If God Made the Internet, Why Would He Do That?

God made the internet to reveal the stupidity, rudeness, and insanity of humanity.

For obvious reasons, these things are often suppressed, which inevitably means they're covered up. However, humanity aspires to truly absurd depths of venality, and regularly achieves these ambitions. It is apparently now important to realize this thoroughly. Full on detailed solar-path descriptions.

The internet strips off this suppression. It repels anyone who has basic decency (more on this later), the result being a showcase of degeneracy. Degeneracy that was always there, but less visible.

Be enlightened.

The Transgressive Inquisition Sees Themselves as Fascist

When you say Fascists do X and Y and then do X and Y yourself, then you start seeing yourself as Fascist. E.g. antifa street thugs are aware they're fascist street thugs. Admittedly this is pretty far down, buried under several layers of cope, but it's still there.
If you give me a particular antifa thug I can show you how to make them accidentally admit to being a fascist street thug. It's a trick involving going just beyond their inferential horizon. If you can see the horizon at a glance like I can, it's trivial to do yourself.

Because they see themselves as Fascist, in the unlikely event that they want to compromise Fascism, they will stop themselves. Except it's not even Fascism per se, but their perception of Fascism. In other words, because they believe Hitler was big into death camps, they believe they ought to be big into death camps.

Whether Hitler in fact had death camps or not - whether Fascism is inherently death-campy or not - American will attempt, sooner or later, to produce death camps. Like Hitler, they will try to put the State Enemy of Fascism in the camps. In other words, white men.

However, America may first feminize so badly it becomes totally paralyzed. It will end up nattering tremendously about making death camps without actually being able to create any kind of camps at all. Spengler's timeline seems to indicate this is the path, and Spengler's track record is better than (to pull an example totally at random) mine.

Shitty But More Accurate Song Remixes: I am Corpse

Hear me rot

The fumes will make your forehead hot

I stink too much to pretend

Organs torn and skin all rent

I've been down there in the ground

Putrefaction will put down there again

Whoa, yes, I am dead

It's deadness borne of injury (the pain)

Yes I've paid the price (of ignorance)

And I can never pay anything again

 

If I have to I can stain anything

I smell strong (strong)

I am invincible (because I'm already vinced)

I am corpse 

You can bend me and even break me

because it only serves to make me

Get ever further past the final goal

I won't come back any stronger

Not a novice any longer

Because you've snapped the connection with my soul

(I'm dead)

I am corpse, watch me ooze

See me lying toe to missing toe

As I spread my miasma across the land

Flies see a place to put their embryos

With a long, long way to flow

Until I make my brother retch on the coat stand

If I have to I can stain anything

I smell strong (strong)

I am invincible (because I'm already minced)

I am corpse!

Shitty But More Accurate Song Remixes: What is Food

What is food

Industrial contaminants, don't hurt me

Don't hurt me, no more 

Industrial waste by-products, don't hurt me

Don't hurt me, no more

What is food? Yeah

Stoicism and Altruism

You shouldn't listen to Sophists because they make you weak. They will say things like [Stoicism isn't real].

"I refuse to believe that anyone, regardless of their IQ, is any good at telling themselves how to feel."

Reality: the emotions are merely a logic system that feels different. If you learn the language (typically through sufficient reps of the lunar set) you can just talk to it. If it says something inaccurate, you can correct it and watch your feelings change in real time. (If you can't just correct it, usually it means you're wrong and the limbic system isn't; your evidence sucks and it's not buying it.) I rather suspect the lunar set has strict IQ thresholds, however. Without [x] you'll fail to do enough sets and without [y] you can't even do a set consistently, with good form. (I don't know what x or y are.)
 

Geoffrey Miller (probably primalpoly) is also wrong, as per the epistemic presumption and the human default. Altruism is impossible because psychological egoism is true. EA is irresponsible, left wing, and therefore destructive, unless some epic-tier lord is currently corrupting his little corner of it to do good. 

Personnel is policy. EA reliably attracts narcissists and psychopaths, because the emotional system is in fact a logic system and can tell right away that Effective Altruism is neither altruism nor effective. Healthy folk steer clear of self-defeating endeavours, guaranteeing EA will be a pile of genetic trash. Any non-psycho lords in EA will be temporarily confused; only there by mistake. 

P.S. It's super weird that the language of the emotional system does not come installed as a factory default. How the hell does that even evolve? 

P.P.S. Psychological egoism is true because it turns out the subjective is subjective. You can't feel other people's feelings, or they would be your feelings and not another person, contradicting the premise. "Altrusim" works if you are motivated by motivations you don't have. 

It is normal to be aware of this at the emotional level, which is why those who go all-in on altruism look so suspicious.

Philosophy is a Sign of Ill Mental Health

One of the costs of being a philosopher is having to acknowledge your parents were flatly not good enough.

"My parents weren't that bad!"

If that's true, you didn't become a philosopher. If you're really a philosopher, not faking it, it's because your parents screwed up their parenting so badly you were better off doing it yourself. Being a philosopher means you can't lie to yourself, which means admitting you were raised almost completely wrong, which is exactly why you had to re-derive how to think and how to act, etc etc. Naturally you can't start out as a philosopher, so having such incompetent parents inevitably has side effects, beyond merely being a philosopher.

More precisely, being a logiomancer, of course. You can be an academic philosopher if you want, without having to go through the trial by fire, but you can't be an innovation-class intellect and an academic philosopher at the same time. You'll get fired almost on the spot, or suffer some other extreme negative result. In general you can't make it through a bachelor's in philosophy, let alone the Ph.D, unless you're wildly deluded and happy that way.

You already know, but it should be said anyway:

Wokeness isn't a heresy of Christianity, exactly. The christcult was less-bad because it was less-christian. The Re-transgressive Inquisition is exactly the purest apotheosis of the core values of Christianity.

When is Diversity Good?

For any particular idea, the community of scholars needs one (1) person to forward it. Any second person is redundant, and should be re-assigned to dig ditches or perform routine lab work.

However, generating as many hypotheses as possible is valuable. This means different minds with different experiences and different styles of thinking. 

Bonus round: scholarship is particularly anti-democratic. The more thinkers openly agree with an idea, the more time and money you're wasting and the more seriously you need a purge. 

P.S. I see no reason scholasticism can't be particularly cutthroat. If novelty is the sine qua non, then can you get someone fired by showing all their ideas are derivative? Yes. And that's wonderful. Similarly, it should be possible to take a warrior-class job by beating the tar out of the previous office-holder.