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.

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?

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.

Cthulu is Original Sin

Lovecraft was exactly correct. He was American so there's a narcissism correction to make, but this made he was precise and accurate.

The truth about America drives Americans mad. Seemingly impossible powers can be had by reading into it, but, always, it drives the American to their gibbering death. In Lovecraft's mind, there is nothing to be done but to look away, and hope to be eaten last.

I have a different take. America is over. You can wait for everyone else to notice, or you can start the new country early. America is gibbering too much to stop it. That's up to you, though. Whichever you prefer. 

One key to an exceptional memory is to quit lying to yourself. If accurate recall would harpoon your self-image, you cannot allow yourself to remember. The more you lie, the more you must confabulate. If the memory must be vandalized anyway, why bother making it in the first place? Thus the past becomes misty. History repeats because humans cannot tell themselves about the present.

Recalibrate: saints are real. They are not saints. They're basically decent people. They merely appear saint-like compared to the rancid trash that calls itself human on average.

In the past, it was accepted that humans are trash. Original Sin etc. But, Jesus was merciful - or rather, we can't punish everyone for all their sins, because there would be no one left. We would punish only the worst criminals, the most heinous crimes, and gradually improve. By degrees. The Aztecs were correct - Gnon demands blood sacrifice. (The Aztecs sacrificed the wrong blood, and Gnon had words with them about it.)

Because humans are trash, Christianity became cope. They decided being [basically decent] wasn't restricted to so-called saints. The egos of the trash got flattered. "At least you're not a murderer." Meanwhile nobody got sainted, because the standard, staying at a fixed distance from [normal], rose well beyond any achievable level. It wouldn't do for saints to realize they are saints. That's the sound of Envy getting tired of winning. Europe gave up their blood sacrifices.

Then they caught the wrong end of philosophy. Philosophy revealed the cope to be lies. The virtue signalling was always transparent, and now someone bothered to look through it.

Some said: we must punish all the sinners. Why are we letting some go? These had committed aposiopesis.

Some said: we cannot punish all the sinners. Punishing any sinners must be pointless. Their faith suffered a mortal wound. These committed the Christian sin of Despair. This was long before WWII but if you study WWII you can see the secular humanists' faith in humanity getting crushed.

"We need X but X is impossible.
"Fuck."

Fascism is a perfect compromise. If you legally defend criminals, the criminals are punished by having to live with a criminal, while the non-criminals are punished by having to live with criminals. It is at once a paean to the imposibility of punishment while simultaneously punishing everyone. And indeed if you go full Communist, all are punished with death. Turns out it is possible not to forgive anyone.

Some even said: since everyone is doing it, it can't be bad. Vae victus.

Yvain said that if it looks like anyone in ingroup sins, they must have been part of the always-sinning outgroup all along. First they came for the outgroup, but I did not speak up because I wasn't part of the outgroup. Look guys, all you can do is hope to be eaten last.



Americans live in a country where it's considered wrong to give your children so much as a room's full of privacy, and wonder why they can't maintain rule of law.

Your daughter's room is "her" room except it isn't her room. This isn't a child, this is a slave. Even if you're merely renting and the landlord is very explicitly the real owner, the landlord has to give 24 hours notice. I suppose I now understand why basic decency needs to be written into law. (This sort of works - even if you can't yourself execute decency, it's not impossible to recognize it from the outside.)

But how would we demonstrate children are low-status scum if we had to give them any genuine respect? On the contrary Americans say gaslighting your children about whether their room is theirs is considered 'respect' and then they wonder why Americans grow up holding an obsession with having the whip hand. In other words, a power addiction.

Some said: adults (who can fight back) must not be the sinners, it must be the children (who can't). How did America end up with a bullying problem. It is a mystery.

Those who gaslight their children as a moral imperative can't complain when it turns out they live under a gaslighting regime. "Where did you learn that?"

Sure everyone's tortured as children but that sort of thing doesn't just happen. I've looked for innocent victims but have been unable to find any. Americans allowed an industrial child-torture system to be installed in their country. They were already okay with it. Some are so enamoured of child torture they prefer not to have strangers do it where they don't have to watch - they prefer to apply it personally.

The American father, like all tyrants, is incapable of telling the difference between a right to privacy or owning your own territory, and the right to the territory of others' e.g. having you and your bank account pay for my treats. The tyrant genuinely consider all territory to be theirs.
He genuinely cannot conceive of what a libertarian tries to propose. Or any true rightist - the idea of personal responsibility simply isn't in his vocabulary. This is what it means to be a Fascist.

Ironically, under Fascism, there are no equals. Only victors and victims. (Reinforcement: the victims deserve it because weakness is a sin.) Talk about inhabiting the stereotypes of your enemies: the American father must either be licentious or tyrannical. "Respect" means a victim acknowledging their victor. Double ironically, this is more beastial than literal beasts. Lion prides respect the territory of their neighbours. Even literal chimps manage it better than Fascists do.

Lies are brain cancer.

Lies spread. Everything is connected, which means once a lie becomes a fixed point, everything else must be progressively distorted to flatter that lie. There's a technique called compartmentalization or the magisteria of expertise where truths are forcibly disconnected, but the smarter brain has difficulty failing to see similarities as similar.

The American inoculates themselves with brain cancer when they submit to the child-torture regime. When they become accomplices. For the American to acknowledge responsibility or respect, he would have to acknowledge he was not treated responsibly or with respect. Fatally, he would have to acknowledge he has not acted responsibly or respectably to his own children. This lie becomes a fixed point, and everything must twist around it to avoid the genuinely lethal ego damage. They become irrevocably stupid. (Exploitably so.)

America has sinned. The sin is so painful it's impossible to repent. This is why the only alternative is to be not-American. Gnon lets Fascists be Fascist, and if you don't reject it utterly, He will allow the Fascists to Fascism you. 

Fascism makes women hate their children. It's impossible not to realize, at some level, you're wronging them. This feels like children are exposing your sins, which means you start hating those children. (Which makes torturing them easier.) Fascism is thus doing one great service to the world: it is causing women who are susceptible to Fascism to gracefully exit the gene pool via abortion, transsexualism, &c.

GameStop Short Squeeze is Perfectly Efficient

Basically the short sellers have negative brand value and the stock market has worked out a way to charge them for this debt.

Markets are efficient as long as nobody legitimizes coercion. If nobody can force you to break your contracts, or force your counterparties to allow you to renege, then the market can properly aggregate demand.

Yes, if you try to price GameStop stock based on 'fundamentals' (which mean nothing without hardliner dividends) then you will get the wrong answer, because you have forgotten that money isn't worth anything.

Money is valuable because it can be used to buy things. The things are valuable. Money is merely a means. One of the valuable things money can buy is the ability to express hatred. If money's only value was to get more money - the mindset which says GameStop's stock price is 'inefficient' - then it would be a self-licking ice cream cone. Nobody makes self-licking ice cream cones. Someone does mint money, and therefore it must not be self-licking. Price hatred into GameStop's valuation and it makes perfect sense. Finish accounting for all the things it can buy. Don't stop in the middle to fraudulently 'prove' a market is inefficient or a human is irrational.

By contrast, if a market allows coercion then the coercive agent can simply force all other players to pay whatever they want. If the coercive agent doesn't immediately tax/rent all other players down to the poverty line, it's because there's some fig leaves still around. (Likewise the Laffer curve has to be adjusted for the value of lording it over a bunch of filthy peasants who were too weak to resist your traitorous parasitism.)  

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1354890601649610753 Musk obvs real mad that $TSLA keeps getting shorted.
Taking a company public is a breach of honour and responsibility, moron. You asked for it.
I think Musk is a low-level lord, like a baronet or something. Overqualified compared to all this competitors, very underqualified compared to the intrinsic demands of his position. Winner of height contest for midgets. Though his companies probably have a high lord concentration, allowing them to suck less than would normally be expected.

You don't sell stock you don't own. That would be great. I'd love to sell all of /r/WSB's GameStop stock and pocket the proceeds. Woo! It's not mine, but who cares?
Rather, you get stock lent to you, and sell that. The buyers of this loaned stock can then re-gift it and have it sold again, which is what leads to the interesting accounting quantities.
Loans are loans. When you have loans without collateral, things can get hairy. This is not exactly rocket science. This is (ref: all of history) not a reason to ban loans, this is a reason to understand risk, and not to underwrite risks you can't afford. Someone underwrote Melvin Capital, and if they didn't want to get short squeezed then they shouldn't have done that. Personnel is policy, and Melvin is a getting-short-squeezed kind of person. It pays to know these things.

Short squeezes are still zero sum because Melvin Capital does not have infinite money. You cannot extract more money from a short squeeze than the underwriters possess. ("But money printer" no, that merely steals the money from long cash. Theft is coercion. It forces everyone who holds dollars to in part underwrite Melvin Capital.) It may seem there's some finagling when someone who loaned stock finds the debtor cannot repay the stock, but that's the risk you take when you underwrite a loan. If they didn't know they were underwriting a short position, they should have asked.

Those long GameStop also take on risk. If everyone is playing aboveboard Melvin will have the cash or other assets they gained by selling the short stock, and GameStop investors will be able to extract it. Sum = zero. However, Melvin could have easily bought something illiquid, in which case those long GameStop will have a difficulty known as burying the corpse.

E.g. one of the illiquid assets Melvin Capital could have bought is Melvin's time and labour. He gets to keep that salary no matter how bankrupt Melvin Capital becomes. This is the risk those who wish to be long GameStop need to be aware of. Else, a fool and his money are soon to part.

Melvin Capital is of course perfectly safe. The locus of legitimized defection or whitewashed deviance known as USG has repeatedly demonstrated capacity and willingness to bail them out if e.g. a short squeeze happens. MC employs an army of 'risk analysis' mainly to disguise their mafia membership, and slightly as sinecures for lower-ranked mafia members. Further, Melvin plays much safer when it's his own money. His professional position is extremely risky and his personal position can be safely described as aggressively boring. (Just in case USG goes Lehman on Melvin Capital.) 

None of this would be a problem for anyone but WSB & Melvin et al, except 401(k).

It should be fine for stock players to extract arbitrary amounts of money from the stock market and cause arbitrary crashes, because this would only affect other stock players, who either accepted the risk or are fools with money. The worse the turbulence the more disciplined the players will end up. Except, pension plans. The stock market is vastly inflated by all the fake 401(k) demand, which means there's always lots of money to extract, which means effectively stealing from Grandma, who cannot possibly understand or even be aware of the debt she's forced to underwrite, and is fraudulently assured she is taking on minimal risk.

When Grandma gets stolen from, she flinches. Weird. What a wuss. When Grandma flinches, every Grandma-class investor flinches, America as a whole flinches, and you get what's known as a recession, to which America is particularly prone due to artificial, price-controlled low interest rates causing malinvestment. America's businesses are largely fake and thus delicate in the face of shocks. (Then you realize China's economy is even worse. Hoo!) Though the GameStop thing isn't particularly dangerous due to ncov having already shocked the hell out of the place recently, and thus only robust businesses are still around (e.g. real-prices profitable).

Naturally when the recession is over, someone re-inflates the stock market and makes it a nice plump and juicy target again.
The idea is that the mafia is allowed to slowly extract value from pension plans, thus stealing sustainably. Tax rates can never be too high, after all. Since everyone's returns are getting jacked, there's no background to see the con against. You have to, like, actually know things, and Grandma is aggressively ignorant. Her position is super long delusion. Unfortunately the dons can never quite prevent the mafia from wanting to go all [roaming bandit], and anyway the market is never as well-insulated against nonlocal roving bandits as they would like. Bend over, Grandma.

America cannot unbugger its stock market because the buggery is how the supporter-parasites leeching it are being paid off. If the relevant Czars could afford to cut off these supporters, they would have already done so. However, should a country have an unbuggered stock market, there shouldn't be any reason to ban bad debtors from taking on debt. The problem of usury is the victims, not the perpetrators. Personnel is policy. Ban the victims. But...Gnon does that without prompting. The natural consequences ought to be terrifying enough. However, I could be wrong. Maybe someone will try it eventually.

I also know of coercive feedbacks between stock prices and CEOs. Stock prices should be able to fluctuate arbitrarily without forcing the CEO to make stupid decisions and affect day to day operations. Stock is by definition not owned by the company and votes aside should affect a company no more than your decision to walk your dog does. However, this is not the case. I don't know how a general stock crash forces companies to be stupid, but there probably is such a force. If you've done your set 2s, you can feel a fat band of pressure in just the right place. Maybe it's options as remuneration?

By the way, if you want to stop a Bank of England going all BoE, all you have to do is not stand in the way of the Bank Next Door To The Bank of England. The problem isn't weird derivatives, the problem is guns, especially guns that have to hide where they're pointing to avoid spooking Grandma. Stop digging: no hole appears. Lies are bad, mmmkay. Same way Melvin's professional and private investments are so very different; all you have to do is stop propping up his professional insanity and nobody acts crazy. Or more precisely, the crazy promptly go bankrupt and render themselves irrelevant.

Anyway if WSB gets what it wants, it will piss off the mafia and embarrass the don in front of Grandma. (Again.) The don has to keep Grandma pacified so he can keep paying off his consigliones with the change from her couch.* I wouldn't bet on the don letting you spook Grandma if I were you. It's a sinking ship, and the game is to gather as much 'salvage' as you can yet leaping off before it actually goes under. Good luck.

*(God that's lame. I didn't realize how pathetic that was until I put it into words.)

Terror of Peasantry

Scott is a peasant. Like all peasants his primary motivators are cowardice and envy. Terror and spite.

If you were as weak as Scott, you too would be terrified of anyone figuring how spiteful you are. It's not like he can withstand any pushback. He's suitably motivated and not entirely an idiot, thus capable of putting up veils where he needs them, so perhaps we can forgive his many readers for squelching the little voice warning them to stay away from Scott. Of course, a majority of them are as spiteful as he is, and for them staying away wouldn't help much. Their life would contain the same amount of spite either way.
Getting folk like Scott on the side of the Regime is easy. He is, extremely rationally, more afraid of them than he is of you. Or me. I am merciful, the Regime is not. Though, if you got him in a room alone with you, you can probably make him say damn well whatever you please. Force also follows the inverse square law. Havel's greengrocer? Pshaw. Let me show you real supercilience. 

It is not impossible to whip folk like Scott in a useful direction. Hardly worth the effort, but not impossible. He has some good articles because someone did bother, or perhaps someone accidentally terrorized him the right way. E.g. you can get him so scared he forgets the spite and retreats entirely into his own mind to cut off the possible terror, which incidentally also isolates him from politics.

"With malice towards none, with charity towards all"
This is merely a lie. Let's put this in a rationalist way: nullius in verba. Another: whenever someone is telling you exactly what they're supposed to be saying, demand double evidence. With the absolutes used, apparently Scott is the next coming of Jesus, so we can use the heavy stress-tests.

Third: this is such an obvious lie, you're clearly supposed to see through it. Dog-whistling. Of course, not dog-whistling rationality because lies are irrational. They worship verbal articulation, not [hint-hint nudge-nudge]. Though like everything in America, Rationalism is fake and we should be expecting it to be a lie. Yeah he says he's a Rationalist - and every time he has to say it, he gets the virtue-signal penalty and must prove it twice again as hard, rationally speaking. Principle: it's a probable attempted cover-up.

In reality Scott has malice toward all, especially himself. He is at some level aware of how spiteful he is, and rationally believes this to be a mark of bad character. He believes he deserves to be oppressed for being an awful person.* This is much of why he so often goes down [but but the right is awful] rabbit holes. As long as someone else is more awful, he can feel relatively okay about himself. "We're all sinners but you're not even trying." This in turn is why he can't possibly admit right-wingers might have a point. He can't admit they're better than he thinks they are; he can only drag himself down to their perceived level. It doesn't help that he genuinely is kind of a little shit. Look at the photo at Lorien and try to tell me that beady-eyed double-sneer is the face of a kind and gentle healer. 

 *(The NYT agrees. Otherwise someone would have felt bad for what happened to him and apologized. But that's not how the Regime functions. Apologies require respect. They know only fear. Scott apologized, but not because he feels responsible; he feels afraid someone will hold him responsible. There's a checksum available which I'll skip for now.)

His veiling just kind of doesn't work on non-peasants, though. It only works on enough peasants.

"This is a totally different problem from the cancel culture stories I usually hear about, but just as serious. How are you supposed to write about communism in a world where any newspaper can just figure out your real name, expose you, and lock you out of most normal jobs?"

But whatabout the communists?

I mean, what reasonable society would want to shut down someone who prefers that millions starve to death? Clearly [just as serious] as Goody Hannah with the snippy tongue who called someone a mean name one time when you were a little girl. (Scott has always been a little girl.) And Definitely happens Just As Often.

Meanwhile, Scott is putting himself in the role of Glados. Because he's still alive, see.
You're an insane, murderous female robot? Yeah, sounds about right. I wouldn't just confess like that if I were you, but thanks for being so open about it. More precisely: he aspires to be Glados. Feminine Fascism is Fabulous. He's not even as good as Glados, in his own opinion.

Supporting communism somewhat satisfies Scott's urge to be vicious and nasty, with little to no risk he will called to task for it. He would prefer not to be nasty, but you can't just dislodge your core values like that. Hypothesis: an NPC is someone who has given up on their core value and embraced despair so deeply they've forgotten. Scott is not an NPC. 

The psycho lords aside, Scott is probably one of the higher-class servants of the Regime. He is emblematic of the [fine people] Moldbug sees working the bureaucracy.

Okay, sure. It is true that these folk would have to be rescued from themselves to avoid the Regime ass-raping everyone including itself. 

The simplest way is to simply put a gun to Scott's head. His core conviction is that pain is bad and he doesn't want to die. (Utilitarianism stripped of pretenses.) Gun in hand, he will genuinely believe whatever you tell him to believe. It's Rational to not get fucking killed, after all. Rationality is Winning, and if you have a gun to his head, you must have Won and thus be more Rational than he is.

Thus the problem is working out how to put a gun to Scott's head without having to shoot your way through the entire DoD. Sure we would intensely like forestall the aforementioned ass-raping but the aforementioned shooting is merely another version of it. Let's not [oops] that one. If the Regime is going to fall anyway, at least let the blood be on someone else's hands.

The Home Guard were betrayed again after the inauguration. But it's okay, they weren't betrayed enough to, you know, stop doing what the Regime says. As I mentioned previously, the Pope has this well in hand. 

Here we can see the reason Moldbug has to believe there's no Pope. Pope = no hope. In Moldbug's world, if we can figure out how to satisfy Scott's desire to be communist without letting him be, you know, communist, then he will convince the military to stop being so Fascist. (Having written out the plan explicitly, does it sound as obviously stupid to you as it does to me?) In reality, the Pope tells the army to put a gun to Scott's head, and Scott immediately goes back to telling Moldbug to politely go fuck himself.

Twist: I don't know any reason, Regime aside, Scott's spite couldn't be directed toward someone who genuinely deserves it. BLM causes tremendous suffering among the black community. Use that suffering as a pivot to get the spite directed properly, and then the only issue is whether the spite is useful when directed this way. I can't see any reason it isn't. Sadly the ethics board won't give me peasants to experiment on, so I haven't tried it, and the envy angle may make things tricky. Still, should be possible. There are no shortage of genuinely vile humans to put spite on. 

Child torturers, for example.

Double Twist: Scott is a child-torture cultist. Uhh....hmm.
To admit the truth - that public schools are concentration camps whose purpose is to torture children - is well, well beyond Scott's capacity to handle. "Oh by the way not only was your whole life meaningless, you were actively, intensely worshipping Satan this entire time."

Haha...ha...oops? Few things aren't funny, but that's not funny. Humans will do absolutely anything to avoid realizing this sort of thing about themselves. Is it even possible to modify this enough to make it psychologically plausible? "Oh yeah, it's not really your fault because you were so weak. You were a helpless child well into your 30s, don't blame yourself." Doesn't seem to be helping. "It's okay, relative to a coward like you, cringing slightly less is already plenty heroic." No?
Anyone complicit in the Regime is absolutely damned, psychologically speaking. 

Worse, invisible garage dragon. Scott knows he's complicit in the torture of children. He went to school, after all. He was there.
If you tell him, he won't be surprised. You can't ambush him with this. He knows exactly which bullshit he needs to pull to keep this knowledge buried all the way. This, among other things, is why he believes he deserves to be oppressed. When the NYT accidentally forces him to uproot his whole life, Scott merely sees an angel of the Lord handing out a portion of final judgment slightly ahead of schedule. Scott knows better than to shoot the messenger. It doesn't even occur to him.

Whence Scott's promiscuous malice? Isn't universal malice a particularly understandable reaction to a country which not only allows, but celebrates widespread torture of children? Scott's psychological arrangements make perfect sense given who he was born as and the environment he's in. If you don't sneer at Americans, it is perhaps you who is out of touch. The children don't want to go to school. And they're not wrong.

The problem is that the Progressive Regime is literally Satanist. (In shocking news, a proper cult of the Father of Lies lies about itself. Satan prefers crypto-worshippers who don't even themselves know.) If Americans don't repent their Satanism, the successor Regime will merely be Satanism 2.0. Have to get rid of the Fascism, including the concentration camps. Yet, repentance is impossible, because nobody can admit Fascism was wrong, precisely because it is so very, very, very wrong.

If someone were genuinely Rational, they would realize that, no matter how much of your life is wasted, the important thing in the here and now is to stop wasting it. The important sin isn't having done it, it's continuing to do it. It's not a coincidence that Rationalism is so popular in America. Even someone with minimal set 2s can feel it's exactly what they need. 

Pity it's fake. 

America has always been fundamentally Communist. What they want to supply is death and suffering. Gnon will magnanimously show them the way.

Compassion for Traitors

Reminder: Moldbug is a cope peddler for the discerning customer. The standard story goes about two inferential layers deep. Moldbug goes about five. By contrast, the truth goes forever.

There is also something more here, which I can't put my finger on. Yet. I will keep picking at it until it comes to light. (P.S. I found something. Title's a hint.)

"Treat it as if it did not exist—as if no one had ever considered thinking in this strange way."
If you do this you will have no idea when you fail.

Fascism is seductive due to osmosis. Your parents are Fascists, all your friends are Fascist, your co-workers are Fascist, everyone you have to obey is Fascist, the grocery store clerk is Fascist, the store's music is Fascist, and let's allow Havel to remind us all their signage and posters are Fascist. 

Fascism is also seductive due to being intentionally disguised. Parasites want you to think they're your friend. It's important to be able to pierce this camouflage. I use explicit verbal definitions. More on this at the bottom.

Reflexively, unconsciously, you develop a model of the minds around you. Fascism gets in. To get it out again, you need to recognize what must be shovelled out. Moldbug reads Noah Pinion, for god's sake. This is not treating Noah Pinion as if he didn't exist.
Thus Moldbug has failed his own prescription.
This is probably because Moldbug himself has no idea what he's saying. He certainly has no idea what he's thinking, or he would notice it's Fascist. This constitutes criminal negligence. He doesn't know because he hasn't checked. He hasn't checked because he senses he can't deal with what he would find. To withhold such a thing from his alleged allies constitutes not merely defection, but treachery.

That's about five inferential layers. But...let's not commit aposiopesis. Layer six: the representative Moldbug reader is not unaware of his treachery. They are in the market for being betrayed, as is traditional for American rightists. Naturally they don't consciously admit this to themselves, but it would be revealed by a little due diligence. 

Checksum: do you think every Fascist is a rank fool? That they can't tell if you're faking your Fascist etiquette? To get along with these people, your Fascist etiquette must be quite real. You must put on the Fascist suit. Which means you need to know how to take it off again, which means knowing what it is.

Moldbug, by his own admission, rejects knowing what it is, which handily explains why he can't take it off.

We can see why Moldbug must make this particular deal with the devil. The Amish, who genuinely do treat Fascism as if it didn't exist, are not dissidents. By having isolated themselves, they make it likewise the case that Fascism can forget the Amish exist. Ref: Newton's third law.

You do set 1s (you are doing your reps, yes?) because it tells you about the domain of your solutions. Moldbug assumes isolation where no isolation exists, but this doesn't mean isolation is impossible. If you get off Twitter and Facebook, don't watch television, stop reading the newspaper or substack or medium or quillette, stop listening to music with words in - congratulations, Moldbug's prescription is just the thing. You can treat something as if it doesn't exist on the condition that, as far as your own practical purposes go, it does not exist.

Moldbug doesn't see anything wrong with pretending, and Satan is proud of him. 

If you do your set 2s, you can feel that Moldbug's aura resonates with treachery, and trace that to his Fascism. When Yarvin wrote as Moldbug it was much, much weaker. Brown Scare may not be treacherous at all. It's in full bloom now, though. 

Aside: we can see the creation/destruction asymmetry. Moldbug produces one line, the refutation is multiple paragraphs. Clearly the one line is working - substack helpfully ranks its magazines, and you can see many commentators taking it all seriously below these posts. All else equal the refutation will not work simply because it is longer. 

"all of which are weird and feel weird to the user"
Well, I was going to be a dissident, but it felt weird so I guess I'll quit.
America is boned long-term due to biological shortfalls. America is boned short-term because of the above.
Perhaps the Regime doesn't persecute you because they know all it needs to defeat you is mild discomfort.

Probably due to Prussian schooling, every American has ADHD: unwilling to do anything unless there are tangible short-term rewards. This is what creates Moldbug's niche in the first place: the official narrative is geared for like, IQ 90, and due to Fascism they can't exactly segment the market. This produces cognitive dissonance, in other words, short-term pain. Moldbug relieves this pain, without requiring any, you know, actual work.

Basically I would like to see toy dissidence. Start small. Have a single forum - perhaps even simply confiscating someone else's forum - and declare it a no-Fascism zone. It would be properly passivist. More of a proof of concept. Build a prototype to find the flaws in the blueprint. However, this would naturally be unpaid. Doing it with Americans would herding cats, because they won't give up their support for 'universal education' by which they mean Prussian school.

I recently saw the line "we sold our digital inheritance for a few squirts of dopamine" which is darkly amusing. What, like Americans were ever not going to follow their base, childish impulses?

Moldbug sends his kids to school. Is he a blithering idiot? Or does he want his kids to be properly Fascist? But you know, very cool and very legal Fascists.
I mean, I can't blame him for trying. It does appear to be making money. Let's all agree I never have to take his poor gullible readers seriously, though. 

I have very explicitly defined Fascism and leftism. Indeed, more than once. I spent years looking for inconsistencies and changing the definitions until I couldn't find inconsistencies anymore.

Because I'm autistic, I was at first fooled by everyone's assertion that they don't want to be Fascist. However, I still suspected. It felt off. Now I have the explicit definitions, I can prove that everyone saying they don't want to be Fascist is a liar. They're not interested in the definitions. You need the definitions to even know what you're trying to not-be. Success is impossible, especially with Fascism deliberately trying to hack in.

As a stupid example, maybe someone would try the definition, fail, and try again. Is this a superpower? Am I expecting something no normal human can possibly do? The failure comes from not attempting to try in the first place, and it's not attempted because they have no desire to reach the end of this path.

Which would be the other reason America is boned. They want Fascism, which means they will (and are) getting it good and hard. They pray to Gnon to grant them Fascism, and Gnon will generously provide. 

Likewise, Chinese history can be summed up as praying to Gnon to be dominated by the person who is strongest in an immediate short-term sense. What else can Mandate of Heaven possibly mean? Gnon loves the Chinese also, and has affectionately granted their request. 

Are you in the mood for some Buddhist compassion?
Moldbug feels he has no choice but to be treacherous. In his rational, considered opinion, he agrees with me - dissent has no place, no purpose, and no hope in modern America. Fundamental theorem of history: history repeats. Dissent didn't take down the Nazis. Nor the Commies. Nor Rome. It will be equally impotent here.

However, it is easy to let the blackpill seduce you into inaction. Moldbug doesn't know how. And wouldn't it be stupid if he were mistaken? Oh actually it would have worked if he just tried something. So, he tries something. He can't rationally convince himself, so he betrays his own judgment to accomplish this. 

Unfortunately, this treachery gets thaumaturgically passed onto his readers. Still, he believes there are no options aside from either treachery or despair and paralysis. 

Everyone has faith. Moldbug feels the treachery is a test of his faith. He maintains that, through mysterious ways, it will end up being not-treachery. If you had the option of seeing treachery as a test or seeing despair as a test, wouldn't you also pick action over inaction?

I know two ways to learn how to transmute a black pill into action.
One: take the black pill. The way out is through. You are mistaken about what it's like on the inside.
Two: discipline. Socrates questioned everything, and this is exactly correct. Is the black pill really black? How black? Black in what way? In this case, one can even slash the willpower required by directing one's base impulses for sedition and dissent towards one's own beliefs. 

What might you learn doing this? Picking action over inaction is the Fascism talking again. Perhaps we can agree that it's contemptible to wait to be saved. Why not have faith the inaction is temporary? Why not have faith that the correct course of action will be revealed to you in time? In contrast, perhaps waiting to be saved is proper humility. Perhaps the test is this: when you can't do anything, are you capable of accepting your own impotence?

The only thing we can be sure of: you can't know in advance. Gnon does not answers prayers you do not speak. One must check. 

Likewise, Moldbug's readers believe being betrayed is rational. They believe this, in short, because they are weak. Contra Yeshua, weakness is a sin. Until they repent, they are sinners, and damned. In theory it's possible for Americans to repent of their very American weakness. However, then they're not Americans anymore, and I've never witnessed one being willing to go that far. Cranking the compassion up a notch: it's true that profound repentance is difficult in the American case. They torture children on an industrial scale. It is no small sin, and should it be acknowledged it weighs profoundly on the conscience. Bit of a catch-22. They must repent to become strong, but must first become strong so they can repent.

The Online Personality, Thaumaturgically

My problem with social media:
You can casually combine a Rules of Nature person with a Witch/Nectar person into one consistent individual. Not even hard. The full range of human experience is heckin' wide, and praise be to Gnon.

The heart is glorious because it is weak. What's the point of having a tough exterior if you don't have a gooey interior? "I was worried about my armour so I armoured it." Err, good joke?

Prey, too, can be glorious. Imagine you have nothing. No weapons, no brains. Despite this, when the lion comes for you, you live. The wolf slavers for your delicious organs, but her pack goes home hungry. Booyah! The predator is strong in body and the prey is strong in soul.

On Twitter you have to confine yourself to a monochromatic wavelength of light or you confuse your followers. Followers refuse to engage deeply enough to permit Tweeters to develop into interesting characters. On Twitter you have to be boring, a liar, or a nonentity. Selection against non-NPCs.