Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Porn Exploits Women

Let's be specific here. Porn doesn't exploit any PARTICULAR women. It
doesn't exploit the particular women who make porn and get paid
ludicrous amounts of money for it. No, porn exploits women IN GENERAL,
as feminists so rightly point out.

What porn does is it makes it so men are able to jerk off without
resorting to dating women at all. This has lots of consequences, such
as the fact that rape is disappearing because a rapist can read some
rape porn rather than go to the trouble (and danger) of actually
raping anyone. It also has the consequence of reducing the market
value of women on the dating market.

But it especially has the consequence that ugly fat man-hating dykes
can no longer get men. And losing out on any kind of advantage
whatsoever (social, monetary, on and on) is being "exploited" as far
as narcissists are concerned. Therefore porn models exploit women, as
feminists so rightly point out, feminists being overwhelmingly
narcissists and narcissist-lovers.

Porn means that men win, women who are into porn win, women who would
have been raped win (except for the narcissists since they love
victimhood), and porn models win. It also means women in general
slightly lose and narcissist women lose big. Obviously this deserves a
big hue and cry.

Words Most People Are Too Retarded To Understand

Contrary to crowd-worshipers' misconceptions, language isn't an arbitrary convention whose structure and meaning is arbitrarily determined by the crowd. The fact that most people misuse a word in a certain way doesn't mean the misuse is the correct form of the word. In fact, there are types of such misuses that never change the meaning of a word. The opposite is true of course.

So for instance, it used to be that gender meant grammatical gender of words. Then some freaks and academic retards decided to change its meaning as a linguistic weapon for their political agenda. That's how gender came to officially mean social role as opposed to sex which they limited to anatomy. Of course, their attempt failed because nowadays most people use gender to refer to both social role AND anatomy and sex means copulation or at least fornication.

The reason why the freaks' and retards' little political ploy failed isn't because their target audience are too stupid to grasp that anatomy and social role are different things. No, they fully grasp it.
The problem is that their audience *doesn't care* that anatomy and social role are different things because they think social role SHOULD be determined by anatomy. The freaks' question of "well, what if your insides don't match your outsides?" is about as valid to them as
asking for the color of invisible unicorns.

Now, in this case, the political ploy was invented by crowd-following retards (even the freaks care about following the crowd, they just studiously stay in its margins) and their target audience was other crowd-following retards. It's just that one group of crowd-following retards lost and the winning side decided to throw a sop to them to tell them "it's alright to be a freak". So now gender has replaced sex, social role matters more than anatomy, and it's still not okay for your insides (preferred social role) to mismatch your outsides (anatomy).

In this case, language DID shift but nothing really changed. Nothing changed because people still want the same things they've always wanted. And language did shift because ... the only users of those words, the ones who care most about them, are precisely the ones who collectively decided what they mean. Now let's look at some examples flowing in the other direction. The direction where no matter what some crowd-following retards say or think or strenuously believe and advocate, nothing about language changes one little bit.

Now, if a psychopath tells you "There is no Good or Evil, only Power and those too weak to seek it" like a cliché fucking Lord Voldemort (or Felipe in the comments of this blog), then that doesn't mean those words don't exist in the English language, nor does it eradicate their meaning. What it means is he's a fucking psychopath and too stupid to grasp them. And since following the crowd is a form of retardation, if a crowd-follower tells you "there is no meaning to words except what the crowd decides" again it doesn't mean words' meanings are changed at the crowds' whims, it just means the crowd-follower is a retard.

Some practical examples!

Justice is variously misinterpreted by retarded people as Vengeance (by Batman),, Revenge (by sociopaths), the Law As Written (by psychopaths), the Law As Intended (by conservatives) and it goes on.

What Justice actually MEANS is 'anti-value collapse'. Of course, various retards always think it means anti-collapse of THEIR values. And all of them are too stupid to think in the abstract and to realize that Justice has an abstract meaning.

Does the fact that retards misinterpret justice change what it means? No. What it means is that they're retards. And in this case retards do not get to determine what Justice means because Justice is a
non-retarded word invented by non-retards for their own purposes, so NOTHING the retards say about it can ever matter. Not even if retards came to compose the entire population of the Earth. Still in that case, the meaning of Justice would not change, it would merely have died in usage.

Good is another word people misinterpret. To centrists it means
'service'. To conservatives it means altruism. To sociopaths, it
simply doesn't exist and is utterly incomprehensible (because they
have evil as a value). What good ACTUALLY means is "consistent with
values". But no one said it had to be retarded values! The servants
can engage in all the do-gooderism they want, they're not actually
doing good. And more topically, they don't get to determine what good

Morality is another word people misinterpret. To centrists it means
'bare minimum'. This is why centrists obsess over people being
"decent" human beings. Decent means "barely adequate". To
conservatives it means 'collective well-being'. What it ACTUALLY means is "minimum consistent with non-Evil values".

And finally we have empathy, yet another word people misinterpret. To
pop-psych retards it means attunement or identification or 'empathize with the Neutral need to identify'. To psychologists it means "not-attunement, but unsure what it means". To sociopaths it means "reading body language". What it actually means is ... something that will be hopelessly misinterpreted by retards.

Incidentally, it bugs me that anyone can be so retarded as to believe psychopaths are "masters of empathy and social navigation", a view they derive from such "facts" as Silence of the Lambs (hint: it's a fucking movie). And the fact that American corporations (which are psychopathic thus easy for psychopaths to understand) are tough for normal people to navigate. Or the fact that thousands of American CEOs are psychopaths, yeah let's forget that millions of psychopaths are in jail. Let's also forget that once they're at the top of a corporation, they only last there for a year before they manage to accidentally incinerate it down to the ground.

Psychopaths are so fucking stupid, they honestly believe if they're given a million dollars and they manage to NOT waste it within a year, then they deserve to be praised. And they will SULK if the praise isn't high enough. And there better be a reward for it too. These are the "masters of empathy and social navigation"?! Like FUCK. And anyone who worships psychopaths is stupider than they are. Yes Felipe, I'm looking at you. And no, your comments are still unwelcome and will still be deleted.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

What Is An OO Language?

People who understand Smalltalk make disparaging comments about how
Java is Smalltalk minus minus. Something that is literally and
historically true as Java was explicitly and deliberately invented as
a crippled broken-down version of Smalltalk. A version of Smalltalk
made more entropic to appeal to retards who were using still more
entropic languages. Because when you want pigs to play with a diamond,
why not coat it in mud so it resembles what they're used to? Hard to
argue with that logic.

Now as I was saying, people who understand Smalltalk make disparaging
comments about Java. And they understand that Java is not at all OO.
Contrary to what the cretins say, it isn't true that Smalltalk is "the
purest OO language". Smalltalk is not pure, it is highly impure.
Smalltalk is crap and is the crappiest of OO languages. Smalltalk is
the absolute bare minimum of what an OO language is. And since Java is
inferior to the bare minimum, then logically it isn't OO at all. BUT,
that doesn't actually EXPLAIN what an OO language is and why Smalltalk
is one and Java is not.

This rabid lethal epidemic of ignorance is what enables cretins such
as this guy http://liufengyun.chaos-lab.com/lang/2012/09/12/three-landscapes-of-oo.html
to compare Java and Smalltalk and Self without ever realizing that
"one of these does not belong" much like a monkey does not belong with
a man and a woman. So let us dispell the ignorance and talk about what
actually makes up OO. Which is of course NOT classes as the majority
of (entirely retarded) people claim. Rather it is OBJECTS. And by
objects we mean independent dynamic contexts.

Now, the fact classes aren't objects in Java is bad, The fact there
exist non-object primitive types in Java is bad too, but the fact that
as far as scoping is concerned, objects simply DO NOT EXIST in Java
and are totally irrelevant? That's a deal-killer. No objects in Java
<=> Java not object-oriented. And now let's turn to one of the most
intrinsic and yet blatantly externally obvious properties OF objects
so that everyone can behold the knowledge that Java has no objects and
bask in Enlightenment. The Enlightenment that even LISP manages to be
OO and Java will never be.

*Fermions vs Bosons*

Objects in reality are made up of FERMIONS. Fractional spin particles
which obey the Fermi exclusion principle. Bosons are integral spin
particles which do not obey the Fermi exclusion principle and
therefore stack on top of each other and FORM NO STRUCTURES. Fermions
<=> exclude each other <=> form structures <=> form objects. Bosons
<=> stack on top of each other <=> form no structures <=> do not form
objects. Bosons are light and radio waves and fermions are planets and
stars and idiots who lionize Java.

Now, in Smalltalk and in Self and in LISP, there exist dynamic
contexts which EXCLUDE EACH OTHER. They DO NOT STACK. And in Java
those same "dynamic contexts" STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. In Java, an
instance of a class can freely play with any variables of any other
instance of the class. Why? Because instances do not matter, because
they aren't real, because they don't exclude each other, because they
STACK IN THE SAME VOLUME. In physical reality, you can stack an
infinity of bosons in the same volume until the whole volume collapses
down into a black hole. In Java, you can stack an infinity of
instances of a class into the exact same namespace until Java runs out
of memory and collapses into itself.

There are no objects in Java because *there is no matter in Java*
because THERE ARE NO FERMIONS. This is why everyone who's ever so much
as played with Smalltalk or Self or LISP has grasped intuitively the
feeling that objects in those languages are more "concrete" and more
"real". Because they are LITERALLY more physical than the
insubstantial ungraspable bosonic crap pseudo-matter which is all you
can find in Java. In OO languages, objects have SUBSTANCE, whereas in
Java they do not. In OO languages, objects take up VOLUME, whereas in
Java they do not. In OO languages, objects PERSIST, whereas in Java
they do not. And since classes aren't real in Java, it follows the
fact that Javva classes DO exclude each other can't matter at all.

In Smalltalk, everything is REAL. Everything is made of REAL objects
and REAL matter. Objects have volume, and they jostle each other if
you try to make one object reach into the innards of another object.
It is indeed possible to make them do that but only by doing surgery
rather than like a holographic projection passing through you. You can
FEEL the resistance against doing this. and classes are even MORE
real, because all classes are objects too. You can OFTEN ask classes
"you class, give me your name and ID" and "you class, are you class
ThisNameIsMine?" and the browser constantly asks classes for their
parents and children. and you CAN ask ClassName allInstances of a
class. And that's the least of what you can do.

So, Smalltalk, LISP and Self ==> OO + real + objects + matter. Java,
C++ ==> dead crap + fake + insubstantial + ectoplasm. Also, OO <=>
Good, and Java <=> Bad. The reason Java and C++ prevailed and OO lost
is because most people are retarded brain-dameged idiots incapable of
grasping OO. Just like they're incapable of grasping Goodness is the
reason why we have capitalism and coal and disease and poverty and
wars and death. Bad to the retards is "Good Enough". This is the Worse
Is Better crowd.

Eat Human

Fat people are ugly and unhealthy and eating fat makes you fat
therefore fat is unhealthy and harmful. By the same token, eating cow
makes you stupid and placid like a cow. Eating pig is not as harmful
because pigs are smarter. But the best food of all is human beings.
The more humans you eat, the more human you are.

I recommend against eating gaians and greens and hipster's brains
since they'll surely make you stupid. I highly recommend eating them
though. Or just killing them if you can't stomach cannibalism. Not
that cannibalism could apply to eating them though since they are not
human beings.

To whit, gaians and green and hipsters all honestly genuinely believe
that humans are absolutely identical to animals in their brains and
important mental abilities. And if it's okay to kill and butcher
animals because they are clearly subhuman then the same must be true
for gaians and greens and hipsters: they are subhuman.

Seeing Is Believing

"seeing is believing" is an aphorism that certainly sounds innocuous.
It's popularly believed among engineers, especially those fro Anglo
countries and in the computer industry. But what does it really mean?
When you analyze it, it's pretty fucking vile. it means everyone
else's words and experiences can and should be dismissed entirely.
They should be disbelieved. Why? Because they aren't you.

Seeing is believing is solipsistic bullshit which says only the
narcissist exists and only the narcissist is important. It doesn't
matter if a million other people saw something, THEY aren't YOU and
only YOU matter. Seeing is believing just sounds innocuous because it
universalizes solipsistic narcissism by claiming that EVERYONE is and
should be a narcissist. That narcissism is the standard of normal
behavior. Something that makes it even more vile and corrosive.

So no, seeing is not believing to anyone who deserves to live.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Dramatic Tension: Theory 101

Dramatic tension ... such an odd and oddly specific turn of phrase.
It's not dramatic STRESS, it is very specifically TENSION. Dramatic
TENSION is critical, not dramatic STRESS.

And why would that be significant? Because stress is tension OR
compression OR shear, but dramatic tension makes very very explicit
that it's ONLY tension that matters, very very specifically. Which
immediately raises the question: tension in WHAT? What is it that is
being pulled? From where, TO where?

In the minds of ALL authors, ALL writers, ALL literary reviewers, ALL
critics, and ALL readers ... something is being pulled from somewhere
to somewhere else. There is no question about that. They just have no
fucking idea what it could possibly be. Well, this will be answered

There are three abstract elements to the interaction between a reader
and their book, a gamer and their game, a viewer and their movie, a
spectator and their ballet:

* datastream - the stream of their experiences in sight and sound and motion
* control metastream - the stream of their thoughts, expectations,
decisions, page-flipping, mouse-clicking, game-loading,
* goal - not chosen by the writer, but chosen by the reader, viewer or
gamer, out of the things they care for

The existence of a uniquely reader-determined goal is most obvious in
games. Some people like linear games and other people like open
sandboxes. This is explained by GNS - Gameism, Narrativism,
Simulationism theory. Which is itself explained by personality type
theory and is the reason it really should be SGN theory, not GNS. But
I don't have the other isms to prove that SGN is only a tiny subpart
of personality manifesting in an aspect of reality.

What is dramatic tension? It's the pull experienced *by the reader*
towards their goal. More obvious concepts are the pace of a film and
the grip of a novel. Well, tension is similar to pacing but different
because pacing is external and objective whereas tension is
interrelational. Tension both originates and terminates inside the

If the tension is too low, this will manifest in either of the two
streams becoming highly entropic. Either the datastream will become
monotonous and boring, or the control metastream will become full of
"why am I reading this?". Once EITEHR of those streams passes a
critical threshold in entropy, it will simply collapse
catastrophically: the reader will stop reading, the gamer will cease

If the tension is too HIGH, this will manifest in either of the two
streams becoming highly entropic. Either the datastream becomes
incomprehensible and uninterpretable, effectively just noise, or the
control metastream will become full of "wait, hold on, what did that
mean? I need to reread this". And yes, once either of those streams
passes a critical threshold in entropy, it will simply collapse

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Feminism Is Evil

Feminism ... what is it? Who cares. Take a look through the 200+ other
ISMs in the English language, everything from cynicism and romanticism
to gaianism to truism to gameism to verificationism to constructionism
to anthropocentrism to isomorphism to industrialism.

How many of them reference the human body and a specific subsection of
the human population while specifically excluding another specific
subsection of the human population? Very few. Feminism belongs to the
same category as reactionism, ageism, misandrism, monarchism, racism,
nazism and rape apologism.

Both majoritarianism (aka Bolshevism) and minoritarianism (aka
Menshevism) reference one subsection of the population ruling over
another. As does cooperativism, cronyism and clientelism. You'll never
guess who believes in cronyism and clientelism. It's the same people
who believe in Gaianism and Greenism, the fucking feudalist freaks!

But none of these ideologies, as Evil as they are compared to
Agriculturalism, Communism, Criticism, Goodism, Nudism, and
Utopianism, bothers to reference *an arbitrary biological condition
you were born into* the same way that Racism and Sexism and Tribalism
do. By simple linguistic analysis, Feminism is Evil.

Feminism is the "nice face" of sexist feminazism and misandrism, the
same way that deconstructionism is the nice face of solipsism, or
totemism is the nice face of shamanism, or fetishism is the nice face
of cannibalism, or creationism is the nice face of fundamentalism, or
fanaticism is the nice face of eliminationism or ecologism is the nice
face of ecofascism, or machiavellianism is the nice face of

See how it goes? For every dark side there is a light side, for every
light there is a dark. Because for every person gutsy enough to engage
in violence, there is a gutless freak who shirks from it and honestly
sincerely believes it is some kind of a virtue. Despite the
counter-example of fetishism - gutless freaks who pay to have children
butchered for their body parts to be used as magical ingredients
rather than doing the job themselves the way honest cannibals do.

So if feminism is the light side, then it's obviously misandrism and
feminazism that is its dark side. And so clearly feminism is the "nice
face" of Evil intended to sucker in the crowd of dumbass followers of
Egalitarianism. Which means feminism is Evil period. And now the
psychological analysis backs up the linguistic analysis, how

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Why Does Fight or Fuck Exist?

I once saw a retarded psychology professor giving a video lecture
about emotions to undergraduates. He asked his class what the opposite
of love was. Most said it was hatred, which is very inaccurate since
contempt would be better, but this moron berated them as if they'd
done a great wrong. Then he proceeded to tell them as if imparting a
great insight that love and hatred are both "arousal" and the opposite
of "arousal" was calm or neutrality or indifference.

(This moron didn't even grasp that indifference is negative, not
neutral, ah but such is life in the field called psychology.)

Setting aside the fact that it can be PROVED contempt is opposite of
love, due to the fact if you feel both of them towards the same person
simultaneously they will cancel out leaving you feeling absolutely
nothing towards that person. Or the further fact that hatred comes
reasonably close to being another opposite.

Yes, setting aside the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, let's examine this
retarded moron's (and all psychologists are retards, whether they're
clinicians or researchers or professors since they do not acknowledge
their own minds' limitations, the fact they are idiots at best,
despite working WITH minds) idiotic claims that negative emotions and
positive emotions are similar because magnitude is more important than

Arousal ... there's another type of arousal than this retard talked
about, it is sexual arousal. Now, in comedies it's often the case that
two people who are angry and hate each other get sexually aroused and
suddenly start lusting after each other and tearing each other's
clothes off. But this cliche humour is not cliche because it is true
of real life. It is true because it is ABSURD. It is funny because it

But, and some people will object, why does one sometimes become
sexually aroused during a fight with a loved one? Doesn't this prove
that love and anger are closely related and that "arousal" is
"arousal"? No, because if it were true then a fight with a complete
stranger would lead to people fucking in the streets. However, that
doesn't fucking happen, does it?! In fact, the notion is fucking

So ... here we have a phenomenon which has 3 important
characteristics. 1. it's very mysterious and no one can quite explain
it. 2. ordinary people reject as absurd the simple-minded explanation.
3. psychologists believe themselves deep thinkers for embracing the
retarded explanation that is total nonsense contradicted by the
evidence. And in fact, psychologists believe themselves BETTER than
ordinary people because they bite the bullet of logically
self-contradictory "explanations". Idiots.

What *IS* the explanation? It's really beautiful and elegant once you
know it, and obviously very deceptive since people don't talk about
it. The explanation is that when you feel anger or hatred at a loved
one and your love for them is *almost completely canceled* you will
still desire to feel close to them ... and sex is the only POSITIVE
intimate act left to you. Anger or hatred (and especially the PARTIAL
anger left over during the makeup phase of a fight with a loved one)
forces your love and desire / need for intimacy into unconventional
channels. Much the same way dropping a big boulder into a reservoir
will cause the dam to overflow.

Ahh, but such wisdom is not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE are not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Sick
disgusting fucks.

Other wisdom I've found about relationships that turned out to be
literally and absolutely true

* relationships are built on trust and trustworthiness <- formally provable
* love is an emotion - the emotion that is the merger of affection and
fondness intensified to the next level
* so-called moments of connection (ie, attunement) really do bond
people together
* lovesickness literally is when someone else's happiness is essential
to your own

Because love is an emotion it feels like something. Love is ALSO not
at all an emotion. It has in total three different meanings. It is
annoying that way. Also, sex-as-love isn't a separate meaning at all
but dovetails right in the primary meaning of love.

Also, so-called "romantic gestures" are sickeningly close to
narcissists' notions of love and empathy. Hint: narcissists can only
love themselves and have no empathy. These two categories are not
identical but they are close enough for romantic gestures to be
repulsive to most mentally healthy people.

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

The Internet's Fascist New World Order

They call themselves "moderators" but you'd have to be an idiot to
believe they have any resemblance to moderators in religious or
political debate groups. Of course, being being retarded idiots, most
people actually take the name "moderator" seriously. Most people
disgustingly RESPECT moderators.

In real life, moderators don't go around with guns and a license to
kill spraying bullets at anyone they don't like the way cops and Nazis
do. In real life, moderators' actions aren't invisible to the
participants the way Stasi's are. In real life, moderators can't
execute "power plays" to kick out other moderators and "usurp power".

In real life, moderators don't go around with magic gags that can
erase everything you've ever said. In real life, moderators don't go
around complaining about how the (few) people who hate them are
whiners, enemies of the state, and the disgruntled few who are
astroturfing anyways.

Real life moderators of discussion groups have ZERO connection with
internet "moderators" of internet forums. You might as well be trying
to compare a warm breeze in the middle of winter to the very fires of

It just proves how condemnable, contemptible, and downright Evil the
bulk of humanity is that when faced with the raw vileness of
"moderators" that they shrug their shoulders and say ... "well,
unmoderated forums are crap anyways" as if fascism and
right-libertarianism were the only political ideologies and the only
forms of social control around.

Internet participants EXPECT Evil. It's just a question of whether
it's right-libertarian slavery and omnipresent death or fascist
servitude and homicide everywhere. 6 eggs on one hand or half a dozen
ovoids on the other. And why do they expect Evil? Because programmers
are overwhelmingly Evil and/or worthless retarded morons.

Ward Cunningham created his "noble experiment in totalitarian
communism" which failed utterly once it scaled up about two to three
orders of magnitude (I'm being generous). And what did he resort to
when it failed? FASCISM! Because of course there's no middle ground,
and *certainly* there's no alternative. Utmost marxism and fascism
(and psychopathy) are the ONLY alternatives on offer.

Because of course, the Internet is NEW and it's not like the THREE
MILLENIA of human political history have anything to teach anyone at
all!! No, rather than start with democracy or shoot beyond it for
anarcho-communism, we need to go BACK to fascism or FEUDALISM or
murderous infanticidal tribalism!

And of course, the fact that these worthless retarded cretins are
resurrecting dead and buried ideologies from political history doesn't
imply that political history is RELEVANT to the Internet! No, we'll
bake our cake, sell it, and then we'll use it as collateral to get a
bank loan! Where have I heard that one before?

Fuck, I despise people who can't do logic. They should all burn in
Hell! If you're going to do politics fucking do it right. And if
you're not then you'd better stand out of the way of people who CAN do
politics, and bend over to get the ass-rape you deserve!

Monday, April 14, 2014

Against: Food Miles and Vertical Farming

Greens being idiots believe that the cost of goods and services are
ultimately based on energy. They are totally wrong. Everything's cost
is based on labour. Energy ceased to be a factor sometime in the 1970s
or 1980s. In other words, they are living in a bygone age.

Back in the dinosaur era from which they hail, the value of the
economy was precisely proportional to the energy consumption of the
economy. Industrial planners MEASURED the economy's output by its
energy input! But ever since then, the two measures have radically

Green foodists and local-vores are dinosaurs and maladaptive. They
believe in some "food miles" crap when trucking has not and never will
be an issue. They're the same breed of people as the futurologists who
believe in molecular disassemblers and recovery of "resources" from
garbage dumps (something which will never happen as recovery from
seawater is easier). It's people who don't understand entropy and what
the term 'ore' means.

To sum up, nowadays the economy has fuck all to do with energy. It's a
non-issue which doesn't and never will matter anymore.

What's worse is these local-vores go the extra mile of advocating the
destruction of cities, which of course they totally deny. But let's
face it, they want to stick uninhabited buildings in the middle of the
city. When "city" is defined as a congregation of PEOPLE.

Well, you know what? The sublimation or evaporation of cities (aka,
their destruction) is never going to happen. Never fucking going to
fucking happen. Put it to a song and sing it. NEVER. GOING. TO.
HAPPEN. Even when humans are extinct and AIs rule the world, they'll
do so in CITIES.

I hate pretend-rural fucks. Hey, here's a clue: 90% of rural people
want to live in cities if given a choice. And here we have gutless
city boys who want to destroy cities and remake them into the country,
rather than just fucking moving there!