Kidnapping Psychology in Female Hominids

 https://nitter.mint.lgbt/GraniRau/status/1750930678328533371
Referenced image: "He brutally un@alives her family in the middle of the night. Also him: Uses silk ropes to kidn@p her so she doesn't get hurt." (Probably a mestizo girl, else MENA.)

1) A lot of women are so low-empathy they can't even empathize with other versions of themselves. "I'm not mourning my parents right now, therefore I wouldn't be sad if they were killed right in front of me."

 As many have noticed, by default woman's present emotions are projected infinitely into the past and the future. She's comfy now, therefore if her brothers and sisters were ripped apart by explosives 20 feet away, she would still be comfortable. See? Perfectly sogical.

2) Lack of imagination. When she says 'unalived' it is likely the picture in her mind is just as cartoonish as the word. Stick figures with Xs for eyes. Her mom is the stick figure in a skirt. She is not imagining the charnel sewer of voided and ruptured bowels, seasoned with puke, and garnished with the raw ends of hacked limbs or shattered giblets.

 Maybe she's imagining a videogame. Her parents flash red a few times and then fall over when their HP runs out. "Brutal." Perhaps they disappear in a puff of smoke to save on RAM. "Killed." Then there's the always-popular offscreen censorship. They make dying noises from the next room, or they're run through but she's watching his eyes, not his hands, so they're out of frame.

 Roadkill does not constitute the killer app of cologne.  

3) Women aren't taken seriously, therefore they don't take themselves seriously.
"Oh my god! I didn't mean it!" Don't follow the things she says as a prescription, loser.
She knows what she's saying is batshit crazy, but nobody is going to pay real attention anyway, so what does it matter? Why not say something even batshit crazier just to get a reaction? As long as she doesn't upset her frenemies ("you hurt my feewings") everything is fine. Woman = Troll.

4) She genuinely hates her family. Actually, she does want them dead. It's okay: they deserve it.
Only problem being, given who her parents are, she probably deserves it too. Bad blood. Stop boinking the local holes after you genocide the males. At least sterilize first.


 Do women want to be gently kidnapped by someone who can tear their family limb from limb? Well, sure, probably. Doesn't want them to concretely demonstrate their credentials.
 Imagine being 'kidnapped' by your favourite AI girl. "Oh noes, she's forcing me to ream her undercarriage, how terrible. How could I possibly resist." Either you're single and will only be disappointed if she doesn't 'kidnap' you again next week, or you're not single but oh geeze you have an excuse, honey. Forced, see. Girls want to be 'kidnapped' only by men they would go with willingly, and it's mainly because these child-women hate responsibility that much.

 Basically she's pining for an anime boy. There's already anime about a prince spiriting a plain girl away from her boring dad. Just needs a bit more beating him up and burning down the house, and you're good to go. "He met her piercing gaze, and saw something in her perfectly coiffed hair (which he certainly didn't see in her figure; this isn't shounen) thus he stole her away instead of beating her up like her sister." If you're gonna pander, why not go whole hog? Pandering and restraint rarely go together.

 No the horrible thing is that killing a woman's children is what makes her horny. Same as lions. THIS is the traumatic aphrodisiac. You can't do that scene, not even in after-midnight anime.
Some women will genuinely have children trying to make some other man fly into a jealous rage and kill the kids, because the idea makes her wet. These women don't make great mothers, for some reason.
 This isn't the only utterly retarded scheme they're fond of. Why, it is likely that the daughters of these women would be interested in seeing their entire family killed for real, charnel stench or not.

Chaos Theory Proves Every Act Profound

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

 Every single act is incomprehensibly profound. 

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

 Nevertheless, it is true that every act affects everything. 

Auditing Manufacturer Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logiomancy

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

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

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

Bill of Two Rights, Stability, and Acerbity of Revenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Reminder: Be Someone Your Brain can Trust

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

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

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

 

Bears Repeating: Christian Virtues are Narcissist Virtues

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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