Incorrect: Thanatos as Peaceful Death

 The correct term is [merciful] death. 

 Often the terminal patient thrashes, trying to defy the end he has already freely chosen. It is not peaceful. Indeed, greater mercy, sparing him the most suffering, is to kill him at the start, when he is most healthy and capable of resisting. When the death is most violent. 

 The death Thanatos represented could be peaceful, but only if the terminal case accepted the Truth of its inevitability. 

 The intent that was behind Thanatos is Iust Death.
 Those who cheated him of his due were only harming themselves. Truly they did not defy Thanatos, they attempted to defy themselves, their own will.

The Problem With Remorse

 Adults who feel remorse don't feel remorse, because they think ahead and don't do the thing they'll regret in the first place. 

 Children get a pass since they have great difficulty thinking ahead. I suspect non-abused teenagers are already too old for this pass. 

 Adults who do things which ought to make them feel remorse are shameless deviants. If they had the capacity to feel any form of guilt, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you need to demand an apology from an adult, demand instead their life. It would be the merciful and compassionate option, since they a) they clearly hate themselves and b) all their neighbours would be better off without them.

 Consequently remorse is useless. Consider children again - remorse only works if you can think ahead, and for the purposes of this discussion, if they can think ahead, they're not children. Meaningless suffering. Adults, at least adults who know what words mean and have the capacity to feel remorse, can simply be asked not to do whatever it is. They can be reasoned with, and don't need to be forced, even by internal factors. 

 Completely useless.

European Sanctimonious Transmutation: "Don't Like"

 To a member of the christian races, you can't merely dislike something, it has to be evil.

 "I don't like star wars." This doesn't mean star wars doesn't serve your tastes. It means star wars is immoral. You would vote against star wars. It should be mandatory to forbid star wars. Nobody should be allowed to know star wars even exists.

 Though perhaps the chinese don't do this because they really are a hive mind, and europeans only wish they were a hive mind. The christian races are always scolding each other for having non-identical tastes or preferences, whereas the han don't have to worry or discuss it because they already replaced [taste] with [obedience to the tyrant]. 

 Example. https://twitter.com/TitusDux/status/1847040732067930334/
 "Nobody wants to live amongst empty blocks."
 This means: "It is immoral to permit blocks to become empty. It should be illegal. By hook or by crook."

 It may look like the softest softlinging imaginable. "Oh noes, someone might have to live somewhere that isn't a perfect utopia." It is in fact an attempted threat of holy war. He wants to ostracize and/or kill everyone who permits blocks to empty. (But is too impotent to come out and say so.)
 (P.S. Point of order, empty blocks are superior to blocks with their current inhabitants. Whether they are worse than some childish ideal is irrelevant. Second point of order, what if someone reacts to the block emptying instead of farming victim points by passively letting it happen. E.g. move somewhere else. {Christians gonna krist.})

Merchants Are Genetic Traitors

 The merchant caste is the only caste with the opportunity for a positive-sum fundamental interaction. Warriors define the hierarchy by beating each other up. Negative sum. Scholars define the hierarchy by beating each other up with words. Negative sum. Merchants express friendship through trade, where both sides get more than they already had. Instead, the merchant caste is the traitor caste.

 Perimeter, surface, volume. The warriors defend the perimeter, dealing with strangers who don't expect trust. Scholars are supposed to deal with the natural substrate, which can't want to cooperate, it just is. Merchants deal intratribally, meaning they're the only caste which has a real opportunity for treachery. 

 Security is affordable. This means the warriors can do their job, securing the perimeter.
 Innovation is slow. The farmers and miners and loggers do what scholars tell them to do, but the scholars can't contribute much over the course of a single mortal lifetime.
 Hunter tribes constitute an almost closed system. Result: the way to get ahead is to scam the other merchants. To first order approximation, all the positive-sum trades have already been made.

 Merchants could have constructed a stable hierarchy, letting the obvious winners win without a fight. Could have come up with cheap and reliable tests, then stuck with them. Since this is the underworld, since mortals are the children of Satan, they didn't. They went all-in on attempted usurpation. (P.S, the winners win anyway, e.g. Son Also Rises, so this produces the rat races, everyone running harder and harder to stay where they already are.) 

 Merchant instincts are all about earning trust so you can fuck over the idiot who was dumb enough to trust you. At best, it's about exploiting the moron who has no choice but to trust you, because they're so dumb trying to follow their own judgment is even worse. 

Leftists Look Retarded on Purpose

 It's done in solidarity with their underclass retards. When you call them stupid, they are thinking, "Thanks, I work hard to look this dumb!" 

 You may find their habit of listing credetials confusing, but it is part of the bit. "Even a phd ctr mae cfa cma lfmao is a complete fucking moron. (cfm) So say we all." 

 They're only embarrassed if you catch them saying something sensible. Or, heaven forfend, profound. 

 Much of the degredation in public conversation has been intentional innovation. They were always trying to look this idiotic, but couldn't work out how. They said the stupidest things they could think of, but it wasn't as dumb as intended. Now it's much better. They sometimes even hire genuine brain damage to speak, producing truly authentic imbecility.

Warriors Pick a Fight With God

 There are many myths about Mars losing a fight. That's a hint.
 If you never miss a flight, the time you're wasting in airports is more than you lose from a missed flight.
 If you never lose a fight, you are a coward. You're not picking fights, you're bullying the weak. Cowards do not grow. IRL you gain XP and level up from defeat, not victory.

 For the warrior, the greatest disappointment is that evil is weak. It's not strong enough to fight back. Removing evil is labour, not warfare. Get a merchant, hire him to organize some peasants to do it for you.

 Solution: pick a fight with good. All but guaranteed to lose that fight. Fighting strong opponents is good. Fighting the strongest opponent is best. 

 There is an issue. How do you pick a fight with god without being profane? Tricky. Requires profound wisdom, something warriors rarely hold great enthusiasm for...
 If you do it wrong, you don't get a fight, you go down even more easily than evil does. Squish. Less jello man, more turpentine man - no resistance at all. Have to somehow make everyone fight as if the stakes couldn't be higher, yet the end result must be the status quo, even if you win. 

 As we cast our attention back into epochs, we can see this drive is one of the major inputs shaping the cosmos.

 What if it's Sith, again? If somebody wins against god, what can they do but raise an apprentice, helping him - via making him lose - defeat the master?
 The master must uphold war itself, rather than his own personal might. When the apprentice strikes down the lord, it is not failure, it is success. How else can war grow, can the master grow, except by raising his own bane?
 Warriors are kinda weird. Them's the breaks tho.

Taxation is a War Crime

 War crimes are very easy to define. A war crime is when a government commits an act of war against its own subjects. 

 Saying taxation is [theft] is lowballing to a ludicrous degree. 

 According to the light side, the only real purpose of a government is to protect its subjects from war. When they loot and pillage their own subjects, they contravene their only legitimate function. Every government recorded in history is a black government.

Perhaps State Formation Should be Called Farmer Formation

 Pandora's seed suggests that farming was a terrible idea. Especially with the barely-husbanded plants that early farmers had access to, it is overwhelmingly likely that they were perfectly aware that it was a terrible idea. They knew farming made you sick, short, and weak. 

 My theory says they didn't have a choice. Wheat fields are hard to hide and ripen in sync, meaning the tax man knows exactly where and when to apply traitorous force. The local strongman realized wheat farming made taxation very difficult to evade, so they shackled a ton of slaves and forced them to farm wheat. Statehood causes farming. As it happens, although farmers are almost totally useless, farming does support population densities up to 100 times that of hunters. No matter how good you are at pre-gunpowder war and no matter how poor your enemy, you can't win a 1 vs. 100 fight.

 Consider the logistics. In a hunter tribe, not everyone can be a warrior, or even a hunter. Someone has to hunt for the warrior, and someone has to make spears and furs for the hunter. There's a lot of support infrastructure. I can imagine the 1 hunter waging guerilla war with impunity against the softling farmers, but it's not even 1 vs. 100, it's 1 vs. 200 or worse. He can barely kill them as fast as they breed.
 The farmers are such poor warriors that training them is irrelevant. Draft the lot of them, go full zerg rush, let the survivors work out how not to starve next winter. Conveniently the harvest can be stored and wait for the slave soldiers to return. Farmers can go from 100% farming to 100% warfare, paying the price of holocaust-level casualties. Hunter tribes can't transition to 100% warfare unless they plan to loot all their food - and even then, a healthy hunter will suffer terribly trying to transition to a farmer diet. Meanwhile, if war preparation damages the harvest, then, well, wage war until enough slave soldiers die that the harvest was big enough.

 China turned to rice farming because the irrigation works can be constructed with a single point of failure, allowing the chief parasite an even more extreme form of leverage. Bonus: the system is tamper evident. Hard to make a secret backup irrigation ditch. It's not rice farming => hydraulic empire, it's the fact the han precursors had the bright idea of a hydraulic empire, and imposed rice farming via defection.
 P.S. They scaled up the single point of failure strategy to the whole country, meaning when the parasite stuttered, the whole realm stuttered, amplifying small issues into catastrophes. Karmic debt for permitting a black government. 

 Perhaps northern europe is less treasonous because the winter is too cold and snowy to wage war. In the south, you can sow, guard the land, harvest, then campaign over the winter. Indeed, what else are you going to do with all these bored farmers during the cold months? In the north, sure you can war between sowing and harvest, but only by leaving your wealth exposed. Have to develop some measure of cooperative peacetime, because warfare is too risky.
 Likewise, it would seem pastoralists are less dysgenic because there's no time the herd becomes concentrated into a tiny, easily-guarded form. Can't go full zerg and follow up with full rabbit. The compromise between hunter health and cultivated population density is unfavourable to the agriculturalist.

 Early wheat taxers likely knew pasturing was better, but it makes taxation harder, so they eschewed it. When the tax man comes for your cow, you can harass him over the open meadows while driving your herd to flee. Farming security is only cheap too late, when the harvest is already in and stored in the silos.
 In response to farming empires, pastoralism arose and grew due to competitive advantages. 

 If you burn a wheat field, it's a one-step conversion to pasture. Doesn't matter how many farmers there are, partly because they suck so hard due to overcrowding et al, and partly because you and your herd can flee until they're too tired to chase, and then the farmers quietly starve at no further risk to you. What are they gonna do, trample the meadows? Which the herds already do?
 That is: farming is profane. Herding is sacred, at least to a degree.

 

 The slave farmers should have retained their honour rather than their lives. If they had demanded health and holy glory, the strongman would have lost. Cowardice snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
 They didn't because Caino masochiens hates itself. The suffering was the point. Mere subtraction biology: maximize lives not worth living. 

 Herding would be even more obviously superior if the pastoralists didn't keep boinking the local holes and picking up imbecilic farming genes.
 One must wonder if there's an even more sacred form of cultivation, one that mogs herding as badly as herding mogs farming.