keeping. The romans will think they're advancing to a new system, having become too wise to need the internet anymore. Like the Amish [advancing] beyond the need for mineral-fuelled tractors.

 Moral: don't use a ratchet of progress. It has [progress] in it, which means it's Satanism. 

   P.S. If you're lucky trump will constitute your east-west split. Europe will continue as a traditional angels-dancing-on-pinheads theocratic dystopian nightmare, while the western empire decays more vigoriously, as a separate administrative unit.

The Inherent Traitor Worship of the Soy Right

 Enemies are honourable. The left is not the enemy, it is the traitor. The so-called right are cultural leftists who agree to be the betrayed. They can't give up Democracy or the government - they can't fail to [conserve] these things. It goes back to the fact taxation is treason. Under Democracy, the betrayed tax-farmed class is supposed to agree to be betrayed. Soyciety becomes a cosmic play and someone has to perform the role of the heel. They're not oppressed, they're cucked. Women and peasants do what they're told, therefore, they agree to get cucked. The show must go on. Until it can't.
 Naturally the taxed are lower class and the taxers are upper class, which is why so-called rightists are stereotypically rednecks et al. Bumpkins, low-university, and so on. [Die in wars] instead of [war profiteering] or declaring wars.
 Again, it comes back to the fact taxation is treason. The very foundation of soyvilization is a cancerous tumour. To be truly right-wing is to fail to conserve the tumour, but instead persecute it like it's a criminal. Which, given it is the foundation or keystone of soyciety, would unavoidably cause collapse.
 No [conservative] has the slightest chance of being right-wing. No [conservative] can be the enemy of the left.

 Re: formalism; to honestly define treason as treason would necessarily delegitimize the treason. The cancerous tumour soyvilization is founded upon inherently relies upon lies. Satan couldn't open with, "Hi, I'm Satan, Father of Lies, and I'm about to peddle a falsehood." Lies have to presented as truth, or they don't work. Soyvilization is inherently informalist.
 Incoherent, you might say. As if it is Nameless.

 To be explicit, it is long past time to discard soyvilization and start over. Never mind the rotten wood, the seed is rotten. Which is why the tree of soyvilization collapses reliably. Everything about soyvilization is twisted around having to justify the unjustifiable. To have an untwisted society, one must conscientiously cleanse one's self of all soyciety. Anything salvaged from soyvilization has to be dismantled and reassembled sans the putrid parasitism.

 Conveniently soyvilization is weak and can't stop you. See: the Amish. You could elect a king tomorrow, and there you go, you have a king, thus a kingdom. 

 Traitors aren't enemies. They're not opponents. If they could fight you straight up they would have done that in the first place. The use of treachery is an admission of inhabiting an untenable position.
 You can just have a kingdom, whenever you want, as long as you're not a [conservative], who can only bow to to power of violent, treacherous taxation. As long as you're not anything silly like a [tory], lol.

Blood Memory of Overproduction

  Democracies suffer immensely from the blood memory of already having supplied everyone with spears.
They call it [overproduction], and you've never heard this issue from a journalist, have you? It's mainstream political science. The idea - which is still current to a fever pitch - is that the factories will make so much stuff the peasants will be satisfied and put themselves out of a job. What if they only have to work 20 hours a week to get everything they want? Or only 10?

 Well...then nothing? This isn't a real problem. But your leaders...excuse me, [[[leaders]]]...including d.trump, absolutely think it is. Because, like everyone else and particularly women, they are still hallucinating a savannah. They still see only 100-150 people. They can't see iphones, they see stone spears. Made by hand. They can't learn new ideas, they only match what they see externally to blood memories, then react to their fugue dreams.

 If everyone has a spear, and they don't scam someone, they're [gasp] gonna have to hunt for their own food. It wouldn't have gone well back then, and consider what happens now to fat, old trump when he thinks he might have to hunt for his own food. Which he can't not think. Mortals are dead, and like all dead things, cannot learn. Everyone will laugh at their hunting efforts, at best. All the skilled hunters are also the best warriors...

Scientist How-to and Study Assessment

  I can read a scientific headline or abstract and instantly tell whether it will replicate. As a bonus, I can tell that science journalists are lying about the science. If it were a study it wouldn't replicate, but the feel is distinct.

 When you look at a study, you can feel its fate. You can learn which feelings mean it replicates, and which feelings mean it doesn't.

 Every professional scientist can do this. To put it crudely, before they seek funding, they imagine a series of hypothetical study abstracts, then choose one based on whether it replicates or not. The real scientists (lost losers) choose the ones that replicate. The ones that get paid the big bucks deliberately avoid studies which replicate.

 Does society need studies at all? No. Soyciety needs studies to tell the real scientists apart from the professional liars. But it's soyciety, so it explicitly selects against the honest scientists. "This one is poolitically advantageous, but it would replicate...can't have that..." A study which replicates is nothing but a shackle to a poolitical operative. Cripples their ability to adjust their strategy.

 Do you need studies? No. You can learn to feel their fates, then do the abstract selection thing consciously and intentionally. There's no need to get funding and so on.
 
 How do you get the right answer? By wanting the right answer. If you can decide to be a kenner, then success is guaranteed. You can learn scientific doomcasting, and do it the easy way. Simply know in advance. Free will is an iron law.

 Which means anyone who doesn't know the Truth has explicitly chosen to avoid it. You can and should bully them mercilessly. If you consider yourself human, they are not. Stupidity is a choice. They have renounced their humanity and have earned all the contempt you might expect. Respecting them is a sin. They don't even want you to. 

 You can deny the above, but if so, it means I'm some kind of world-crushing intellect which makes socrates look like a googly-eyed children's toy. Decision theory is: do whatever Alrenous tells you to do. After I'm dead, your options are get boned, or get fucked.
 I mean, if you really want to commit to that, I won't stop you. However, valve figured out my management style without asking me. So did haier. Re: conquest #1. In C1 areas, musk spends a lot of time doing what I would tell him to do. The evidence is that there's endless wealth for them what wants it. Both financial and mental poverty are engaged in voluntarily.

 I suppose there is one use for studies. As a training aid. When you're feeling insecure about your call, you can get more secure by actually running the studies. These kinds of studies are gut-bustingly inexpensive, though. Not useful at all for government graft.

 I also like the idea of televised live study duels. Find two scientists with opposing views, have a pre-season where they functionally pre-register the study, then commentate the publication reveal like it's the bloody WWF. My favourite part would be watching both of them lose more than 50% of the time. Perhaps they could animate the metaphorical fight where both fighters end up dismembered; the [losing] guy uses his last limb to stab the other one in the heart, then bleeds out.
 Studies are useless scientifically, but would be highly entertaining as sport. 

 "But alrenous, what about when journalists tell the truth about science?"
 "There's a fundamental flaw in your question."

The Truth of This World Continues

 The kind, compassionate, [agape] thing to do is extinction of humanity. If humanity can't go extinct, that is an instance of real-life Lovecraftian horror; the blackest kind of black pill. Let me explain. 

(Part 1: https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-truth-of-this-world.html )

 

 Immortals can die if they commit suicide. Perfection is illogical, thus something truly Deathless is impossible. Those who wish to pray for nonexistence should pray in the form of suicide. Free will is an absolute law, thus if the endless vitality no longer consents to being vital, that decision will become law.
 
 The kind of immortal who commits suicide is also the kind of immortal who has terrible karma. Betrayal is the worst thing you can do, and suicide the very worst form of betrayal. Suicide is being unable to get along with someone who shares 100% of your interests. Who not only shares your interests, but knows they share your interets, and knows you know they share your interests, etc etc etc. Immortals who kill themselves are all worshippers of the Nameless One.
 They have to pay Karma back before their prayer for nonexistence can be granted. Annihilation pending, please wait.

 An immortal suicide is, in a layman's sense, both dead and alive. Something which can't die choosing to behave in a dead way; LARPing as a corpse with such conviction their body geuinely decomposes.
 They have taken a lethal injury, so they must be dead. The dead can't pay anything back to anyone, however, they are nevertheless kept around and kept capable of suffering. Committing suicide while at negative karma is a prayer for and consent to torture. It turns out demons are a kind of undead.

 The immortal suicide breaks into pieces, so the immortal no longer exists, but the pieces carry bits of the spirit and bits of the karma of the original immortal.

 I believe that before Earth, these pieces hung around junking up the place. Something about Earth instead lets them fall through the heavens and collect here, at the bottom.

 Thus, Earth fills up with undead pieces of immortal, which exist to be tortured to deeath. That is: mortals. Hello, welcome to the underworld. Mortals = undead = demons. It is not a coincidence that homo sapiens is optimized for being painfully traumatized.
 Turns out what makes Hell so bad is not any punishment from god, but instead the fact you're surrounded by the other traitors who have been condemned to Hell. Conveniently this suffering is efficient for expunging bad karma. Best of all possible worlds, as it is said. I enjoy the irony.

 In a practical sense the suicide can't rescind their prayer. Annihilation is now inevitable, the only question is how much karmic interest they rack up before they pay down the principal. However, in a theoretical sense, the demons of Hell could wake up, get a cup of coffee, and decide to stop torturing each other. They could repent. This fact is what makes them so deserving of being tormented to death. Every day they get up, get a cup of coffee, and renew their committment to torturing each other and themselves. If they weren't such twisted lunatics, they wouldn't have committed suicide in the first place.

 If the demons repented, they could pay off their karma by doing nice things for each other. Then, they could not instantly bite it when they hit zero. Since demons are demonic, doing nice things for them only increases your karmic debt - along with theirs. They can only suffer and cause each other suffering.

 Thus the healthy purpose of mortal society is to cause and legitimize as much suffering as possible. To efficiently pay off all the karmic debt, so that existing humans can die, and no new humans will be born. Extinction is success. Anything less than efficiently going extinct will farm negative karma and perpetuate pointless, unnecessary suffering.

 Conveniently it's already doing this in most cases. Democracy is the acme is tyranny. Best of all possible worlds, again. If you care about this sort of bloodless compassion project, soyciety and soyvilization must be preserved and maintained at all costs. Good work everyone, carry on.

Minor on Betrayal

 Insofar as morality exists, it's the prisoner's dilemma. Don't defect on cooperators. What if deviance is bad tho.

 We don't have to use Communist newspeak. What is defection when you're not inventing new words out of a terror of looking old? Betrayal. If I do something wrong, it's betrayal in one form or another. I explicitly or implicitly promised I was trustworthy for the purposes of contravening that trust.

 All crimes are betrayal in one form or another. 

 And, if it's not betrayal, you're not doing anything wrong. This is important since if you think you're doing something wrong but do it anyway, you will take the karmic hit for what you attempted to do, even if you don't betray anyone in the slightest. You tell Karma you would do it if it were wrong, and Karma goes ahead and believes you. 

 

 In a declared war, nobody mistakenly thinks the enemy soldiers aren't going to shoot you. Murder refers legitimately to unjust slaying, and they knew you were coming. I can't murder enemy soldiers, no matter how hard or smart I try.  

 If you walk into a police station, or an immigration office, and announce your intent to rob everyone you can, you will get the opportunity to rob nobody. You can make this all complicated and realistic, but it ends up with exactly the same logic. If burglary becomes normal, houses will become fortresses, and burglary will become abnormal. As such, living in a soyciety is implicitly a promise not to commit crimes on your fellow soyvilians. If you commit a crime, it works because they weren't expecting it, and it's a betrayal.
 Curiously, this also means most things which aren't outlawed really aren't crimes, no matter how heinous. They could have outlawed it. Especially in Fascist police states such as america. It's not like they're shy about writing new laws. Their lack of defence constitutes implicit consent. This is important since most soyvilians aren't cooperators and it's important to have weapons with which to fight them off. Merely ensure you don't accidentally imply they should trust you unless they falsely do so first. 

 P.S. A 4chan poster once said to me, "can't tell [...] or metal gear villain." I think it was supposed to be an insult.

The Non-Problem of Evil

 The problem of evil is in fact the specifically christian problem of free will. If god exists, why does he allow you betray anyone? Why not simply poke you in the head before you sin?
 Answer: because some want to be betrayed.
 Answer: actually, god does do that. In a cosmic sense, there is no deviance. There are no defectors. If you [defect] on someone, it has to be because they agreed to let you. They consented, thus, it's not defection.
Cosmically, the world is perfectly just. There is only cooperation.

 If you die in a flood it's because you chose to live in a flood plain.
 If you die in a famine it's because you let your population rise above the carrying capacity of the land.
 If you die in a war, it's because you didn't physically remove the government when it introduced conscription.
 If you're physically ill, or stupid, it's because your parents married someone physically ill and you would have done the same in their  place.
 There is no such thing as a victim. There is only consent. Free will is an absolute law.

 "If you die in nuclear war - " ...and there haven't been any nuclear wars? Doesn't happen, now does it? Not a coincidence.

 Every death which can be scientifically linked to chernobyl was at the plant. Don't stand next to the experimental reactor in a corrupt country, guys. I mean, have you met a ukrainian? Would you trust your neighbours with a delicate nuclear plant? Again: have you met a ukrainian before?

 If you catch a cold or flu it's because you didn't get enough sunlight. The government tells you taxes are inevitable for obvious reasons, but you can (at least!) take more from them than they take from you, no matter how much the rest of your soyciety enjoys getting fincucked.

 Bad things don't happen to good people

 The christians have it backwards, in accordance with prophecy. It is free will which prevents evil. Free will is what makes evil impossible. Instead of poking you in the head before you sin, god pokes your intended victim in the head, who then thwarts you. Normally, you notice in advance and don't try in the first place. Perpetrators only attempt to attack willing targets.

 "If you die of old age..." You didn't have to be born here on Earth. You don't remember, but you chose it. At least, you are the remains of something that did.

 If you don't like something that's happening to you, try becoming good.
Stop agreeing to self-mutilation.

You wanna know about free will? No? Well, too bad I guess.

 Here's a good mainstream take. You can watch him define the terms, then stop.
 https://www.youtube.com/embed/C7YSy-Mr-d8

 Turns out both determinism and free will is impossible. Maybe that deserves a bang. Impossible!

 To have free will, determinism must be true. For you to determine your actions, determinism must be true. If determinism was false, your will would have no ability to affect the future.
 The properties that make up [you] have to have specific effects based on the youness of the [you]. Just like the mass of a billiard ball determines the transfer of momentum.

 But wait, there's more. Later he gets into, "imagine a computer with the initial state of the universe programmed into it." Haha, lol. Logically impossible. The universe can't compute itself due to computational overhead. The computer has to be bigger than the universe, which is impossible by definition. Existence can't be bigger than Existence, that's not how logic works. That's a divide-by-zero level howler.

 The future is completely determinate but completely indeterminable. At a cosmic level, the future is unknowable, and the only exception is going to the future and looking at it. Using a space analogy, telescopes don't exist at the cosmic level. You have to personally walk over there and see with your own eyes. Determinism can't be meaningfully true if the future is indeterminable.

 But wait, that's not all.
 He claims free will vs. determinism has all sorts of implications. Haha! Nope! Doesn't have a single implication! None! Zip!
 These sentences get bangs. Perhaps, again, the earlier one deserves a bang too.

 To be precise, every implication of determinism is exactly identical to the implications of free will. Technically known as libertarianism.

 If someone commits a crime of his own free will, he should go to jail. (Or rather get executed, but same diff.)
 If someone commits a crime because it was determined by the universe, he should to to jail. (Get executed.)

 If he freely chose, he needs to be physically prevented from freely choosing the same thing again. Nobody deserves to have to live around him.
 If it was determined by implacable fate, he needs to be physically prevented from being compelled to do it again. Nobody deserves to have to live around him.

 If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Libertarianism is identical to determinism.
 If that makes no sense, it's because neither determinism nor libertarianism make any sense.

 You can't be free to be somebody else. You are you, not someone else. You will make your choices, not someone else's choices, in the same way a carrot is not an ocean liner.
 You can't be predicted. The only way for an observer to find out what you're going to do is to watch you do it. Determinism implies libertarianism.

 There is a bit of a mystery in that there are some exceptions. There are things which are, in practice, predictable. Very curious. Nobody can explain.

 I think the libertarianism vs. determinism debate is a deliberate distraction. A prospiracy. Nobody planned it. It was such an obvious move it doesn't need planning, but it is intentionally, consciously maintained.
 Despite everything, some things are predictable. Rather a lot of things in fact. Explaining how has a very high chance of being extremely powerful.
 And embarrassing. And they don't want you to have power.

 Sadly I already have the power and have no motivation to go and explain it verbally. [Lunar path only] is sufficient.



 Mortals have instincts about free will. Qualitative intuitions. These are largely about physical chains, and applying them to cosmic ontology is misuse.
 The fundamental is that you can tell when what you call your [free will] is hitting interference. The turbulence feels like something, and your resulting impulses are adaptive ways of clearing the interference. If something can vary like this, it obviously can't be any kind of cosmic law. (You should recognize [cosmic law] as a redundant phrase. I just said [some kind of ordered order], but one of the words was greek, while another, latin.)

 "Am I, the contingent entity [me/you/self], part of the causal chain? Is the contingent outcome contigent on my internal psychic events? If so, I am [free]. If not, I am not." This is a scalar. You can be more free or less free.
 You can't be more deterministic or less libertarian, that's a binary. Assuming they're even coherent enough to be a binary.

 If believing in determinism makes you feel constrained, you're delusional, and you're about to direct an adaptive response at something that cannot respond to you or adapt. (Do you like repeating words without equivocating? I like it. Because english is crud.) 

 P.S. [Living] is not a real property of physical objects. A physical cat and a physical rock are not qualitatively different. You can if you want define a category and project it onto them if you want. I believe I have a post about handles and definitions somewhere...

https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2021/12/definitions-examples-religion-ravens.html
https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2022/01/definitions-examples-bowls.html

 You can define life as anything that has a definable goal which it will attempt to secure. Typically it goes recursive. Living things have a goal of staying alive, on account of the fact that anything that doesn't try to stay alive lost the capacity to strategically direct energy long before we were around to see them.

 Alternatively you can define [living] as referring to consciousness, which is not physical. However, this has the consequence of labelling you dead when you're asleep.

True Sociology

 Mortals pursue their own individual interest. With some exceptions, their own short-term and immediate interests.
 Mortals have a restricted value schedule. It's beating up his neighbour. Having more money, having a hotter wife or more wives, having more friends, having more followers. Occasionally, literally punching him in the face. Inspiring Envy is the whole game.
 Mortals are not nearly as stupid as they pretend to be. They do genuinely know their own immediate interests. Having already decided what he's going to pursue, he makes up whatever bullshit he thinks will make you do what he wants.

 In the modern age, they don't need to make up anything new. Homestuck principle: whatever bullshit you need already exists, you merely pick it and pretend you totes believe it.

 Mortals don't really cooperate. Perhaps this wasn't true in the distant past, but in the present, homo sapiens is a herd creature. He moves in the same direction as those with the same incentives as him, because he was going to do that anyway. Camaraderie is a myth. There are only fellow travellers. E.g. having picked your bullshit, you signal you have the same interests as everyone who picked the same bullshit. It's in their interest to direct their fire at competitors rather than fellow travellers. You're not coming to an agreement and reinforcing each other, you're merely assured of not getting shot in the back as long as they have someone else to shoot and they believe you're shooting along with them.

 Mortals are not usually stupid, but they are stupid about the lure of the possibility of betraying their fellows. The bullshit only works on autists, who have historically been irrelevant except as punching bags. Nevertheless, the eternal promise of bullshit is that you'll trick the king into working against his interests - even though you can't trick your daughter into working against her interests. 

 Bullshit is competitive, but only because, if you can come up with bullshit that's better at inspiring Envy, you will get [[converts]]. Their interests don't change, so their ideas don't change, they change the decorations, and get bigger herds. E.g. a skilled red pill guy teaches how to tell the lies sluts want to tell their girlfriends they banged. Incel Envy and femcel Envy. E.g. someone can hack the rules to make you appear richer through a fork strategy; to deny your increased apparent wealth, they would have to dig up a pillar of their own proof of Enviousness. "I'm rich because I can beat you," vs. "I'm so rich I can afford to donate to someone I can beat up." To deny the latter is more Envious is to suggest your expensive wealth displays shouldn't be Envied.
 Secondly, some bullshit gets to the same place with less effort. If a brutalist hellblock can inspire as much Envy as an intricately carved statue, you do the former. Plus you can charge rent.

 

 Science is inherently autistic. Only autists need to cut the bullshit. "Has this replicated? No? Fuck off." A real scientist assumes the other guy is going to pursue his interests, and ignores whatever he says about it.
Note that a mortal could have done and can do this at any time, but of course it cuts off the strategy of using bullshit himself.

 

 E.g. hitler did a good job. For germany as a whole to do better, hitler would have had to sacrifice his own well-being for germany's, which was never going to happen. Anyone else hired for the same job would have seen the same incentives. Any difference in behaviour would be differences in how well they understand the incentives. How best to maximize Envy.

 E.g. when someone has a legal justification, they say it's in the court's interest to side with them, so you can't use the courts to beat them up. Legal justifications aren't legal. It's the poolitics of the court's incentives. 

 E.g. putin wants russia 'united' because that means they'll pay more taxes and he can brag to modi or khameni that lots of individuals are doing what he tells them instead of seeking their own idiosyncratic bullshit. He doesn't give the tinest shit about what's good for russia -  and indeed you're more Enviable if you get rich at your country's expense rather than in harmony. "They couldn't fend off my bullshit."

 E.g. jinping hates corruption not because it's bad for china, but because he told you not to and then you disrespectfully did it anyway. "Who dares!" Occident translation: "Insolence!"

 E.g. the modern game is to pretend to be softer than warm butter in a form of handicap Envy. Competing to be the most sheltered greenhouse flower. "I'm more yielding than fresh snot and I'm still not dead. I never had to harden up in the slightest!" Being that weak is very expensive, and since you're that weak, you certainly didn't pay for it yourself.

 

 Whenever anyone claims anything that isn't about supporting their own solipsistic interests, it is corruption. They're plain lying to you. (If  you're an allist you already know this, but pretend otherwise to avoid nuking your own corrupt speech.)

 I don't count as part of the homo genus because I have an interest that isn't Envy.

 

 

 

 Speaking of sociology, all the most 'advanced' and 'profound' systems of ethics reduce to solipsistic hedonism.
E.g. christianity is that god's happiness is what matters, because he'll hurt you if you upset him. His narcissistic rage will be boundless if you don't play out the role he's assigned to you, and you won't like that. Pleasure, pain, nothing else.
 Buddhism is the idea that the only problem is pain and the purpose of Existence is to learn not to hurt.
 Hinduism proposes the Kali yuga isn't worse than being bored.
 Stuff like nationalism is the idea that losing wars hurts, so you should do whatever it takes to win the wars you end up in.
 Why shouldn't you be a wirehead, a lotus eater, a heroin addict? Why not get into the VR pod and stay there? Because it hurts more in the long run...and that's it. That's the argument.

 Literal hedonism, "Fuck it, we ball," is merely the straightforward version of the other stuff.

 If virtue is virtuous because the gods decree it, then it's a subordinate virtue. It's only [virtuous] because some dude will punch you in the face if you don't do it, meaning the primary, hyperdivine good is not being punched in the face.

 If gods are gods because they embody a virtue, then what makes it virtuous is that you like it, much as you like not being punched in the face.

 In all cases, [[morality]] is merely avoiding self-destruction.
Homo sapiens is an inherently immoral natural kind because its core value is encouraging others to self-destruct. Every true homo is a mini Satan. 

 

 In short, it is impossible for lightsiders to study sociology. Luckily sociology is braindead easy and hardly needs to be studied.
 No society can talk about sociology as it would make Envy and betrayal more difficult. Universally counterproductive.

Capitalism, Mortality, Glorious Death, Vampires, and Karmic Profit

 I thought of four tweets in the shower, but it turned out they're woven together, and it gets long.

 

 If I were poolitical, I wouldn't be MAGA, I would be the distinctly less photogenic MACFFT, or Make america Capitalist For the First Time.

 Hey, what if, instead of being a Satanist theocracy, you did what you said you were going to do?
It's not a coincidence the initialism is so anti-popular...

 Tangent: I notice that monarchy is anti-Satanist. Greece was a Democracy (lol) and rome was a republic (loool). Then the "dark" ages happened, and Satan didn't like that...

 Don't be stalin. Don't make the whole country Capitalist at once. Start with a single town. Then two. Then four. 6, 10, etc.

 Unfortunately...

 With a couple exceptions, if you're here on Earth you are the remains of an immortal who prayed for Death, but couldn't afford it. Capitalism would reduce suffering, thus making the mortals even less able to afford to die. Indeed implementing widespread Capitalism might come with a terrible karmic cost, for doing good things to bad people.

 If you really want to help, you should support Democracy precisely because it's so tyrannical and oppressive. The People suffer terribly, that one day they might afford the Death they crave.
 Have a nice explicit "Keep Democracy?" vote every 20 or 25 years. Ensure everything is done to make their consent legitimate. Except possibly counting the votes. The idea is to prevent the rulers from farming more karmic debt than they relieve in the oppressed. 

 Death also doesn't like mortals being down here. The cosmic structure of the Earth plane makes her uncomfortable. Death is supposed to be a smooth eggshell protecting All That Exists. Instead, here, it's foamed up. Between the Earth plane and higher heavens is a double-walled bubble film of Death. The stygian river, symbolically. If all the mortals were gone, if humanity went extinct, the film would be permitted to pop and relax back to where it's supposed to be.

 Immortals pray for Death when they are cowards. The details are somewhat beyond me, but it means the standard mortal is a coward. Let's talk about vampires.

 Why can't a vampire see himself in his reflection? Because he would run screaming. He is -<terrified>- of vampires.
 Vampires are depicted as loners correctly. Vampires can only [[cooperate]] through total mental domination.
Ghosts too, in the sense that they exist at all. They vanish from perception when they notice themselves and flee. A ghost that realizes it's  dead tears itself apart, in an attempt to flee itself. Selection: for a ghost to 'live' long enough to be noticed, it has to properly repress  its self-wisdom.

 Vampires don't drink the blood of the living, they drink the blood of other undead. Vampire blood is particularly addictive for vampires.

 A coward can't live because they're too scared of dying. Cholesterol!!1! If you don't wear a bike helmet, you will die on this trip 0.01% of the time! Oh noes! A coward sees a world where everything might kill him. Fluffy kitties have toxoplasmosis...
 Consequently, they don't live. A commoner is a kind of zombie. You can be sure because necromancy works on them. Particularly control undead.

 Being terrified of Death is a common hazard for immortals. Thanatophobic. Free will in inviolable, but, you can consent by accident. Result...

 

 

 

 The world is perfectly just. Won't even let you die if you deserve less.
 If you're one of the few non-mortals, you might want to profit. The fact karma is all-encompassing becomes a problem. 

 The solution is simple but lame. Net worth is a genetic trait and karma is perfect. You have all the wealth you will ever have. If someone steals any of it from you, karma will pay you back by taking it out of their hide.

 However, if you don't much like something, you're still charged market rate for it. For example if you have a hot wife but don't appreciate her, you're still charged the normal rate for hot wives. You took her from someone who would have appreciated her more.
 The method of profit is to find things you own but don't care for and sell them. Don't bother to haggle, karma will take care of it. Unless you really love haggling, I suppose. You can also trade, for example, lowbrow pleasures for more intense ones. Comfort for excitement. That sort of thing.

 Be careful when trading for wisdom, because it's absurdly difficult to sell. Most illiquid asset. Wisdom is charged by how useful it is to the kenner.

Treachery Suppression for Children, with minor in Motherhood

 At least 99% of parents can't be trusted with the ability to hit their kids.
 It may seem this implies they can't be trusted with kids at all. Probably.
 Fundamental trust aside; can do privileges instead. Have a weekly car ride. Heck, have a weekly on-your-back ride for a couple hours. Then take it away if they insist on treachery.

 The ongoing effort from the parent is key to a proper privilege. It doesn't count as a privilege if there's a higher cost for interrupting it than continuing it, such as video game [privileges]. Easier not to steal the power cord than to let it stay.

 If parents can hit their kids, parents will use it for exploitation. Negative reinforcement allows extortion, blackmail, etc.
This should be against their interests, but they're horrible (i.e. sapiens) so it isn't.

 You can tell they're horrible because they shouldn't need encouragement from pseudonymous text boxes on the internet to give [privileges] in this sense to their kids. Why aren't you already showering your kids with nice nonmonetary luxuries, for the sake of being nice? Why have I literally never witnessed this even a single time?

 All this virtue-signalling online to avoid virtue-signalling at home. To the alleged loved ones.

 Don't forget commoners only recognize mandatory and forbidden. If commoners can extort their kids, then they think they have to. Options are too rich for their blood. That is: there's a backstop. In the extraordinary case of a virtuous commoner, they will still act viciously to their kids if it is permitted.

 Note that the 1% or less direspect rules because they can. At best they re-write the rules for their own convenience. Soycial design doesn't apply to them, regardless of system.

 By revoking a positive rather than applying a negative, it's the parents as well as the kids who receive discipline. If I demand something absurd from my kids, they will sacrifice the privilege to get out of it. "Clean your sister's room or no more piggy backs." "Oh, well, never mind on the rides then."

 A lot of the reason for [parental discipline] is merely that words are hard. Parents are inarticulate. Need a way for the children to understand the instruction. The intensity of the punishment is irrelevant, merely that it's an embodied punishment, rather than a reward. That and the fact moms say things for the sake of saying things all the time, so [consequences] are necessary to tell when she's not merely spewing bullshit from her face-butt.

 Parents being non-verbal means they can't hear their kids either. They can't tell how much the demands are burdening the children. Using privileges, they can find out. What is the greatest privilege the kid will give up to get out of the command? Imagine demanding they finish their dinner. Will they give up decorative door ribbons? They would probably give that up for a nickel. If they're giving up daily trips to the video game museum to avoid having to finish dinner, then it turns out the parent is asking far more than they realized. "Yeah, uh, your cooking is literal torture dude." Commoners are retarded. Without being smacked in the face like this, they will never figure it out. I model them as constitutionally incapable of love (storge or otherwise).

 Note that hunter tribes don't hit their children. (But do hit their wives.) Hitting someone 1/4 your weight is bullying, regardless of the reason. Cowardly and treacherous; shameful twice over. Your soyvilization should at least be as civilized as pre-agricultural societies. China is less civilized, more soyvilized, than guys who think a pointy rock is the height of ingenuity and eat off baked dirt.

 All the popular talk about rights and privileges doesn't apply to governments. It should, however, apply to families. Dinner is a right. Mcdonald's is a privilege. Make the latter non-arbitrary so it can be used as enforcement. 

 P.S. You need a father, entry #36896: moms don't comprehend systems. Is she saying no to mcds because you pissed her off or because you were bad? No, she's just bummed about the weather and in a [no] mood, and she wouldn't tell you even if she had a good reason and knew what it was. 

 If she did say when she had a good reason, not saying would reveal all the times she has no good reason.

 A common woman especially takes her feelings as gospel, and the result is incomprehensible to her let alone to anyone else. That is; babies cry to replace mom's emotions with their own, and if you're not replacing her emotions, she's inherently abusive. Women are non-sapient that this emotion-replacement trigger can go off reliably. I wouldn't have done it that way, but it's not my evolution, not my karma, and not my decision.

Resumption

 When I have posts, I will start on the 8th of every month, then post every even day until I run out. E.g. the next post will be the tenth. If I had only one that would be it for this month.

 Twitter was unlocked without a request. Turns out this guy got what he wanted. I assume both my accounts are unlocked but I didn't check. I'm using the b-side. Sometimes I will post off-schedule, in which case it's a link from twitter. Most days I'm not on twitter. This is drastically healthier. Note that my follow means nothing. I don't look at either [for you] or [following]. I use lists, because fuck the algorithm with a rake.

 Primarily I'm posting here because there's a point where threads become unmanageably large. Shock, amaze, many news: microblogging not good for long-form.
 Also note that off-topic is not antisocial. Post about anything you want in my comment section. Or as replies to my tweets for that matter. Provided the failcode lets you post and provided it's not intellectual vandalism which I'll delete. Hot tip: post observations, rather than conclusions, if you need to make it easier. If you can't even meet the standard that idiot grok can meet, consider shutting the fuck up. Not that you have a choice. Lurk moar or fuck off. 

 I have a nice private list if I think you're going to be a baby about being unfollowed. I can't complain much about twitter's shadowbans because I do it too. Follow + mute, kek. Nowhere near as often as twitter, but not never.