Liberalism Isn't Freedom

 "Just insist freedom is good, and don't be pathetic about it, how difficult is that?"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Outsideness/status/1706000674306298223

 In a sane society, for most, the live options are to choose to be ordered around by the best lord who will have them, or try to go it alone, fuck it up, be a criminal, and get executed. I'ma repeat myself: they can choose the lord they were going to choose anyway, or choose annihilation. Humans are evil, and evil is banal and weak, so they are pathetic and have to have their decisions overridden. Overridden either by orders from someone fundamentally inhuman, or by the fundamentally inhuman force known as [Death]. If you let humans make decisions, they poison your society and it dies. This contradicts, at length, the premise.

 But yes, for the virtuous and just, freedom is plain good. Because they're virtuous, if you try to take their freedom from them, they will wisely recognize you as an enemy, and their virtue-backed attacks (disciplined, courageous) are extremely dangerous. It's one of the major reasons a free-human society is so bad: you antagonize the virtuous and they profit from your downfall, both incrementally and overall. It's not like the grassmonkeys can stop their inhuman opponents.

Men Just, Women Unjust

 "A small number of men reproduced with a large number of indigenous women all over Eurasia in the period known as the Bronze Age."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/jmrphy/status/1706135723739381855

 A just society became rich and powerful through cooperation. It thus destroyed all the neighbouring less-just, defective societies...and stole their unjust women. As such male genes generally came from the just society and female genes generally come from the defects and deviants. 

 Angelic men, demonic women. There used to be angelic women too, but...

 Taking war brides is an extremely stupid thing to do, and the result is: you are here. 

 On the plus side, since war bribes are distributed quickly and thus almost entirely on superficial characteristics, these demonic women are all extremely beautiful. If your plan was to get dimorphism along trophy lines, women who are to be seen and not heard, then it worked perfectly.

Security, Master of Wealth

 Wealth has a very simple foundation: it comes from human labour, and the amount of wealth you can keep is determined by security. The cheaper security is, the wealthier the society. Wealth is important because a lot of cool, glorious shit is expensive to do. E.g. Egyptians could afford Pyramids, Americans cannot. 

 You don't make anything if it's just going to be stolen. It's dose-response. If some of it is going to be stolen, you don't make as much. There is less total stuff, and your society is poorer, weaker, and shabbier.

 Even if you're going to keep it all, if the security is expensive, then you're spending labour on security instead of on creation. The more inexpensive the security, the more total stuff you have. 

 If EROEI goes below 1, you stop getting energy from that source. Security isn't like this: every living creature must at minimum force the world to let it go on living. If you give up on security you starve to death. With a suitably foolish society, security costs can be many multiples of the secured value. 

 

 On the plus side, random death aside, an insecure society is very relaxed. You can't compete because there isn't anything around to compete for, and you can't secure any future against another, so there's no point in worrying about it. You can safely sit around doing nothing except waiting for something to happen. Just chill bro. Maybe rape a girl if you're horny.

 A wise society first spends tremendously on accumulating and perpetuating wisdom.

 Secondly, it spends tremendously on finding and perpetuating everything which makes security cheaper. E.g. tax rates zero. The more total stuff there is, the easier it is to accumulate the price for whatever it is you value and wish to buy. You want the absolutely most inexpensive way to secure all property, and you want very high-status researchers devoted to finding new ways to secure the previously insecurable.

 This always involves mighty fences to keep out anyone with less-wise tendencies. You must first secure yourself against lies and the deluded.

Children Without Adult Supervision

 Children think there's no reason they can't eat every cookie in the cookie jar. Children think daddy is stopping them purely to be a meanypants. He just hates them without cause, and if it weren't for daddy they could have cookies and gumdrops for dinner every day.

 Women think there's no reason they can't have sex with whoever they want and have all the ugly men executed. Women think there's no reason to work except men are meanypants and go all [[patriarchy]] on them. 

 Leftists think everyone could be fabulously wealthy and never have to work, except the government and rich people are meanypants. 

 Why did Kaisar cross the Rubicon? Because he thought that just because he broke the law, he shouldn't have to face the courts.

 That's all it ever was.

Reading About Royal Families

 I'm starting to think that leftism is the result of inbreeding.

 Try not to marry your first cousins, folks. It a generation or two it leads to opposition between parents and children, "in his youth he was a spendthrift and womaniser," plus "patron of the arts" inevitably implying drinking and carousing. 

 "Frederick settled down following his marriage [...] Quickly accumulating large debts"
 When Wikipedia tries to write a fluff piece for you, indicating favour, it's a terrible insult and you should demand satisfaction.

 Haven't tested this yet. 

 However, it seems like peasants are inherently inbred. Probably forget who their grandparents were. Lie to the priest about consanguinity because they simply don't know any better. Alternatively the lowborn priest lies for them because there's nobody nearby they're not kinda related to.

 The thing about inbreeding is you can't erase it easily. If you outbreed for a generation or two, it means 1/2 or 1/4 of your genome is still inbred. Maybe you get lucky and it's not the bad part, or maybe you get unlucky and carry the bad copies of everything, it's merely hidden under the good versions from the other side. 

 That's why the upper crust doesn't want to marry a peasant: even if they look like a healthy shining star, (that is, they're pretty like the princesses are), it's just the luck of the draw. The recessive half of their genes are all still terrible inbred nonsense. You get leftist children and grandchildren.
 Need to calculate a local mean for that peasant, so you can figure out how far they are from the mean and thus how much regression to the mean you can expect.

Engineering Details of Masculine Honour and Honesty in Dating

 "You’re on a date with your girlfriend. 

"Suddenly, a pretty girl walks by you. 

"Your girl says: “Do you think she’s pretty?” 

"How do you reply?"

 

 "Yes. 

"No need to elaborate or deflect."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/NoahRevoy/status/1728339423614619890

  

 Do elaborate. Be specific. "I like the way her style of top flows into the line of the pants she's wearing." Or, "Blonde does it for me, and I enjoy the simple hairstyle."

 Simply saying 'yes' is relatively okay, but it comes across as "She's higher status than you." If you're specific then it becomes an actionable recipe. "You can be pretty just like her by doing X and Y." Secondly, if she has any higher brain function at all, she'll realize that she can use this move: "Do you think I'm pretty?" This will result in her being given specific, personalized compliments while allowing you to demonstrate consistency and reliability. 

 Some dudes can pull off being completely crass. "Yeah she has a great rack, and clearly isn't shy about sharing."

 If she outright goes, "Prettier than me? *angry face*" I suggest ignoring it and pretending she didn't just jam her foot so deep in her mouth you can't see her knee. Smile patronizingly and do the compliment thing anyway. If she doubles down gently mock her awkwardness. "Really? That's what you're going with? Wanna think for a moment and rephrase that?" 

 

 "Breathe, girl. The world didn't just end. In---- out---- in---- out----."
 If she refuses to even try to play along, I would suggest ending the date right there. Contact the waitress, cancel your order, and walk away. You can save hyperfeminists from themselves, but it involves chains and sex dungeons. It's illegal and she's not worth it.

False Stereotype of the Cowardly Scholar

 The three primary virtues have an internal hierarchy; you cannot be wise and cowardly at the same time. A cowardly scholar is at least as much of a failure as a cowardly warrior. 

 The scholar must have discipline, and to embrace the fruits of discipline requires courage directly.

 The discipline required to safely determine whether e.g. humans are inherently malicious is tremendous. Questions of a less secular nature are several tiers trickier yet. This discipline must come from within. You have to learn it yourself; it cannot be taught. Anyone trying to externally impose this discipline will only teach trickery and deceit. It only "teaches" the student to duck and dodge their tyrant master, to oppose them effectively with politics or camouflage. Tremendous discipline requires tremendous will.

 Then, whomst among us can willingly adopt the idea? Who would not flinch, embrace the pretty lies?
 I do get a bit of a boost, as having Asperger's already makes all humanity my opponent. There's something I'm not losing by setting myself against the species. 

 You don't get to decide if the ideas are easy or not.

 The cowardly scholar is either not a coward or not a scholar.

Regardless, Teachers are Losers

 Even if you refuse to see that Prussian school is inherently destructive, you don't want to send your kids to school because teachers are all massive losers. Don't send your kids to hang out with losers. Or, I dunno, it's a "free" country, maybe you want them to grow up to be losers due to loser role models and getting socialized into loser society.

 The best you can hope for in a teacher is a failed non-teacher. I had one guy who used to do weapons research but had to settle for teaching because his girl didn't want to move. That's your high-water mark: not being such a hopeless incompetent that they can't even attempt to maintain another career. 

 No wait, that's exactly it, isn't it? Americans really do want their kids to be socialized as losers and grow up to be total failures. And then complain (bully the kid) about how much of a loser they are, indefinitely. The plan is clearly working fabulously. 

 Americans send their kids to hang around all day with bureaucrats (think DMV) because they really do hate them that much. Just infinite loathing.

 Carry on, I guess. I shouldn't have underestimated the resentful spite of the median voter. 

 

 Though come to think I'm assuming they can be socialized differently. Maybe the kids are hopeless to start with. I'm hardly the biggest fan myself (it just shouldn't matter since they're not my family). Or am I assuming? I recall the Amish kids, who are socialized differently and are hardly a stock superior to regular kids. Not hopeless; is possible.

 Yeah. It's the self-loathing. 

 I know the kids will fail to reject the self-loathing doctrine when they grow up, which is a sufficiently lethal vice, but they don't know that, which reveals the perfidy. It's intended to be sinful and profane, even though it turns out, in the end, the kids deserve it.