Right Wing as Inherently Profane

"your shrill, catty chimpouts you guys have in response to the slightest criticism tells me none of you have the impulse control necessary to be worth anything in a real world situation"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Vitruvisch/status/1687141858965692426

 Background: every American is a woman. Twitter right = American or trans-American, i.e. they are women. There were no founding fathers, only founding mothers - politics is unfiltered knitting-circle. 

 Plato was right about Democracy, it's inherently bad. While one can (and I have) filtered out the true essence of 'right' vs. 'left' there's nothing debatable about it. It boils down to correct vs. incorrect. There is no left wing, there is only a wrong wing.

 Background II: "late Capitalism" is a real thing but it refers to late Fascism. 

Plato:
 "The democrat is desirous of all things and treats all, good and bad, equally"

 In other words, at first the Democratic house has a right wing and a left wing, placing good and bad in apparently equal standing. However, this is unstable; profit-seeking and loss-seeking can't coexist, and it must collapse into one or the other.

 "if his son, the tyrannical man, falls into bad company — and he will — then he will be governed entirely by the bad and the desire for the bad."

 Having legitimized the bad, it reliably collapses into pure loss-seeking. The house is consumed by the left wing. Plato's Tyranny is nothing more than late Democracy. (What cold warriors called 'capitalism.')

 Even calling yourself a "right" winger is to accept intolerable amounts of leftism, by suggesting it is remotely, in any way reasonable to claim leftism is an alternative. Leftism is nothing but self-mutilation. What Plato got wrong: justice is in fact very simple. It is impossible not to understand justice except willfully. To be left wing is to be wrong and to be right wing is to be wrong too.

 It should not be surprising that the "right" wing is fundamentally a bunch of women. In Reality there are no wings here. It's the contrast between virtue and treachery.

Lack of impulse control = zombies. Easy to manipulate. They can't even secure their own will. 

 It should not have surprised me that the "right" wing is nothing but furtive, insecure leftism. Nothing but the less-wrong-but-definitely-still-wrong wing. Left wing + self-doubt. 

 Is it too boring to admit the Greeks were right? Pursue virtue, eschew vice. That's it. Be wise, courageous, and reliable, not a foolish, cowardly traitor. There's absolutely nothing honourable or glorious about leftism, which means the name 'leftism' is itself is a vice.

Literacy Benchmark: Filtered by Twitter

Something like 90% of the population is too illiterate to use Twitter. Reading is too hard for them to enjoy non-picture posts. Even 140 chars is too long and complicated, never mind 280 / full text. They can just about handle 'yaas queen' before it's too laborious. They watch TV instead.

Naturally most Twitter users are only barely above the filter. They're still basically illiterate and will Dunning-Kruger your tweet 90% of the time. They're merely literate enough that tweets don't feel like wind-sprinting. 

 

One of the most liked tweets ever is 💜💜. Why? It lets the illiterates feel like they're participating. "I'm part of twitter now," they can say. They understood that tweet and liked it on its merits. They hit the button without faking it!

The fact Twitter is a largely a textual artifact means it is inherently antidemocratic. 

 

 

Publishing in a democracy is only useful for necromancy. Your audience will be wholly undead.
Necromancy itself is useless because the only thing you can do with zombies is make them destroy the other zombies. They can't catch vampires and other necromancers have to be unconscious to fail to stop a zombie attack.

Reminder that Your Superego is Insane

Feelings that come from your superego feel like real feelings. Perhaps the easiest way to spot them isn't very easy - they're a bit flat, a bit too repetitive or ritualistic. Hunger varies based on what you ate the previous day. Superego feelings are stamped out like factory widgets.

This verisimilitude is a problem if you live in an environment of lies and your superego is crunk. 

I consider the superego to be a maladaptive, deleterious mutation. It's one of the things that makes grass monkeys so hideous. You can imagine a society with perfectly healthy superegos, but in this case they're slaved to the ego and thus redundant. Remember: do ask what your society can do for you. If it's not paying for what it demands from you, it is a parasitic traitor and deserves to be painfully destroyed. Lies are bad, mmmkay.

When working 'properly' everyone has the same superego, or at best, the male-ver superego or the female-ver superego. Approximately there is one superego. Incredibly tedious - even women aren't attracted to someone that boring. In practice of course mistakes are made and the superegos differ, but it is all accidental. 

 

Your superego is holding you back. It's one of your worst enemies. Getting rid of it isn't pleasant, but unfortunately it is highly profitable.

Superego Principle of Writing Criticism

Background: it's popular to say Freud was wrong, which is how you know he was largely on the ball. The id-ego-superego framework is useful. Recap: the id is the raw impulses, the ego is your rational reaction to your id, and the superego is your social norms.

All but the very best writers create characters who are pure superego. At best maybe they 'struggle' with 'temptation' of the id occasionally. Their social presentation is their entire reality.

This is often a good thing since Caino hypocriens is such a trash species. The egos suck, the id's impulses are all horrific, and the written versions are strictly superior. However, it's also boring. Story characters can't be hypocrites since they don't have any inner thoughts with which to differ from the outer. Unless you're literally retarded, you know what the social norms are supposed to be, and don't need them repeated at you again.

 

JBP says a hero is like a refined moral instruction. If you think about it, it means they're repeatedly distilled superego. Especially all those Japanese manga heroes who are paragons of their local virtue. Perfectly selfless, always get a present on your birthday, always forgive, don't want anything but to [protect]...completely, utterly uninteresting, because there's not actually anyone there.
Due to the writer's own superego, they can't even make the other characters react realistically to the Paragon of Virtue, which would at least be interesting in a world-building sense, because it would reveal that some of the Virtues aren't virtuous. Even if they sincerely have criticism of the virtue, they will never (really really never if Asian) say so out loud.

Anyone who isn't an "anti" hero lacks a personality. They're not a character, they're a paint-by-numbers scheme. Without the paint. And most "anti" heroes simply have a few signs reversed. They don't have a personality, they have -1s, moral "failings," as if the id is always merely the inverse of the superego. Outgroup is always exactly the opposite of ingroup, right simpletons?

Still better than most real dire apes. Yes, we can call that, at a stretch, a hero. 

 

This is partly why stories are usually for children. They don't fully know what the superego is supposed to be, and it's not wholly a waste of time to tell them.
Likewise it's not useless to read stories written for other cultures. You can investigate their superego, and the kind of society they say it's supposed to create. 

There's a cheap vaccine for authors who want to escape superego characters. Have them disagree on values (not facts) and have them both be correct. Recall that anything else is narcissism.

P.S. Obviously if you have criticism of a superego virtue, the play is to exploit the rubes who buy into it, not to disparage the virtue out loud. Friends? What are those? Vampires don't have friends, only bloodbags and competitors. Social species lol nice one-liner.

Worry is a Bug

Worrying is never productive. 

If you can solve the problem, just solve it.

If you can't solve the problem, just accept it. 

If you're not sure, then find out. 

If the problem is you can't find out, just accept it. 

There's no space in here for worrying. It's just a bug. Maladaptive in 100% of situations.

The term 'worry' comes from the description of what dogs do to bones. You can't annoy a problem to death. If you have worries you're just being dumb. Stop worrying. If you can't stop worrying, just ignore it. It has no purpose.

Commons Tragic, Twitter Big Mad

"I would join the China hate but this is right in line with industrial civilization in general. The Chinese just seem even better suited to it. They don't seem to care a bit about the earth or any other life."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1681390601214754833

https://nitter.unixfox.eu/paradigmsmasher/status/1680982213016403969

 

Like everything else from the Empire of Lies, the idea of "international" waters is a scam. Anyone could put a stop to these Chinese boats, if the UN wasn't defending them. The Chinese, also, can't lay claim to these fish in any durable way, due to, guess what, the UN.

Enclose the commons or die. Secure your shit.  

Of course every statistic is complete bullshit, so who knows how much of this is real damage and how much of it is journalism.

They Conquered out of Cowardice

Those who admire Napolean et al seem to do so because they are afraid. 

They think that if they were like Napoleon, they wouldn't need to be afraid. 

Julius Kaisar in particular was very obviously motivated by fear. He didn't seize Rome because he wanted to seize Rome. It was not out of joy or appreciation. He did it because he was afraid of going to jail. If he crossed peacefully he would have been arrested and put on trial. He was desperately scrambling to stay ahead of taking responsibility for his own actions.

However, the fact everyone who admires Napoleon is doing it out of cowardice is solid proof that Napoleon himself was a coward. He didn't win battles because he thought winning battles was cool. He did it because he was afraid of not fighting the battle. That all his admirers have cowardice in common tells us that the part of themselves that Napoleon exemplarizes is phobia. Napoleon was just like them, but moreso.

Napoleon pushed and pushed the world until the world upheld his psychological dogma and did something scary to him. Napoleon was doomed because the one he needed to defeat was himself, but he refused to face himself on the field of battle.

Likewise, Napoleon's admirers feel that if they were like Napoleon, they won't need to do the one thing they're most terrified of, facing themselves. 

Napoleon won because he was weak. Napoleon's admirers admire him because they are weak. Whatever Napoleon wanted, unless it was self-destruction, he ultimately didn't achieve it. "I found the crown of France lying in a gutter," and when Napoleon was done, the crown of France was lying in a gutter. I loathe the French, so, awesome. Sounds good to me, great work Napoleon, you get a bonus this year.

You can tell Napoleon's admirers don't admire him for his skills because they don't know about his skills. They don't talk about his skills. They do little more than drop his name and an applause light. 

One of the things about respecting Socrates is that you can go and perform a Socratic dialogue in real life. By contrast, it's quite difficult to practice battle. However, Napoleon's fans are like an Aristotle stan who has never systematically observed a natural phenomenon. I see no reason to think I should be concerned were I ever to face a Napoleon stan across the field of battle. 

Much the same way sports fan aren't especially athletic, come to think. You find one that can rattle off the scores of every game in the last ten years and has all the stats on every player in the league, but can't shoot a goal. Can barely perform a layup. 

Narcissists gonna narc on themselves, I suppose. See also birds of a feather &c.

A Hidden Story from Cave Story

Let's talk about the coming of age song, On to Grasstown.

A small child starts to explore a grassy field. He encounters some strange and curious things in knolls and nooks. (Not just enemy #12 with 14% more HP, or [this time you can't stomp on them].) They're not a big deal, he plays with them a bit and then moves on. He finds more strange and curious things - he's really getting to like this field. Some of them give him a bit of difficulty, but he extracts himself and looks further.
Then he starts to grow up. He's exploring farther, and he crests a hill. A vast, mysterious vista opens up before him. The rolling terrain creates natural watchtowers and deep grassy seas hiding all their secrets. The shallow world of his back yard promises deep interlinking complexities, and as he travels down the big hill, the lands beyond deliver on these promises.
His greater depth of understanding brings his awareness to greater challenges. It's not a day trip anymore, he's packing and girding himself for war, really committing to the excursion, submitting himself wholly to the environment, allowing it to withhold nothing from him.
The camera pulls out and we see the philosophical themes of his exploration. How his personal determination creates and is created by the grand cycle of birth, growth, and death, of the seasons, the years, and aeons. How his self-imposed trials and travails form a rhythmic dance and how hardship enriches him. 

The actual level this music accompanies is action platformer #345676i. Shooting the big guy is pretty satisfying I guess, and there's a tank up there to get. As the title hints, it's mainly a road from A to B. It's intended to be functional and largely forgettable, and so it is.

I want to see the curious things the child discovered. Do you not? How is exploring a field the result of or results in coming of age? What are the rhythms of growth and hardship? Of the cycles of seasons and the river of time? 

I want to see a game where you start with Pixel's genius song, and then make a level worthy of that song. Make a level that feels in play the same way the song feels.

Not saying it's easy or cheap, but it only requires the odds to be lower than 1 in 8 billion. 

This is why I want to see massively overpriced games by aristocrats for aristocrats, not intended to make money. Made for the same reason the pyramids were made: because it's fucking cool.