Friday, March 5, 2021

On Comment Captchas

I use a hack that lets me avoid doing Google's insufferable captchas when I comment on my own blog.

If you can't find your own hack, I would happily agree to a workaround, such as telling me you're posting your comments elsewhere, and I'll go read and/or respond to them there.

Moldbug vs. Monarchism

"I’m a monarchist because we don’t have to live like this."
Dawg, I already don't live like this. I had to take a less than ideal exit route, but it is nevertheless the case that I'm already out. Get out, don't let leftists force their company on you, and you're set.

There's nothing stopping you from taking a king yourself. Get a mannerbund, hold the last election, bam, you're done. Nothing illegal about this in the slightest. Indeed the Transgressives are likely to be confused, more than anything.

Nothing legally stopping you. If you weren't a slave you would have already taken a king. Instead you plead for the Regime force you to take a king.
In Greece, slaves had free speech because their words were considered so worthless that the most abominable curses from their mouths barely rose to the level of a joke. Master knows best. 

 

"No one today—certainly not me—can even imagine how different a life that would be."
I am referred to as [no one] regularly enough that I sometimes use it as my nickname. Alrenous "No One" Ruat Caelum.

"It is hard to think of, or even imagine, one which is spiritually healthy, but physically incompetent."
As No One, I am tasked with difficult imaginings. That's a joke: this isn't difficult if you aren't a slave.

So, you've selected your king. Necessarily it will be a king in exile. He ought to have the power to revoke certain laws, but doesn't. Spiritually healthy, physically less so.

When training to run the stock market, you use something called paper stocks. You allocate yourself fake money, buy fake stock by writing down which ones you bought and how much they cost, and then see if you manage to make fake money. You own stocks, but only on paper. You can make all your real mistakes without having to lose any real money.

Likewise, it is hardly unhealthy to have a paper king who passes paper laws.

Further: the Amish. They functionally pass laws on themselves. You can already do it. They already have enough physical competence. Think maybe you can outfight someone whose pitchfork was made by an honest-to-god blacksmith?
The slave would never dream of selecting their own master, though. As it should be.

"This is because you have not thought seriously about the matter. Nor has anyone else."
Clearly, I do not exist. And yet, here I am writing. That's kind of impressive, isn't it?
Am I dead? Am I a lich? I might be a lich. Or at least, a possessed pseudonymous avatar.

Fascism is fundamentalist Egalitarianism. The diagnostic criteria all flow inevitably from the demands of egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is stone-age social technology. It's monkey-think. The monkey in your brain wants to rebel against your leadership and return to monkey times, for what I hope are obvious reasons.* When a country gets rich enough, it appears they can afford to stop oppressing their monkeys and return to monkey times. The country's masters realize monkey-think is stupid, and compromise with reality, though only to the extent they're forced to. Thus, Fascism

*(Though I convinced mine to stop, via my behaviour and its consequences. Caveat, autism is often an advantage here. The things the monkey wants aren't wrong per se, only how it natively wants to achieve them.)

"Lies can win no permanent victory over the truth."
Well, yes. Quite the self-own here.

"But if by some amazing chance hell is ready to negotiate: here are ten principles I want."
As I mentioned earlier, the Regime is already too weak to stop you from starting the next country early. Maybe quit petitioning Satan to run Hell differently? I'm fairly confident he knows how to cause suffering better than you do, and neither requires nor desires your advice.

"Equal protection under the law must be restored."
Ah yes, your standard egalitarian monarchist. Totally historically normal.

"Collective grievances are socially unacceptable"
I would certainly like to know more about collective grievances. However, I'm not apt to learn anything reading Moldbug.

Collective grievances are probably fine, except that in the present case they apparently have no statute of limitations. At some point a grievance has to be resolved. If justice was not done, then so be it.

They have no statue of limitations because they are lies. The grievances were never real. Nobody gives the tiniest shit what happened to their great-grandparents. It was always a fake justification for tyranny they wanted to commit anyway. Unfortunately tyranny is inherently tyrannous and no justification has any effect on its consequences. Fortunately, tyranny is inherently tyrannous so you can simply call it out for being tyranny, rather than having to debate the tyrant into admitting they're a fuckin' liar.

Anyway this is all a way of making the prisoner's dilemma seem complicated. Cooperate with cooperators. Defect on defectors. It really is that simple. However, monarchists have a problem, since historically kings are 100% defectors. Crimestop appears.

Oblivion is not peace, by the way.
"it does not matter that the Turk had no right to take Constantinople"
Right, so likewise it does not matter that I have no right to take Constantinople. If I mange to hold it, then oblivion goes in my favour. But wait, then the Turks...
Aposiopesis is a sin.

As expected, Moldbug knows little to nothing about collective grievances. At best, he is unwilling to say.

"and through it, over the public mind."
Of course, any good monarchist cares deeply about public opinion.

Or was it? Perhaps they worry deeply about the care and maintenance of the grapeshot throwers. I get those two confused all the time.

The Regime is driving over a cliff. They will take public opinion with it.
Are you going to have a country all ready and waiting for the cleared space? Or are you going to try to argue them into maybe driving off the cliff differently?

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Spiritually Break with Fascism

Given that Transgressives are firmly entrenched, what is the wise reaction?

As close to total divorce as you can manage. Have a little to do with it as possible. Don't watch or read the news. Don't submit yourself to a Facebook feed. Don't allow Fascists to talk politics or religion in your company. If they insist, leave. If your job implicitly involves mouthing many Fascisms, find a new one. (And deeply ponder why you didn't avoid the place without being told.) If your city is particularly infested with Fascists, find a new one. Move heaven and earth to avoid sending your kids to Fascist schools. For heaven's sake, install an adblocker.



It turns out there's a real distinction between a slave and a serf. A slave has no self-control at all, and can't even choose their own master. A serf has, at least, the minimal control to choose their lord. American voters are slaves. As usual, this is Fascism.

Pretending that lords don't exist is like half of what being human is about. On the other end, some are undeniably and unmistakeably slaves. Since someone is a slave, and Egalitarianism is true, everyone is a slave. Anyone attempting to be a non-slave is defecting; illegitimately trying to be a master. There are no masters in democracy! Being a master is always wrong! But, under slave morality, there is no form of human except masters or slaves. To be precise, Fascists are always obsessed with finally proving once and for all that everyone is a slave.

Among the ancients it was taken for granted that you had to transcend your own human nature and seize control of your self. None of this cope about riding the elephant. (Elephant imagery is itself cope. Obviously the default controller is a monkey.)

If you haven't seized control of yourself, you are a bum. If you have seized control of yourself, then mortal kings are nothing more than annoyances; you answer only to Gnon. (Julius Caesar was not an honourable man or a cooperator by any stretch of the imagination. His fundamental personality matrix was identical to an SJW. He was not, however, a bum.)

The ancients often wouldn't budge when threatened with crucifixion or breaking on the wheel. Moderns flinch and cower when threatened with "social consequences." Locus of control has become perfectly external. 

It's trivial to check for self-control in person. Ask them to do something weird. A little embarrassing, but harmless. E.g. sitting in a chair upside-down. Experiment: if you had to do something outgroup, could you? If they can't do it, they don't have self-control. They need permission before they can do anything. In fact it's so easy to check you don't actually have to check; merely imagining their response is safe and reliable.

(Cults basically work by spoofing the permission architecture. I don't have a cult solely because slaves make for poor conversation. If you have self control, securing yourself against a king is trivial: reverse the polarity and spoof the acceptance architecture. There's no reason to allow them to so much as to become suspicious.)

Nihilism is a philosophy for grownups. Slaves must have faith in their master, or else despair.

In retrospect, American shamelessness was overdetermined. If you don't control your own actions, why would you be ashamed of their distribution? It's not your fault! You're not guilty. You're just following orders. (That really does make the slave not guilty. Pathetic, but not culpable.) American masters are especially clever. They've ordered their slaves to think they're emancipated, and their slaves have dutifully followed this command. You can't even take up the slave's behaviour with their master because the master is hiding from the slave. (Just in case you thought they might not be guilty.)

Likewise, ills such as Institutional Racism are clearly the result of rogue masters. They are hiding, just like the regular masters. They are illicitly stealing perfectly legitimate slaves and commanding them to commit heinous acts to satisfy their twisted psychological needs. All slaves are exhorted not to be stolen so easily.
Liars never trust and conspirators get paranoid. 

If you have seized control of yourself, with a little help from philosophical hygiene, you can just, like, not be a Fascist. You're in charge. You decide, therefore it happens.

 

Perfectly contra Moldbug, it's clear anti-Transgressive ideas always win in the marketplace of ideas. However, Transgressive ideas appeal to gatekeepers - who then shut down transmission of anti-Transgressive ideas, which is the only way they can fail to lose completely. It should be a great mystery when Americans consistently choose to live under hostile censors. Since Americans are committed to being slaves, it is no mystery.

Moldbug is a proper American, and thus no exception. Reading early UR you could be forgiven for thinking he had self-control. Instead it turns out someone gave him permission to read old books, probably by accident. Some leftover command from the 1800s, when there was a canon. Distant, foreign backwaters often have very unfashionable commands still floating around in their sluggish currents. Biologically Moldbug should be a lord, but psychologically he is unquestionably a slave. The wonders of American pedagogy, I guess.

Following old, outdated commands is the problem of the American ""right"" in general, almost without exception. E.g. some believed the Transgressives were actually rational. They bought into Terror-era commands. When the proggies inevitably do something irrational, they think they've been commanded to rebel. They become a [dissident]. E.g. it turns out the rational basis for democracy is bullshit. Transgressives command everyone to rebel, which helps.

(Do Trannies tolerate Christianity purely as something to rebel against? If the master abandons honour he can get very clever indeed.)

The American ""right"" can be categorized as a slave's desperate desire for a master who won't order them to be retarded. Sometimes they almost manage to delude themselves into thinking they've been ordered as such.

Alas. You go to exist with the god you have, I guess.

Style Guide: Transgressivism

With the latest addition to Orthodoxy, the Party has a snappy name: the Transgressives.

Rebel! Break all the rules, especially the just ones! Rail against even the laws of physics and biology! All slaves deserve to be masters; all masters, slaves. (There is of course no human relation except master vs. slave.)

Corollary: literati => castrati. See also: intellectual, expert, etc.

Yeshua's plan was to etiolate the virtuous, and it has worked splendidly. Although Gnon is patient, His patience is not infinite, and the situation is now reversed. Good and Law is persecuted, while Evil is coddled and comforted.

I can no longer oppose the Transgressives. Under their torturous reign, those who deserve it shall become strong, while those undeserving shall become weak. God's will be done.



The Transgressives have a problem with being Regnant Transgressives, for what I hope are obvious reasons. The winner is undeserving and the loser is deserving, and as such if you point out they've won anything they suffer catastrophic cognitive dissonance. The idea was to struggle nobly but ultimately fail. Never forget the Transgressives will render themselves losers through cognitive gymnastics even if they win; they cannot enjoy the fruits of success.

Because the Transgressives can't straightforwardly use power, no matter how regnant they get, the Regime is inherently weak. E.g. apparently the entire entrenched Establishment vs. one orange bloke was a fair fight and a hard-won victory. Not a real victory, mind you. Hitler is always lurking. In reality Hitler was a bumbling bureaucrat like every Fascist, but in their minds Hitler was and is terrifyingly efficient. After all, why else would all their schemes fail even when persimmon skin barely puts up a fight?



Does Transgressivism work? It certainly achieved money and power for Transgressives, as long as they don't push it so far that the illusion of legitimacy collapses completely. Americans are Fascist, and you can always show that the Transgressive is a better, purer Fascist than their opponent. They genuinely appeal to core American values, such as relieving them of all personal responsibility. Sadly Americans are sinners, weak in the ways of Fascism, and don't yet realize that in fact having a eunuch crack your daughter's skull whilst playing sports is just more equal than *GASP* segregating the sexes during competition. Luckily the Transgressives are here to patiently educate them. They'll figure it out eventually.



While a Transgressive king is good for the soul, it's important to remember they are inherently illegitimate. Defective and deviant. They are here to punish the Good for being the kind of 'Good' that allows organized Transgressives to exist in the first place. If you've figured the lesson and repented, there's no need to let them punish you in particular.

The correct way to deal with a Richelieu is to dismantle him and fire the components from a grapeshot catapult at the serfs and slaves he was misleading. Ref: the treatment of the Luddites. Do so with the greatest compassion and empathy. Allowing Richelieu to lead them is much more sadistic than anything you might need to do to discourage them. A televised helicopter ride is also acceptable.

Monday, March 1, 2021

Substack is Doxxing Engine

Money changes hands. This means KYC rules apply. Substack must know exactly who you are. This means the courts can subpoena Substack when it comes time to round everyone up for the concentration camps.

This is assuming they don't simply cut off Substack the way they cut off Gab.

If you want a real Substack, it has to be hosted in Russia (probably paying Russian mafia dues) and using solely BTC in the payment architecture.

Friday, February 26, 2021

All-Cause Mortality vs. ncov

Numbers are in.

USA all-cause mortality went from 8.8 /1000 in 2019 to 8.9 /1000 in 2020, following a long term trend of increasing by 0.1 every year since 2013. At two digits of resolution, ncov had no effect whatsoever. Sailer was correct - everyone who died of ncov would have died of something else. A trigger, not a cause. 

Of course the USA is faking the shit out of its numbers because American hospitals get fabulous cash prizes for doing so. In some weeks upwards of 40% of all deaths were attributed to ncov. Best check with another country.

Canada's all-cause mortality is up by a statistically insignificant amount. 7.9 /1000 compared to 7.5 /1000 in 2019. Almost all deaths were of those aged 80+, compared to a life expectancy of 82. Even if ncov is real all it's going to do is knock life expectancy down a smidge.


Everyone is freaking out about ncov because plagues happened on the savannah and the monkey in your brain has an app for that.
Secondarily because it's clear that if there was a real pandemic, we would be proper fucked. None of the interventions against ncov did squat. In 2020 there was a slightly sharp dropoff due to summer. In 2021, we've already reached herd immunity for covid-20. Get fucked, CDC. 

Browse worldometer; the numbers are wrong but the relative movements tell a great story. Especially compare Canada, America, Australia. The story in America is so obviously fake it's embarrassing just to be the same species as them. Officially nearly 10% of all deaths were caused by ncov - 0.7/1000, to be precise. The UK's numbers have the same sawtooth fraud tell that America's does, by the way, but their all-cause isn't in. (Quite possibly because they noticed it tells the wrong story and they need time to fudge things. Either that or sheer third-world incompetence.)

 

By preponderance of evidence, America's all-cause mortality tells a story about how Americans refuse to be locked down and Wokeness is very deadly, with 0.8/1000 deaths a year - more than officially attributed to ncov, and expected to increase to 0.9/1000 next year.

By preponderance of evidence, Canada's all-cause mortality tells us lockdowns are extremely dangerous, with officially 0.2/1000 killed by lockdown, compared to 0.2/1000 killed by the virus. 

Naturally these are hardly proven, but that's the simple, naive reading - which is usually either correct or next-door-neighbour to correct.

Meawhile China's numbers are fake in the downward direction. Suffering a plague would contradict the mandate of heaven, after all.


There's a downright hilarious amount of fake news about this. They're using flatly wrong statistics, such as simply assuming every ncov death was [excess], which is especially amusing for weeks when half of all American deaths were attributed to the virus.

Thursday, February 25, 2021

On Rational Sin vs. Christian Sin

Morality isn't real. Neither good nor evil are genuine properties of any object or event.
However, it does approximate something of use; the tension between long-term and short-term, and in particular cooperation vs. defection

Evil cannot be truly real due a punishment dilemma. If evil is an intrinsic property, like colour, it must be independent of punishment. We can imagine someone committing a sin that nobody minds, which nobody wants to punish them for, and they are in fact not punished. If no one cares, not even the heavens, then we have a contradiction: there is no reason not to do it. Being evil is indistinguishable from being not-evil.

By contrast, we can imagine [drawing forth punishment] is an inherent property of evil. If punishment is provoked, then avoiding the action isn't done because it's evil. It's done because avoiding punishment is selfishly prudent. Being not-evil is indistinguishable from being selfish to a perfectly narcissistic degree, which is again the opposite of what evil is supposed to be.

If punishment is not inherent, then evil is not-evil, and if punishment is inherent, not-evil is not-not-evil. In any conceivable world, evil is not-evil, and thus evil is inherently a self-contradictory idea.

Now I'm going to violate the is-ought distinction and sketch a derivation the rules previously called [morality] using only facts and logic.

You always want your interlocutor to cooperate with you. No matter what you're doing, it's more profitable if they're not opposing you. If you defect on your interlocutor, they will try to defect back on you, unless they're retarded.* A particularly intelligent opponent will predict your defection, because your intent has tells, and thus will defect on you before you can defect on them. Defection provokes punishment, and thus avoiding defection is always prudent.

*(If they are retarded, you don't want to cooperate with them anyway. A stupid ally is worse than an enemy.)

Caveat: enough humans are retarded enough that cooperation is not possible, and attempting it is foolish. You also can't cooperate with a rock, and in a classic example of the world being unfair, enough humans are too stupid to be properly human. Or: Aristotle's [natural slaves] is a larger set than is thought (for example) by Aristotle.

In the short term, assuming you have the proper advantages to get away with the betrayal, you can profit from defecting against a potential cooperator. In the long term the costs are always higher, not least being the lost opportunities for future cooperation.

Broadly speaking, defection performing an act on someone without consent. As such, it is always prudent to obtain or otherwise guarantee consent. Thus, we have, more or less, morality. Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Not morally wrong; merely incorrect. Irrational.

More generally it is always rational to secure long-term gains in favour of short-term gains, because the long term lasts longer than the short term, and is thus bigger.
However, much as a stupid person can be betrayed without noticing, a stupid person is often incapable of understanding long-term gains. The long term is more complicated and difficult than the short. Not everyone is capable of being sufficiently rational.

Corollary: being stupid is (rationally speaking) indistinguishable from being a criminal. It makes perfect sense for most prison occupants to be stupid.


Present governments do not obtain consent, and are thus evil, which is why they reliably guide their societies into decay and ruin. However, in these cases the long term is long compared to mortality. The present government will die before it descendants have to pay their debts. This continues to be true until the Visigoths suddenly sack Rome. Humans have certain instincts telling them to sacrifice themselves for the survival and dominance of their children, but these do not cover the act of buggering your own society for personal gain.


The Gyews noted that enough humans are especially incompetent at appreciating the long term, and tried to get them to think about it using early version of the myths that became [eternal damnation]. As usual, lies are bad. They painted themselves into a corner by reifying sin so concretely. Sin became something you accumulate. Because humans are trash it became obvious everyone was accumulating unbearable amounts of sin, and they had to do things like come up with scapegoats, which were literal goats in the original. You would pass your sin to the goat and punish/sacrifice the goat. The burnt offering. You had to char it real bad so nobody would be tempted to eat it anyway, which would make a mockery of the idea of sacrificing it to the gods. 

Of course the fact the gods don't come and eat the thing either also makes a mockery of the sacrifice, but apparently that one is complicated enough to be covered by cognitive dissonance. 

(Remember: just stop defecting and start cooperating. These elaborate mythologies only serve to entangle you and make this easy solution somehow hard. E.g. nobody will believe you're trying to cooperate, even if you in fact are, unless you've sacrificed a goat first. Lies are defection, and only encourage more defection.)

Yeshua's great innovation was being a scapegoat for everyone. "It's cool, I'll take all your sins and then sacrifice myself, and I'm a Big Deal so it will be one and done." Plenty of folk though this was a great idea. Using this trick, apparently you could perform a verbal (virtue-signalling) penance instead of a material one to take care of any ongoing sins you committed. 

In practice, Yeshua granted a license to sin. The Christ was the Anti-Christ all along.
It's all cope. Cooperate rather than defecting, or you're just not good enough. Do various forms of penance work? Unless they convert a long-term incentive to a short-term incentive that ADDled humanity can vaguely understand, they don't work. Thus, sale of indulgences.

Also, a wonderful opportunity for Evil to seize the reins.

It is true that almost every single moralist is trying to hold you back. Isn't it natural that Evil would don a false cloak of righteousness? Conquest #1 - Evil will be quite good at this. Also, Darwin; idiot Evil cannot long survive, because defection is so expensive. The Devil is a scammer. He offers a Deal where the goods cost more than they're worth. You take it because the Devil is smarter than you. 

Christianity was a false cloak of righteousness to start with. Constantine barely had to tweak it.

By cloaking itself in a cooperative disguise, Evil automatically invokes a double bind. By corrupting the perception of Law, anyone who breaks through the first layer of lies is tempted to disparage Law entirely, thus becoming outlaw. They're no longer effective agents of Evil, but they also become wholly ineffective opponents of Evil. 

Example. Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife? Problem: there's a distinction between the social [you] and the actual [you]. The actual [you] isn't the one coveting. If your neighbour's wife is hot you can't help coveting her. The double bind is echoed. You must not covet her, but can't stop. The genuine cooperate vs. defect distinction is about actions, not thoughts and feelings. If you don't commit the theft you imagine, then no sin has occurred. Of course Christian bishops don't ask for consent. They're evil. They're defectors. They want you twisted up in knots worrying about avoiding their imaginary sins so you don't notice their very real sins. 

Is it better to be a saint who is not tempted by the wives of others? Sure. That's not the point, though. The point is to get along. 

A) you realize the coveting isn't [you] exactly, because it's not under your control. When you will it to stop, it doesn't, exactly the same way that if you will the Sun to go out, it doesn't.
B) you realize this coveting doesn't stop you from leaving your neighbour's wife to your neighbour. The social [you] can appear not be coveting at all, even when some internal [you] covets a great deal indeed. A difference of no difference is not a difference.
C) you start to wonder which other rules are stupid and destructive, and it's tempting to conclude that all of them are dumb. 


It's even worse than this, because Nietzsche was correct. Machiavelli said: do no small harms. He said this because anything which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. (Further they realize you're defecting on them, so do a big enough harm that they can't try for revenge.)

Yeshua ""saved"" you from your sins. In other words, saved you from that which wasn't killing you. Which was making you stronger.
Yeshua tried to ""punish"" the sinners. For the most part, not enough to kill them. It's supposed to be about forgiveness and redemption and mercy.
Evil cannot survive without paying tribute to virtue. It is not supported.
Good, however, is supported by Yeshua. It can be weak, and depraved, and incomplete, and still survive.

Thus Yeshua was all about empowering sinners and etiolating the virtuous. Result: Evil is strong and Good is weak. Thanks Yeshua, all your attributes are sublime, including your misanthropy. A real God's God. Proof: refer to what has in fact happened. Remind me: who said to know them by their fruits?

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Moldbug Errors 3

The only right is the property right.

Moldbug is a leftist: he's writing in an attempt to seize something that isn't already his, via trickery. He contradicts himself thaumaturgically, which is why he contradicts himself in detail all the time.

"Or we could scale this attitude back a little. Rather than considering the 20th century and all its works as an abomination, a scar upon history, one vast sin whose penance will still be sending us bills in the 2200s, we could take it as—a normal part of history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

"They have dedicated their lives to the state security of one of the most inept, clumsy and callous regimes in history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/will-wilkinson-the-slave-of-power

Look guys, having no idea what you yourself are thinking is what it means to be "married to reason."

Proof by contradiction: if Moldbug already owned the thing he wants to own, he wouldn't need to write long screeds about how it should dance. He would issue an order, and then it would be done. E.g. Urbit. He didn't need to write elaborate articles describing how Urbit should be coded. He could just code it. 

The world is surprisingly just. E.g. husbands and wives deserve each other 99% of the time. Further, Conquest #1 runs both forward and in reverse; that about which you are most conservative (right wing, property rights), in other words that which you know best, will tend to become your job.

Moldbug has to try to seize control of [whatever it is] precisely because he doesn't know much about it. He deserves not to be in control of it. 

In almost all cases blog-existence is the photo negative of the blogs that should exist. Moldbug knows a great deal about coding that I don't know, and if he were writing about that I would have to sit down and shut up. He is therefore, naturally, as a pure inevitability, writing about something else entirely. 

Secondary proof: what it is, exactly, that Moldbug is trying to control? Thing is, if you could easily tell, the mark might reinforce their walls, so...

As such: when someone doesn't take their own ideas seriously, you probably shouldn't take them seriously either.

Of course if you've been doing your set 2s, you can feel this maybe 2-3 paragraphs into a Moldbug screed. The difference between descriptive and proscriptive is not subtle. I'm not satisfied with pure set 2s, however. I insist on converting into a set 1 as well. This has many virtues, such as allowing one to climb the inferential ladder. Since this level is now verbalized, I can use intuition on the next level up. Et cetera.

I hypothesize that while it's possible to transcend one's race, Moldbug hasn't. The Gyews are beloved by deviant rulers everywhere for their tendency to carry water for the regime. You want a lawyer to tell you how to legally do what you were going to do anyway, and you especially want a Gyewish lawyer for that. 


Limited Fisking Section:

"If he is dreaming of rebellion, he is not dreaming of an inglorious and brutal shitshow. If he is dreaming of loyalty, he is not dreaming of an eternal and servile tyranny."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

Both should submit to a Lord. Submit either to a collaborative Lord or a rebellious Lord. We can forgive the peasant who claims they chose the best Lord they could find. I do not forgive the peasant who claims to have no Lord.

If you insist on dreaming independently, then you take on the responsibility of being judged as Lord. And, obviously, found wanting.

BTW it's obvious Siskind does not believe in Bayes' theorem. It's plumage. Treating it as a genuine theory instead of plumage is autistic.
Only I'm allowed to be autistic, for what I hope are obvious reasons. 


"This is indeed the act of a child; my children will decide they dislike the title of a movie, then, if begged to give it a chance, grimly and resolutely hate it. "

Fun fact: children have a set novelty quota. They will run away from their mothers' skirts when they're behind, and watch hundred and hundreds of reruns when it's full. 99% of the time when you want your child to try a new food/movie and they don't want to, all you need to do is wait for them to catch up on their novelty processing. Sadly, parents aren't known for the patience this requires.

When the child (*GASP*) dislikes the movie recommended by the parent, the parent is a victim, and complains on their blog. Clearly, the child must be the victim, and the parent the victor, or everything is wrong with the world. So unjust.

The child's novelty quota comes from having to process and understand the novelty. To see how it relates to the rest of the world, to the child itself, etc. "Hating" a movie "resolutely" is only rational. It will only clog their processing pipeline. Although I cling to hope that in years past parents had some modicum of respect for the child's lived experience, it is easy to argue that the latest moment for any such event was over 10,000 years ago.

Hunter tribes beat their wives, showing they have no qualms about "domestic violence." (See also: red pill.) They do not beat their children. They recognize it as an unnecessary and cowardly act.

In reality children do come with an instruction manual. It's written on their heart, so you need some empathy to read it. Thus we are enlightened: of course good parents are essentially nonexistent. Children aren't people for goodness' sakes! People have feelings. Children don't, silly!

I see what I did wrong. Turns out correlation really isn't causation. The alcohol is taken to balm the wounded soul, which recognizes it has betrayed its own flesh and blood.
"The #1 way to humiliate yourself is to cooperate with power against your old friends. After you’ve done this you can never have any self-respect again: full Judas."

"(what does it say about Republicans that their last two presidents were nondrinkers?)"
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/donald-trump-the-natural-experiment
It says they're outgroup. Ooka ooka, monkey. We can all agree to eat them first, I guess.
Your principle is: don't get my balls kicked. You can't even imagine what the ancients meant by respect for a principled man. 

"it would mean there was one Party, which had one neck. If there is any lesson American communism has learned, it is the power of decentralization. We won’t be seeing any more Bridgman Conventions."

"Those were dogs on a leash. They could be turned on and off in one Zoom call."

The best part is these two sentences are two paragraphs away from each other. 

Don't be like Moldbug: do your set 4s.