Thursday, November 19, 2015

Life Is Just A Story

To a certain personality type, you don't have a life, you have a "narrative". Because to them, everything is ambivalence, irony, contradiction and theater. Political protests? Street theater! Despot starving the populace? Jester! Everything of any import must be treated non-seriously due to ambivalence. And meaningless and trivial things must be treated super-seriously.

Your life is important to you, yes? And that's why its importance can never be acknowledged. No, the "truth" is that your life is just a story and if bad things happen in it or it ceases to be entertaining, if you cease haing FUN, then you just stop reading the story, you just stop living your life and you suicide. Suiciding to stop crying? Makes perfect sense!

Oh you got raped? How tragic! How wonderful! Now you have such an exciting story to tell about it. Pity the poor fools who haven't lived life to the fullest! After all, what would life be without all the bad things happening? Boring! Oh you got mutilated by some random psycho? Amazing!

Your life doesn't matter because it's entertainment. And the worst part of this is that it isn't even Evil scumbags that hold this despicable view. No, it's the personality type of anarchists, cultural relativists, rebels, freedom-fighters. The gothic moon-worshipers, the con men, the marginals.

It's not that they enjoy your pain when hearing about it. It's just that they don't care. It's all theater, a play, a stage. If your pains really mattered to you, you'd suicide. And the dead care for nothing so you can just suicide to stop crying. Your life has no meaning anyways, given Existentialism. There is freedom in death and freedom is all that matters.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Good Is Made of Win, Evil Is Made of Fail

Canonically, and I don't view the reboot as canon since all the characters are so far out of character, James T Kirk is a polymath with two degrees. Everywhere he goes, he turns certain defeat into victory. Unstoppable war machine? No problem. Energy sucking space monster set to reproduce? No problem. Centuries old incorporeal vampire? No problem. Gods? Pshaw. Captain Kirk, mortal, is a Godkiller.

Meanwhile, the Goddess Illyria in Angel: the Series is a million year old eldritch abomination. And everywhere she goes she loses. Her army? Dust. Her chosen guide? Hates her guts. Her teammates? Scared of her and disrespectful. Her power? Waning. Herself? Utterly lost and without hope.

All other things being equal, Good protagonists (not merely "good" or competent since competence is one of the variables equalized) are made of win and Evil protagonists (no matter how much their Evil authors and Evil audience loves them) are made of fail.

The God-Emperor of Mankind (Good) manages to keep the Empire of Mankind together and surviving for 10,000 years despite being clinically medically dead and personally fighting against not one but FOUR Evil deities and traitors both within and without. He doesn't quite manage to win against overwhelming odds but he does PERSONALLY postpone defeat for ten thousand years.

Some people thought the Warhammer universe wasn't shitty enough, but really, how can you make it shittier? Well you start with "the God-Emperor dies". No longer just clinically dead but dead dead. Yeah, that's the first step to make Warhammer shittier, which goes to show just how important and critical he is.

Taylor Hebert (Neutral) manages to kill a god who was set on eating thousands of Earths. Her victory came at the cost of billions of deaths, rather than the trillions that were set to die, her world becoming depopulated, and her own sanity lost. The cure for her insanity is bang, a shot through her head. Not exactly what I would consider an overwhelming victory but still impressive.

The Red One aka Nemesis in The Last Angel (Evil), she manages to ... destroy a fleet when she has superior overwhelming weapons. She also manages to make a few allies despite herself. And her weapons really are overwhelming, hundreds of years beyond her opponents'. She's also an AI so has thousands of times their reaction time. And she's lying in ambush against unaware and unprepared opponents. She's only vulnerable at all because she's injured due to her own rage and stupidity.

In Pantheocide by Stuart Slade, the humans conquer Hell and Heaven using nukes when their opponents don't even have guns. Or cars or planes or spy satellites or accurate maps or intel or competent leadership. And still Heaven and Hell manage to inflict billions of casualties on humanity. Not what one would call an impressive victory. Rather, it was inevitable and is pathetic.

Good people are made of win and Evil people are made of FAIL. And that's precisely why psychopaths, being Evil, are so obsessed with winning at any cost. Because they suck at it. And it's precisely why narcissists are so obsessed with status, because they suck at acquiring it. And it's precisely why right-wing authoritarians are so obsessed with resources and worship "Building" and "Builders", because they suck at using, managing and creating resources.

Good people don't go for mere victory, that's too trivial and pathetic. Good people challenge themselves by going for win-win-win conditions. Good people don't care about status, because that's an inevitable side-effect of everything they do and just as automatic as breathing. And Good people don't care about building machines or LEGO blocks, because they care about doing The Right Thing. Why would you care to build a computer when you can build a mind? Why build a computer program when you can build a society? Only morons care.

Similarly for friends and followers and colleagues and coworkers. Who needs them? A Good person goes out alone against a harsh evil world because they are enough to overcome any difficulty. And if they choose to partner with someone it's not because they are obsessed with people as Neutrals are, but because it's convenient.

Now one may ask, "if Evil is made of fail then how come Evil runs the world?" A fact which is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the world. Well, it's simply that Evil has overwhelming and entrenched advantages.

Humanity began as an infanticidal, genocidal, murderous, psychopathic, incestuous species. The physical universe itself is largely Evil and almost entirely un-Good. And every moron can comprehend Evil while few people comprehend Good.

Those are all overwhelming advantages. And still, Goodness is winning and Evil is failing.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

What Is God?

God is a representation of all higher order phenomena found in the universe.

Higher order phenomena such as avalanches because 'when the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote'. Which is why at least one substantially correct definition of a god is "a person as unstoppable as an avalanche". Higher order phenomena such as life because life is emergent. Even molecules and superatoms whose properties can't be derived from the properties of atoms. Also anything multiply-realizable, and even human cultures and humanity itself, whose properties can't be derived from those of individual humans.

These are all higher order phenomena that are simultaneously built out of lower order phenomena, control those lower order phenomena, and are not dependent on them. Proof: the Earth has an oxygen rich atmosphere only because life exists on it. The biosophere is built out of chemical processes, but it controls those processes, and is not dependent on any particular ones given the variety of photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, and more.

People's Relationships to God

God is all those things. God is the One Word which teeny tiny minds use to point to all those things working in concert. Those things which affect the lives of those teeny tiny minds ... like an avalanche. Utterly unstoppable and beyond their comprehension. God deeply affects their lives and so these teeny tiny minds want to know "is God benevolent or malevolent" aka "am I screwed?" it's kind of an important question!

From the nature of God as 'the sum of all higher order phenomena' all of its properties are recovered. Not least being, the stupider the person, the more they worship God. The less you can understand something that deeply affects your life, the more you'll be superstitious and worshipful of it. This phenomenon can be seen in poker and slot machines when the players haven't abstracted away from individual hands of poker to higher order strategies.

Also explained is why right-wing authoritarians are so religious and faithful. Higher order phenomena provably exist but RWAs are reductionists and want to deny the existence of all higher order phenomena. Their moronitude and retardation is in direct and violent conflict with reality. Their brains are ill-equipped to handle reality which is why reality has power over them. The higher order phenomena exist regardless and the more RWAs deny their existence, the more those phenomena have power over RWAs, making the RWAs more abject, pathetic and worshipful of them.

Of course the RWAs' attitudes and beliefs aren't logical, but they are extremely predictable. From reductionism and a rabid bottom-up building attitude comes naked faith in the Almighty higher order processes that violently destroy the bottom up building.

Derivations of God's Properties

From God being the sum of higher order phenomena of the universe it becomes obvious why God is infinite. Infinity has been mathematically proved to be a matter of perspective. Infinity is just beyond the construction abilities of a system. If you added to a finite system in order to create a larger still finite system, the new things you can construct with the bigger system are infinite in the smaller system, even though they look pretty fucking finite from the bigger system. So God is infinite to teeny tiny minds because the universe is *forever* beyond the comprehension, understanding and imagination of their minds.

This is also why God is omniscient since knowledge is itself a higher order phenomenon. The sum of all knowledge is just a small part of all higher order phenomena aka God. It's also why God is omnipotent and of course why God is omnipresent. Higher order phenomena are found fucking everywhere, and it is a piss poor joke of a system that manages to exclude them. Even Peano arithmetic includes higher order phenomena.

And given that God is higher order phenomena and knowledge and knowledge of higher order phenomena, knowledge of the universe even, it becomes obvious why God is also known as "god of the gaps". But far from this being a bug as moronic atheist zealots like to proclaim, it is a FEATURE. It has always been a feature just as much as ignorance, blind obedience and zombieism have always been features of right-wing authoritarianism. This is why they never serve as counter-arguments or successfully erode support for God or RWA respectively, but only to reinforce them.

God is a higher order phenomenon of teeny tiny and/or diseased minds.

Friday, October 16, 2015

A Few Unpolitically Correct Insights

The first insight is into what makes for a Schwazzenegaresque work of art. Is it simply being one step removed from Hitleresque as I suspect it to be? Well, Arnie played a robot who goes around collectively punishing all of his enemies (which just happen to be all humanity) and following its programming like a Necron. How much more fascistic can you get than a necron? How much more neurotic and anal retentive can you get than being a machine that follows its programming? The evidence seems conclusive does it not?

Ahh, but maybe the fact Schwazzenegar became a member of the Hitlerite Republican Party has nothing to do with his audience's perception of his work! And what about Conan the Barbarian? Doesn't that sound sufficiently psychopathic? And psychopaths are the opposites of right-wing authoritarians, just as the Joker is Batman's opposite. BUT, observe this cutting analysis which shows how far Conan is from being a loose cannon, he is a momma's boy forever tied to her apron strings. He only acts like a psychopath becasue he comes from a psychopathic (ie, barbarian) society.

The second insight is the fact that 'noble' is an intrinsic thus anarchistic quality. Now, this may seem bizarre, but where's the fun mathematically proving it to be true? People don't listen and people don't give a shit about anything important or new or novel, at least as far as a creative genius defines novel, so let's skip all that tedious math and get to the fun part: following the implications of an "insane" axiom to their logical conclusion until someone's puny brittle mind shatters.

The first implication has to do with Putin being noble. We know that Putin is noble because he is Tarzan and Tarzan is a noble savage whose nobility is undisputed and unchallengeable fact. Putin and Tarzan are not right-wing authoritarians or fascists, they are manly Moralists who care for the little people and enforce standards. We know Putin is a moralist because he is honest and straightforward, unlike all the dishonest lickspittle Euro politicians, he told journalists that Africans shouldn't be celebrated because they are cannibals. And he said it because it's true.

Secondly, what makes them noble is the fact they themselves have to break the standards they were raised by and that surround them in order to act BETTER than everyone else. Tarzan is noble because he behaves better than an animal (ie, a noble savage is not a savage) and Putin is better because he doesn't behave like a Russian or a KGB man or a mafia boss. Russia's standards might be low but few Russians have the testicles to rise above them. Putin is the man with the balls to be better than his contemporaries and to lead them into a bright shining future. Even if he has to break a few skulls to do it. Napoleon did it, Alexander did it, and now Putin is doing it.

Thirdly, if nobility is an intrinsic thus anarchistic qualitty then why is it that right-wing authoritarians value it so much? Well, it's because right-wing authoritarians are all coprophiliacs eating the food their mummy preprocessed for them from her ass. They are traditionalists who assimilate all of the values and traditions of the precvious generations. And in order to climb the ladder, their ancestors had to break more than a few rules because reality simply doesn't work the way Necrons' ossified brains want to believe. So they, being born to privilege are intrinsically better than their non-coprophilic ancestors. That is why RWAs believe they have the intrinsic quality of nobility which their ancestors (who were ennobled and entitled) lacked. In fact, it's precisely the reason why you have to be born to the upper class and can't simply climb up to it to be really noble as far as the upper classes and RWAs are concerned.

The third insight has to do with what each gender wants. Now, a lot of people regurgitate the idiocy that women desire power. But if this were strictly and logically true then women would do the things that are necessary to acquire power. Things like going out on explorer starships called Enterprise um Spanish Galleons called the Santa Maria in order to explore strange new continents and seek new slaves. But women have never done any of those things, EVER, in all of human history, and they have stayed the fuck away from political power too. Why? Because women are highly risk averse.

Now, when people really want something then they're willing to take risks to get it. 1% chance of winning 100 million dollars? Are you kidding? I'm in! When the reward is HIGH enough then even a low chance of success seems amazing. But apparently, the reward of Power is NEVER high enough to get women to move their asses. Blatantly evident to anyone with a mind, women don't want power and have never wanted it. Yet equally, there is SOMETHING about power which they DO want, otherwise it wouldn't turn them on so damned much.

What do women want? They want to be indulged like the emotionally underdeveloped mental children that they are. That's why taking risks FOR power is inconsistent with their USE of power. Because being indulged means never taking the risks yourself. Other people indulge you, OTHER people have the POWER TO indulge you. And you yourself do nothing. So if women who lust for power don't actually want power at all, and certainly are willing to do virtually nothing for it, then is it the case that men want power?

NO. Men do NOT want power. Men want ... to be wanted. That's why they value beauty, because beauty guarantees that you're desired. That, or handsomeness, or power. Yeah, power guarantees that women want you. Aaand that explains why anarcho-communists like Clinton and anarchists like Thatcher (who could never be accused of being a woman) got into politics. Why? Because they were wanted there. Everyone wanted them.

Men are good for something in the world after all whereas ever since the uterus has been devaluad, women are pretty much worthless. And they know it and they are pissed. That's why they've been complaining ever since the fertility rate fell down from 12 children per woman.

Finally, and this insight isn't original, but the simple fact that radiation is the safest thing in the universe. We know that extra radiation isn't harmful to life and that radiation is necessary for living things to function. So obviously there's the dose of radiation necessary to thrive and there's the dose that will kill you. And for water, it's 2-8 liters a day to thrive and 20 liters will kill you. For air, a mere 15 bar will make nitrogen toxic and removing the nitrogen is cheating of course. For radiation? ONE MILLION TIMES the necessary dose starts getting lethal.

Fear of radiation is like fear of cannabis. Oh no, it'll kill you! It'll give you cancer! It'll make Mexicans rape our women! People hate radiation because it's GOOD, because it's BETTER than they are. Because people are SCUM. Because people LIKE evil. If people met an angel, they'd murder it. That's why they murder nuclear power plants, because they are angels. Angels that provide poor humans, and not just elite scum, with heat and power so they don't starve and freeze to death. Yeah, let's murder them all! Because we want evil, because we want starvation and death. People make me sick.

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Mathematical pluralism
  • gregory chaitin's work
  •  goedel's incompleteness theorem, interpreted in a non-retarded way
  • the theorem in computability which says that for any string of kolmogorov complexity greater than K and any program which outputs that string it is mathematically impossible to prove there isn't a smaller program which outputs the string
  • routine multiple axiomatizations of the same theories
  • meta-mathematics and routine working with different theories (aka mathematical universes)
  • the result in mathematics where a finite theory seems to contain infinite elements as seen from inside of the theory, those elements being finite from outside of it - an interesting special case of Goedel which blatantly violates singularity
  • logical duality of T and F if you swap operations
  • morphisms in general

Mathematicians self-consciously play pretend that there is a single mathematical universe, but they ALL know it isn't true, without exception. Any that don't would be considered retarded. This has been so since the destruction of Russel's Principia Mathematica project by Goedel in the 1930s. The notion of mathematical unity or holism has been destroyed for all time and any mathematician who does not acknowledge it is a hackneyed bucktoothed hick.

Pluralism won conclusively, decisively and totally. Yet there still remains "debate" in mathematical circles because retards still do mathematics and insist on projecting their values on mathematical reality. Those values are not in fact holism but rather solipsism.

Physical pluralism
  • many worlds
  • opposed only by pilot wave theory
  • the fact "Copenhagen" is still bandied about as a word instead of an epithet and derided as utterly moronic should give you the idea that retards are winning
  • chaotic eternal inflation theory which is the only credible inflation theory (but again opposed by retards projecting their anti-chaos and "there's no such thing as a free lunch" values)
  • the fact the creation myth Big Bang Theory is not derided or used as an epithet despite its mathematical impossibility, statistical impossibility, and the acknowledged facts that 1. inflation must be true, 2. inflation erased any traces of a putative big bang, thus making it a myth or article of faith  <-- am="" and="" anti-reality="" are="" forces="" how="" i="" li="" of="" retarded="" showing="" singularity="" solipsism="" the="" you="">
  • cosmological horizons
  • cosmological domain walls, if they exist, and they probably do
  • event horizons
  • superstring theory's solution to event horizons
  • general relativity
  • the Mach principle
  • the Holographic principle
  • perturbative vs non-perturbative theories can be seen as dualistic vs monistic
  • superstring theory dualities, mathematical inequivalence yet physical equivalence. IOW, there is no possible way to tell what the fundamental objects of the theory even ARE. Is it a black hole or a fundamental particle? The answer is "who cares?" because you can provably never ever ever tell.
  • the fact superstring theory was only invented to clean up the shit that are point particles which is by every measure much, much worse
  • multiple realizability in general
  • the fact many worlds is pretty much accepted as standard among cosmologists, physicists who out of their own initiative care about the WHOLE universe rather than just their own selfish part of it

The fact subjective experience is just the internal states of a complex system perceiving its surroundings.

The fact mathematics + time = computability.

The fact mathematics is bigger than infinite and contains within it computability which contains within it theorems. And some of those theorems have state. And some of those theorems are sufficiently complex and maintain their own order against entropy through time and consume computation to do so, thus are alive. And some of those theorems have temporal relations to their surroundings, commonly called 'subjective experiences'. And some of those theorems possess living representation, aka intelligence. And some of those living intelligent theorems perceive the universe of mathematics they are in from inside that universe, and go to cocktail parties and publish philosophy papers and ask themselves "what is math?" and "what is physical reality?". When physical reality is just the subjective experience of complex mathematical theorems of their mathematical environment.

This is all just a chain of facts which starts with "what is subjective experience" and ends with ... there are people inside other branches of math and THEY think they exist and many of THEM are scumbag solipsists that think THEIR branch of math is super-special and thus OURS doesn't exist.

Singularity is solipsism.

And subjectivity or relativity is just an artifact of closed systems. As soon as you can define a boundary to a system, there are boundary effects and those are just two of them. Subjectivity is what crosses the boundary, and relativity is the fact that what lies beyond the boundary looks different depending on the closed system you start from.

In order to deny pluralism you would have to deny boundaries exist. In order to do that you would have to say you can never take any perspective with a boundary. And the only such perspective is the block universe. Pluralism you see is just ... multiple perspectives.

And as for determinism? Both many-worlds and pilot wave theory ARE deterministic. But many-worlds is not holistic. And as you saw, pluralism wins anyways so you win nothing by trying to hang on to a last vestige of holism. Also, I'm not even sure if there is any way to distinguish between pilot wave theory and many-worlds, and if there isn't then pluralism wins yet again.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Consumerism: the Very Least Possible

Consumerism is based on two principles:
  • doing the least possible (ideally, absolutely nothing)
  • mutual exchange of value (in goods or favors)

Doing the fucking job you've been hired for is NOT the very least possible. The least possible is goldbricking, therefore you need a mutual exchange of value (called a bribe or reward program) in order to motivate people. And properly demotivate anyone who isn't corrupt so that they become exactly like the ones who are corrupt thus validating their personality type including values and worldview.

Now, you might think that treating people with respect, dignity, or like human beings is the least possible. (Shyeah!) This would be because YOU aren't positively and actively motivated by doing the least possible and have trouble comprehending the concept that anybody would or could be.

No, the least possible is caring for your progeny, the people who are necessary for your personal survival (called your tribe as in tribalism) and the clients that entertain you their patron. Thus are hereditary caste systems created ... out of the VERY LEAST possible. Ever wonder why India has a hereditary caste system AND rampant bribery and corruption? Now you can wonder how the combined abomination arose out of history rather than asking how two abominations coincide.

Ever wonder about the people who engage in token protest to ease their guilt by begging the masters to improve living conditions and don't actually give a damn about the results of their protest? Wonder no longer, they are doing the VERY least possible to ease their guilt over all the potential new clients and/or personal friends starving and dying in front of their eyes while retaining their own economic privileges.

Ever wonder about the people who preach pacifism while atrocities are happening in far away lands? That's right, closing their eyes to your death is the VERY least possible they can do, and they are committed to doing it! Very hardcore they are about sitting down (or "having a sit down") and not lifting a single finger to do anything. Ever wonder why pacifism is so prevalent an ideology in the USA in the context of its narcissistic love of war and torture? Wonder no longer!

Ever wonder at some people's belief in luck as a guiding principle in life? That's right, constructing coherent theories of how reality works and how you should run your life takes actual effort. Declaring that there are no such theories is the very least possible! It's even less effort than solipsism because under solipsism your wishes create reality which means you have to determine what your wishes are. Total randomness = luck = shit happens is so much less effort.

Ever wonder at the people who excuse slavery and talk up what a good master they have? Well, quite aside the fact that switching masters is a hell of a lot of effort, eradicating slavery is unimaginable effort. Excusing your master is indeed the very least possible!

Ever wonder if Uncle Toms are related to Peeping Toms? Well, peeping toms are doing the very least possible in order to engage another person in sex. Raping other people takes effort and securing their consent for sex ALSO takes effort, but peeping on them ... is least effort. Ever wonder why Japan is so consumerist, caste-based, tribalistic, cliqueist ... and always have "pervert" peeping toms in japanimes? You have been enlightened.

Do you know what final consumer means in biology? It means those who feed on the bodies of the dead. Because that takes least effort. Another word for fungus and mushroom is rot, also known as corruption. Huh, it looks like we've made a full circle, and making full circles is indeed the least possible way to dissipate energy since you come back to the exact place you left from so don't need to adapt to it in any way but already know what to expect.

You hated consumerism and now you hate consumerism. BUT ... you know why, and perhaps, just perhaps, you want them dead now. And that would be awesome because it WOULDN'T be the least possible. Consider that killing all those who want to do the very least possible would AUTOMATICALLY raise standards. And if you're not okay with killing them, there's always enslaving them. They LOVE slavery, it makes them HAPPY to have someone else think for them, and happiness is the ... very least possible.

Monday, July 06, 2015

You Means I

What could identity = equality = I = ego = self possibly mean in the context of group identity? Well, it means that You = I. For most people, the word "you" means I. And it's actually possible to hear that meaning when they use it. And no, I'm not talking about narcissists, that would be too fucking obvious.

It's noticeable when these people ask "where do you rewind the video?" that the "you" is indefinite and really means "I". Whereas I would say " Where the FUCK do you find the fucking rewind?" and there the "you" is definite and means "you the person that is not me".

Moralists lack any concept of mind or empathy or self-esteem or self-awareness. It's impossible to have self-esteem without a model of your own mind, and impossible to have a model without even a concept of it. And consciousness is not possessing a model of your own mind but merely attention of attention (attending to the fact you attend to things) or meta-attention.

Moralists believe the "mind" is the same identical thing as the brain. They are philosophical eliminationists, believing consciousness and the mind will be proven to not exist. At this, they are infinitely better than narcissists who believe that you are not your brain but rather are your face. If your face gets scarred then you have changed whereas if you brain gets lobotomized then you are still you.

Psychopaths don't even believe in the concept of brains unless they crack your skull open and poke in there and see them. And Right wing authoritarians believe the story that "you" are a brain is a mere convention which they will nod along to. Because the undead prove that brains can be eaten without affecting the person they are. Undeath will one day prove that you aren't brains.

So back to Moralists, they believe that all members of the group are equal and equally valuable, modulo leadership, and that you are judged by your actions. Since your actions are contingent on external pressure and social circumstances, your social circumstances dictate in large part what is you. Your brain merely implements an illusion of you as being different from other yous in the group which are all equally you.

Gaians believe the "mind" is a suspiciously empty container for memes, culture and biological urges. They believe that a person is their emotions, memories and other mindstate. When someone's mood changes they become a different person, when they acquire more memories, they become a different person, when they lose memories they become a different person. And if two people have the same emotions and memories then they are the same person.

So long as the addition and subtraction of memories can get from any person to any person (and Gaians believe memories define people) then "you" is exactly identical to "I" to Gaians. The only proviso is of course that different "I"s are at different stages of their life cycle. Some are more advanced and some are more retarded. Some are still being "taught to think" by their good master um parents, and others have already reproduced.

And it bears repeating, Gaians don't have any concept of mind. By "mind" they mean "the combination of the superego and the id" with no ego in between. Gaians believe that social pressure is a real thing and complain about how much it conflicts with their id. Now, you may be retarded enough to call this a "concept of mind" but that would make you the kind of retard that believes LEGO blocks are "construction material".

As proof that Gaians have no ego, I point to their naked and craven begging they engage in when they ask for favors. They say "it never hurts to ask" because they have no idea whether others will be inclined to agree or not, and because they have no ego to suffer shame or embarrassment. They talk about "the puppy dog eyes" because of course they beg for favors as cravenly as a dog begs its master for treats.

Incidentally, Gaian "self-esteem" is simply happiness since of course there is no concept of mind TO esteem and there is no ego to do the esteeming. And while I'm at it, I highly recommend Gaians as sex slaves since they love nothing better than servitude and being fucked. Unfortunately, they also love eating, sitting on their ass playing games, and see nothing wrong with getting fat, so you'll have to keep your sex slave on a diet.

Moving on, Freaks believe that "mind" is subjective awareness, and believe that "you" are your subjective experiences. They also believe that concepts and percepts "must be experienced" and cannot be communicated in any way, least of all language. That is why "you have to be here" for them to explain something trivial that they could have easily said on the phone. It is also why they become graphics designers obsessed with icons, audiovisuals and paralinguistics.

Freaks also believe that if two people share the same subjective experiences (eg, see the same thing because they are at the same physical location) then they are of "one mind" and possess a "common sense". Thus, by sitting close together, "you" becomes "I". And it is the reason why if they sense that you are unlike them in some way (eg, possess one of those mythical different personality types) then they will get gone after sexing you rather than cuddling.

To recap, Freaks are subjectivists and phenomenologists. And from those two facts it follows they are relativists since everyone can become anyone else by simple physical transposition. It's also the reason why Freaks are into movement, transportation, teleportation and unstoppability (as opposed to say invincibility). Because the more they move, the more they can experience, and amassing lots of different subjective experiences are the only thing that matters.

It's also why they're into shapeshifting, because by experiencing different things you become a different person since "you" is your experiences. Movement is just a degraded form of shapeshifting to them. It's also why they "move through life" when they age. As opposed to the Gaians who "advance" through their life cycle. Incidentally, Gaians also say they are "not that advanced" rather than "I'm not that smart" since "you equals I" means you can't be smarter than them.

Freaks also misuse "in your mind" to mean in your subjective awareness. Because again, they have no concept of mind, even less a model of it. Freaks can "just sense" when someone is different or the same as they are. In this same way, and by absolutely no coincidence, they can "just sense" true love rather than doomed love. Doomed love as would happen if the other person were "secretly" a psychopath, a narcissist or a yuppie.

Yet Freaks are very clear that personality types are mythical since "we are all different" and can't possibly be typed. Models of mind cannot be constructed and even if they could, they wouldn't be useful anyways. It is far better to go with the ideology of phenomenology and to hide the nasty discrepancies to this retarded ideology which your subconscious keeps throwing up.

Discrepancies such as the existence of Nazis, the Cold War, World War 2, World War 1, the 30 Years War, the Hundred Years War, ... you know, pretty much all of history. But then, Freaks aren't fans of history. Nor are they fans of anthropology except of course that it is marginal and so should be embraced the same way that goth hip hop should be embraced, and walking in the night being a vampire. It is bizarre, it is strange, therefore it is Freak. even if Freaks never actually go into that field.